Subject: rule 7
From: Dan Leonard (dan.leonard@analog.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 04:08:22 MST
Hi,
does anyone know why patching of the kernel needed to run mol
would fail because rule 7 was broken?? I am trying to get mol to run
mac os 8.5. Is that possible or do i need a special rom or something??
Thanks,
Dan.
mol-general-digest-help@lists.maconlinux.org wrote:
> mol-general Digest 21 Dec 2000 10:54:35 -0000 Issue 124
>
> Topics (messages 1661 through 1674):
>
> source code (was: linux keycodes)
> 1661 by: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
> 1663 by: Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>
> Hello all
> 1662 by: Scott McNulty <sbm4@optonline.net>
> 1666 by: Daniel Wolpert <daniel@berlin.com>
>
> bitkeeper, latest sources
> 1664 by: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
> 1674 by: "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com>
>
> MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> 1665 by: Francois Prowse <fprowse@uu.net>
> 1667 by: "Jeremiah Merkl" <merkjj@uleth.ca>
> 1668 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
> 1669 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
> 1670 by: dpates@dsdk12.net
> 1671 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
> 1672 by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <bh40@calva.net>
> 1673 by: dpates@dsdk12.net
>
> Administrivia:
>
> To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
> mol-general-digest-subscribe@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
> mol-general-digest-unsubscribe@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> To post to the list, e-mail:
> mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: source code (was: linux keycodes)
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:47:57 -0500
> From: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> dpates@dsdk12.net writes:
> > He _could_, and maybe he will at some point. But now, if you want a snap,
> > there's no use in complaining about how you can and can't get it.
>
> How exactly do you ever expect any progress unless someone
> "complains" (ie, points out true deficiencies)?
>
> > bk clone bk://waltari.theophys.kth.se:5000 mol/
>
> I did that, against my own better judgement, and I'm sorry I did. I
> had to give my address to bitkeeper.com in order to get their
> software, after which I found myself on one of their mailing lists.
> If this is gnu, than linux is Windows...
>
> Bitkeeper is a bad choice, it should be avoided by the gnu/linux
> community imho. Either way, uptodate read-only snapshots should be
> made available by some more standard means if at all possible.
>
> --
> reshapiro@mediaone.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: source code (was: linux keycodes)
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 04:19:23 +0100
> From: Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 07:47:57PM -0500, R Shapiro wrote:
> > dpates@dsdk12.net writes:
> > > He _could_, and maybe he will at some point. But now, if you want a snap,
> > > there's no use in complaining about how you can and can't get it.
> >
> > How exactly do you ever expect any progress unless someone
> > "complains" (ie, points out true deficiencies)?
> >
> > > bk clone bk://waltari.theophys.kth.se:5000 mol/
> >
> > I did that, against my own better judgement, and I'm sorry I did. I
> > had to give my address to bitkeeper.com in order to get their
> > software, after which I found myself on one of their mailing lists.
> > If this is gnu, than linux is Windows...
> >
> > Bitkeeper is a bad choice, it should be avoided by the gnu/linux
> > community imho. Either way, uptodate read-only snapshots should be
> > made available by some more standard means if at all possible.
> >
>
> Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
> CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
> developers are familiar with it already. But I agree
> there should be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without
> using BK. When I get some time to spare, I'll add rsync
> access.
>
> /Samuel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> E-mail <samuel@ibrium.se> WWW: <http://www.ibrium.se>
> Phone/fax: (home) +46 8 4418431, (work) +46 8 7908470
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Hello all
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:26:03 -0500
> From: Scott McNulty <sbm4@optonline.net>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: <mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org>
>
> First time Linux guy here.. well I am not a Linux guy yet because I can't
> get it to install on my iMac! I have the disk images saved on the hard
> drive, on the Mac OS partition, and when I run the installation process it
> tells me it can't find the "installation tree" on the drive.. or something
> like that.
>
> Can anyone help me? I hope this isn't a stupid question!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Scott
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re:Hello all
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:03:00 +0000
> From: Daniel Wolpert <daniel@berlin.com>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> >First time Linux guy here.. well I am not a Linux guy yet because I can't
> >get it to install on my iMac!
