Powertower 200 and OS X

9 replies [Last post]
themike's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 21 2004
Posts: 455

Hi all, I have in my possession a Powercenter 200, basically stock, and I am trying to find out if I can install (and use) any version of OS X. I've tried google and I haven't found much information.

__________________

dream it, think it, feel it, be it

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dankephoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1900
yes

see the XPostFacto compatibility page.

I forget it that's a 604 or 603 based system . . . with the stock processor you're limited to 10.2, but upgrade to a G3/G4 CPU and you can use up through Tiger (so far.)

dan k

__________________

|| web page gone - curse you Comcast! | Applish goodies servers offline, sorry! |
» email macdan at comcast.net

themike's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 21 2004
Posts: 455
603?

I think its a 603e...any idea what the performance for 10.2 (thats Jaguar, right?) would be on this machine? And how much ram do you think I need?

EDIT
No, its a 604e. I also was reading on the xPostFacto page that the built in video won't work with OS X, so I'm going to have to find a PCI video card I guess. Is OS pretty good about supporting random video cards?

__________________

dream it, think it, feel it, be it

gobabushka's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 26 2004
Posts: 494
i ran 10.1 on my umax c500, i

i ran 10.1 on my umax c500, its got a 240 mhz 603e with 144 mb ram. it did the job ok. but i would stick with classic mac os on it.

__________________

"I reject your reality and substute my own!!!" -Adam Savage, MythBusters

themike's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 21 2004
Posts: 455
Thanks for the info. I think

Thanks for the info. I think at this point I'll put os 9 on it if I do anything at all. I don't have much these days I need to keep a classic machine around for.

__________________

dream it, think it, feel it, be it

alk's picture
alk
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 373
PowerCenter or PowerTower?

Which is it?

It might make a slight difference. PowerCenters are based on the 7200 motherboard whereas PowerTowers are based on the 9500 motherboard. The 9500 has pretty decent support in OS X, but I don't know how well Catalyst (7200) motherboards are supported...

Peace,
Drew

__________________

Read the 5300 FAQ: http://www.alksoft.com/5300_FAQ/
Join the Resistance! Enlist in the PowerPC Macintosh Liberation Army!

themike's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 21 2004
Posts: 455
PowerTower

Its a PowerTower, sorry I confused that. So far as I've found there isn't an actual difference, though, where did you find that out?

__________________

dream it, think it, feel it, be it

alk's picture
alk
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 373
You are right.

I was thinking of the PowerTower Pro which uses the Tsunami board (9500). The PowerTower does indeed use the Catalyst board (7200) which is the same as the PowerCenter.

That makes me wonder a bit about PCC. For their high-end line, they had the PowerWave which was based on Tsunami, and they replaced that line with the PowerTower Catalyst boards only to go back to Tsunami with the PowerTower Pro. That's a little strange...

Peace,
Drew

__________________

Read the 5300 FAQ: http://www.alksoft.com/5300_FAQ/
Join the Resistance! Enlist in the PowerPC Macintosh Liberation Army!

Hawaii Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Posts: 1434
Everymac

A place to "find that out":

Mac Clones info

The Catalyst and the Tanzania motherboards--them's were strange days. Apple's attempts at economical. Thankfully Steve Jobs came back and cured Apple of such self-defeating, near fatal behaviors--mostly.

alk's picture
alk
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 373
AFAIK, PCC never used Tanzani

AFAIK, PCC never used Tanzania. That was mostly Motorola. PCC's low end was Alchemy based. Alchemy was a strange beast with its heritage back in the Quadra 630. Valkerie video kicked butt back in the day, but by the time the 6500 came it, it was handily beaten by ATI's Rage II chipset...

Catalyst wasn't a bad design, either. In fact, PCC showed that Catalyst had a lot of headroom in it's design. But Tsunami had the expansion that Catalyst didn't. So it surprises me that PCC would go back and forth between the two in their high-end line instead of extending one or the other.

Peace,
Drew

__________________

Read the 5300 FAQ: http://www.alksoft.com/5300_FAQ/
Join the Resistance! Enlist in the PowerPC Macintosh Liberation Army!