Re: Advice Needed on Optimum Version

In article <hflam-BBF56F.13215611022009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Henry Flam <hflam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Machine Model: Power Macintosh G3 Series
CPU Type: PowerPC 750 (2.2)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 300 MHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 320 MB
Bus Speed: 100 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 1.1.1f4


I kept the disks for Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger that I bought at the time,
will that work on his machine?

Depends - Someone else in the thread quite correctly pointed out that
there are (at least) two "flavors" of 10.4 disks. Broadly speaking,
there's a "retail" version, which can be installed on any Mac capable of
running 10.4. Then there are the many "not retail" versions that *WILL
NOT* install on any other kind of Mac other than the specific machine
they were made for - try it, and the installer will tell you "no can
do", and that's that.

Which means that if you're going to pass him disks, he needs either a
"retail" version, or a version specific to his particular machine.

Depending on exactly how/where you bought the disks you have (the
"disks" specification alone makes me wonder - 10.4 came on a lone DVD,
sometimes with a second DVD labeled "iWork", depending on when it was
purchased) things may be just fine, or you may be holding what amounts
to garbage. If you got them from a store, then it's almost certain
you've got a proper "retail" version. If you got them from a legit Apple
products dealer online, it's also likely that they're retail version.
But if you got them from eBay or similar, I'd be strongly inclined to
bet that unless you were *VERY* careful about what you bought, you're
sitting on a set of "restore" or "upgrade" disks that are targeted for a
specific machine, and won't work with anything except that exact machine
type. This is *ESPECIALLY* true if you think you got a deal from an eBay
seller - Machine-specific restore/upgrade disks (For some reason, the
ones for eMacs are quite "popular") listing and/or closing at cheap
prices have been flooding the eBay listings for well over a year, while
"real" 10.4 retail disks have been fetching premium prices for a year or
two now - quite often closing HIGHER than what you'd pay in a "buy it
new in the store" situation - assuming, of course, you can *FIND* it in
a store at all...

Having said all that...

If your disk is *BLACK*, with a big gray X, then you're good to go -
it's a retail version, and will install on any Mac that meets the
hardware requirements, regardless of what OS version might already be on
the machine. (or even if there isn't any OS on it at all.)

If what you've got is gray, rather than black, then you've got a
machine-specific upgrade/restore/otherwise "not retail" version, and it
may or may not work with his particular machine.

Unless it's a "retail" version, the only way to know for sure is to give
it a try - Worst-case scenario, the installer will say "Sorry, can't do
it", and no harm done.

--
Don Bruder - dakidd@xxxxxxxxx - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I cant troubleshoot this. pls help.
    ... What I was inferring in my first post was to do a new install of XP on your ... task manager takes 100 cpu for 1 sec when i run it. ... About CPU usage. ... Jan my both disks can boot ....so ive tried booting form both its the ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: reinstall Office 2000
    ... If these are non-OEM CD installation disks, there is no porblem to install. ... Not all CDs that come with computers are OEM, they may have been Retail. ...
    (microsoft.public.office.setup)
  • Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)
    ... That's what I just suggested, Kerry: they're limited by disk I/O, not CPU, and hence CPU utilization *will* be low, even if the disks are working their little tails off. ... A server with very low CPU utilization is a *good* candidate for virtualization, since it's got lots of horsepower left over for other tasks that admins might be reluctant to run on the same OS instance: just hook up some more disks to service the added applicationand let 'er rip. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)
    ... That's what I just suggested, Kerry: they're limited by disk I/O, not CPU, and hence CPU utilization *will* be low, even if the disks are working their little tails off. ... A server with very low CPU utilization is a *good* candidate for virtualization, since it's got lots of horsepower left over for other tasks that admins might be reluctant to run on the same OS instance: just hook up some more disks to service the added applicationand let 'er rip. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: per-cpu blk_plug_list
    ... > We were surprised to find global lock in I/O path still exists on 2.6 ... Disks are slow. ... void blk_run_queues_cpu(int cpu) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)