>
> Oh Ok. Nice to meet another iMac user :) As a relative newbie myself
> I'd use a CD to install it's a lot simpler (say LinuxPPC 2000 or some
> other distro..) - plus you need to partition the Mac's Hard drive and
> format it to take the new OS.
>
> >I have the disk images saved on the hard
> >drive, on the Mac OS partition, and when I run the installation process it
> >tells me it can't find the "installation tree" on the drive.. or something
> >like that.
>
> I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick as far as this
> list goes as it is for a LinuxPPC application called "Mac-on-Linux"
> which lets you run MacOS under linux. - Once you get going and you're
> all 'installed' you may want to use MOL:)
>
> >
> >Can anyone help me? I hope this isn't a stupid question!
> >
>
> No stupid questions just dumb answers:)
>
> Daniel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: bitkeeper, latest sources
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:40:01 -0500
> From: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
>
> > Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
> > CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
> > developers are familiar with it already.
>
> I'm not religious about Open Source, but I do think it should be
> supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
> fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
> just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
> Source software here.
>
> Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
> cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
> been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
> access.
>
> > But I agree there should
> > be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without using BK. When I get
> > some time to spare, I'll add rsync access.
>
> Thanks. Rsync is a minor nuisance for anyone with a tight firewall
> (which probably means anyone on a cable-modem or dsl connection),
> since by default it wants to use a privileged port. But for this
> purpose it's definitely a better choice than bk (or even cvs) imo, and
> not only because of the Open Source question.
>
> If you can arrange to make automatic daily tarball snapshots, eg with
> cron, and keep the current snapshot in a place that's accessible via
> ftp or http, that would be even better than rsync.
>
> In the meantime, if there's a regular patch file which includes just
> the keycode fixes, can you post it?
>
> Btw, once I got the sources using bk (and before I removed all traces
> of bk from my system), I noticed that the daylight savings time patch
> wasn't included. Neither was the little patch for compiling under
> 2.2.18. Will these be in the next official release?
>
> --
> reshapiro@mediaone.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: bitkeeper, latest sources
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:54:19 -0800
> From: "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> At 10:40 AM -0500 12/19/00, R Shapiro wrote:
> >Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
> >
> > > Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
> > > CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
> > > developers are familiar with it already.
> >
> >I'm not religious about Open Source,
>
> Then why do you hate BK? Serious question. (Below, you also use the
> "gnu/linux" catchphrase, which is often a sign of buying into at
> least some of Stallman's religious attitude.)
>
> >but I do think it should be
> >supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
> >fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
> >just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
> >Source software here.
>
> BK is not pure lily white Open Source but it's very close. I really
> don't see why so many people get bugged about it.
>
> >Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
> >cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
> >been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
> >access.
>
> Speed: BK is much more efficient than CVS across the Internet.
>
> Power: BK is unquestionably more powerful and flexible. The entire
> model is better (push/pull between peer repositories instead of a
> single central repository). Once you have a repository on your hard
> drive you can browse the complete history of the tree without going
> across the network.
>
> Suckage: CVS sucks, BK doesn't. CVS is arcane, old, outdated,
> crufty, and generally a hunk of crap. The only reason everybody uses
> it is that for a long time it was the essentially the only free (beer
> or speech, take your pick) option. Don't mistake familiarity for
> goodness.
>
> Tim Seufert
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:48:11 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Francois Prowse <fprowse@uu.net>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> Gianluca,
>
> I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
> circles to get answers.
>
> My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
> should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
> MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
> currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
> wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
> Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>
> Anyhow, I now have my APUS machine up and running so will be activly
> pursuing this in the comming weeks:) Will be building MOL support into a
> kernel or two...
>
> Is there any of the MOL developers actually involved in this....I may be
> able to get my APUS machine online and an account setup on it is so
> desired.....legit takers only...the APUS guys say they are working on
> this, however nothing seems to be happening Any suggestions guys..?
>
> The furtherest I've heard anyone get with MOL under a 604 Apus system is
> here...what is the next step then...apart from a correct kernel :)
>
> [root@gurgle /root]# startmol
> Mac-on-Linux 0.9.53, (C) 1997-2000 Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
> This kernel is NOT runtime patched
> Trying to apply MOL runtime patches.
> **** Examining '/boot/System.map' ****
> Discrepancy found, symbol value mismatch:
> c0003f90 clear_page (c00090f4)
> c0008338 do_signal (c0008114)
> c000a364 syscall_trace (c0009db4)
> **** Examining '/usr/src/linux/System.map' ****
> **** Success ****
> Patching the kernel...
> PATCH....0
> PATCH....1
> PATCH....2
> PATCH....3
> PATCH....4
> PATCH....5
> PATCH....6
> PATCH....7
> PATCH....8
> PATCH....9
> PATCH....10
> PATCH....11
> PATCH....12
> PATCH....13
> PATCH....14
> PATCH....15
> MOL runtime patch installed
> Trying to load the Mac-on-Linux kernel module.
>
> Warning: kernel-module version mismatch
> /lib/modules/2.2.10/misc/mol.o was compiled for kernel version
> 2.2.18pre2-ben1
> while this kernel is version 2.2.10
>
>
> Francois
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Gianluca wrote:
>
> > Hello ML users!!!
> >
> > I am using a LinuxPPC 2000 in a LinuxBox Amiga PowerPC 603e, and wish to know
> > if somebody is using a APUS machine to run mol...
> > I know a Kernel Recompiling (603e users need to...) but for AmigaPowerUpSystems?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gianluca
> > --
> > IBM IntelliStation MPRO
> > Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
> > 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
> > SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
> > UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
> > ...and other delights... ;-)
> >
> > ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:59:39 -0700
> From: "Jeremiah Merkl" <merkjj@uleth.ca>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require a
> machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
> does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot of
> work to do to get it working...
>
> -JM
>
> Francois Prowse wrote:
> >
> > Gianluca,
> >
> > I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
> > circles to get answers.
> >
> > My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
> > should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
> > MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
> > currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
> > wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
> > Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:03:01 +0100
> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> > Gianluca,
> >
> > I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
> > circles to get answers.
> >
> > My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
> > should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
> > MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
> > currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
> > wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
> > Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>
> ...mmh...May be Amigans will have to wait iFusionPPC (AmigaOS, CGX 4 and
> WarpOS...) to run MacOS PPC Programs at full speed.
>
> Regards,
> Gianluca
> --
> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
> SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
> ...and other delights... ;-)
>
> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:13:38 +0100
> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> > I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require a
> > machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
> > does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot of
> > work to do to get it working...
> Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
> based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000, APUS,
> Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
> Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>
> Regards,
> Gianluca
> --
> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
> SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
> ...and other delights... ;-)
>
> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:02:15 -0700 (MST)
> From: dpates@dsdk12.net
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> > > I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require
> > a
> > > machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
> > > does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot
> > of
> > > work to do to get it working...
> > Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
> > based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
> > APUS,
> > Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
> > Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>
> Umm. Doesn't MoL depend on the Mac IO controller chip? (Paddington on the G3 B/W
> systems, for example) Far as I know, MacOS depends heavily on this chip for most
> of its functionality, and without it, MacOS can't do anything. I think you need
> an actual Mac, because of the necessity of having that chip available to do some
> of MacOS's dirty work.
>
> Derrik Pates
> dpates@dsdk12.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:57:04 +0100
> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>
> > Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
> > > Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
> > > based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
> > > APUS,
> > > Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
> > > Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
> > Umm. Doesn't MoL depend on the Mac IO controller chip? (Paddington on the G3 B/W
> > systems, for example) Far as I know, MacOS depends heavily on this chip for most
> > of its functionality, and without it, MacOS can't do anything. I think you need
> > an actual Mac, because of the necessity of having that chip available to do some
> > of MacOS's dirty work.
> Yep. You are right. You wrote "MacOS depends heavily on this chip for most of
> its functionality..."
> But MoL it's a MacIntosh Emulator. Completely software based. Heard of MAME? or
> Basilisk or ShapeShifter? Every Emulator, catch every call to low-level i/o
> chips and redirect evrything on a higher level. So it needs so much horsepower
> to emulate something relativly simpler.
> Try to think about a PowerComputing Apple Clone (quite different from a real
> Mac...) running MacOS...
>
> The main advantages are if you are not emulating the opcode on the host
> processor as MoL. It doesn't waste CPU time to translate PowerPC Opcodes,
> because it is running on a PowerPC CPU System. It is like WinEmu for Linux
> Intel Based, or ArmEmu for Archimedes ARM Based RISCOS..or Emulating a 68k Mac
> on a 68k based Amiga (only the access to i/o chips are wrapped into AmigaOS
> System...Sometimes better than MacOS counterparts...).
> The main part is NOT emulating the PROCESSOR ITSELF, but only the chips
> addressing and operation. (Simpler than an entire system, anyway...)
>
> Have you ever heard of Alpha Processors? I saw a Emulated MacOS (Basilisk)
> faster than a fastest G4 on earth... running 68k software...
> Imagine if AlphaCPU can obtain the same speed from emulating the RISC PowerPC...
>
> Regards,
> Gianluca
> --
> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller
> Adaptec AIC-7xxx SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
> ...and other delights... ;-)
>
> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:08:02 +0100
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <bh40@calva.net>
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: <mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org>
>
> MOL emulates all that is needed for MacOS to run. So MOL should work fine
> on PReP, CHRP, etc... but probably not on APUS.
>
> The reason for that is that the APUS kernel has a quite different low-
> level memory management, and I'm not sure the MOL kernel module that
> drives the virtual machine can cope with it, at least not without some
> modifications.
>
> You can still try and see...
>
> Ben.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:02:36 -0700 (MST)
> From: dpates@dsdk12.net
> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>
> Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>
> > Yep. You are right. You wrote "MacOS depends heavily on this chip for
> > most of
> > its functionality..."
> > But MoL it's a MacIntosh Emulator. Completely software based. Heard of
> > MAME? or
> > Basilisk or ShapeShifter? Every Emulator, catch every call to low-level
> > i/o
> > chips and redirect evrything on a higher level. So it needs so much
> > horsepower
> > to emulate something relativly simpler.
> > Try to think about a PowerComputing Apple Clone (quite different from a
> > real
> > Mac...) running MacOS...
>
> MoL doesn't emulate anything except some peripheral hardware. Processor-level
> instructions are executed directly on the PPC, through processor virtualization.
>
> >
> > The main advantages are if you are not emulating the opcode on the
> > host
> > processor as MoL. It doesn't waste CPU time to translate PowerPC
> > Opcodes,
> > because it is running on a PowerPC CPU System. It is like WinEmu for
> > Linux
> > Intel Based, or ArmEmu for Archimedes ARM Based RISCOS..or Emulating a
> > 68k Mac
> > on a 68k based Amiga (only the access to i/o chips are wrapped into
> > AmigaOS
> > System...Sometimes better than MacOS counterparts...).
> > The main part is NOT emulating the PROCESSOR ITSELF, but only the
> > chips
> > addressing and operation. (Simpler than an entire system, anyway...)
>
> Then why is the Mac IO controller mapped as part of the MoL startup phase?
>
> >
> > Have you ever heard of Alpha Processors? I saw a Emulated MacOS
> > (Basilisk)
> > faster than a fastest G4 on earth... running 68k software...
> > Imagine if AlphaCPU can obtain the same speed from emulating the RISC
> > PowerPC...
>
> Yeah, if you have the ROMs and emulate everything else (including the Mac IO
> controller). The Alpha AXP is an amazingly fast CPU, so if you have a well-honed
> emulator, sure, it can be lightning fast.
>
> If it works, hey, that's great, but I don't know that it can without the Mac IO
> controller chip. Go ahead and try it, and see what happens, though, and let us
> know what the result is.
>
> Derrik Pates
> dpates@dsdk12.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 04:09:17 MST