Apple PowerBook G3 FireWire Pismo 400 Mhz/1GB/120GB???

That's not out of the realm of possibility. Just be sure the RAM is rated to go that high for that Mac.

Officially, it is only upgradeable to 512 MB:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=14870

Unofficially Techworks offers a 1 GB configuration some have had success with:

http://www.buffalotech.com/memory_configurator/BT/device,101,6,13411

As for hard drives:

http://www.mcetech.com/ms.html

Shows the G3/2000 Series, which si the Pismo as a maximum of 160 GB.

But the official Apple spec notes the issues with that:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86178

Which can be overcome with Intech speedtools.

Use PC100. Timing of RAM can be very important. And the specs call for PC100. If that timing is off at all, it can lead to kernel panics, and crashes.

a brody:

Use PC100. Timing of RAM can be very important. And the specs call for PC100. If that timing is off at all, it can lead to kernel panics, and crashes.

No. Installing PC 133 RAM will not hurt the computer. However, the computer will only operate at the PC 100 speed. In addition, concerning the Apple 512 MB RAM limit, most of us Pismo users max our RAM out to 1 GB. Here is what my profile looks like:

SODIMM0/J2:
Size: 512 MB
Type: SDRAM
Speed: PC133-333
Status: OK

SODIMM1/J1:
Size: 512 MB
Type: SDRAM
Speed: PC133-333
Status: OK

I have been running this configuration for years. No kernel panics. No crashes. Indeed, all the proposed changes the OP asked about are common practice among Pismo users.

cornelius

Maybe so, but it can be Russian Roulette knowing that you have the right or wrong RAM. Anything wrong with the RAM could go exceptionally wrong if it isn't to spec. I've discussed the matter also with some people at Otherworld Computing, and they explained to me one of the reasons so many Powerbook G4s had lower RAM slot issues was the wrong RAM was used, even though the spec appeared to be almost the same, but not quite. Timing is everything. Granted, that's a different computer, but even the Lombard Powerbook G3 had RAM sensitivity issues. I wouldn't fly it by any Mac not to have it. You may luck out, then again you may not depending on the vendor used, and the quality of the RAM.

needsomehelp,

You may wish to read the many posts in this forum for upgrading the Pismo. I would also offer a slightly different take on 'a brody's' suggestions.

The Pismo can run 1GB of RAM with zero issues. The memory controller is designed to support 1GB of RAM but two 512MB memory modules were not yet available when the specs were written.

Running PC133 is perfectly acceptable and is fully backwards compatible; here is a good company with a good product:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/133SO512328/

I would not install an HD larger than 120GB since 128GB is the largest drive the Pismo supports. Intech has a nice product that will recognize larger HDs, but if you read the description of how it works, I feel it has too many drawbacks. However, maximizing HD space may be critical in your case; if so, then do consider the ATA-High Capacity Driver.
http://www.speedtools2.com/ATA6.html

it can be Russian Roulette knowing that you have the right or wrong RAM.

That may be so. However, it does not apply to using PC 133 RAM in the Pismo, or maxxing out the Pismo's RAM to 1 GB. It works like a charm. You will be hard put to find a single thread in this forum where using PC 133 RAM, or maxxing out to 1 GB caused any difficulty. I don't recall seeing a single one in the years I have been reading posts in this forum.

😉 cornelius

OS9 is not limited to 128GB in a hard drive because it does not use the rom driver for booting up. It uses the OS9 driver on the drive and some versions of this driver can handle large drives.

Mr. Brody has for years had difficulty understanding that ram limits from Apple's sales literature (which never get updated ) only tell what is available when the Mac is introduced not what it is capable of handling when newer ram becomes available.

I think you misunderstand what I understand.

I know the 128 GB limitation is strictly a function of the ATA bus. It is not an operating system limitation.

I also know that Macs physical RAM which is a totally different issue is a function not only of what the literature says, but the addressibility of the processor as coded into the ROM of the computer. Some machines simply can't address that much. Others the issue is the timing with the processor. The fact that the addressibility may not be limited by the machine's ROM does not preclude the possibility that exceeding the machine's published RAM limits might cause more RAM timing issues. The more you have, the more room you have for possible RAM errors. That's just a function of the complexity of the system, as well as the heat generated by a more complex system.

In the future, don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about simply because I don't state what I know. I try to keep things as simple as possible. Anyone who wishes to understand what I know who knows more is welcome to ask me. Please don't assume I know that I don't know when posting in the future.

I have to boil down everything to be as simple as anyone who might be reading the thread can understand. You can always reach me by e-mail which is in my profile if you have further questions that I can answer off thread.

Hardy,

According to Apple:

"The computer must provide support for the drives via the BootROM" in order to recognize drives larger than 128GB, with the upper limit being 200GB.

In addition:

"The BootROM of Power Mac G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors), Xserve, Power Mac G5, and any other model introduced after June 2002 can accommodate these larger drives."

The Pismo does not meet these requirements so I would suggest 128GB is the upper limit.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86178

a brody:

I also know that Macs physical RAM which is a totally different issue is a function not only of what the literature says, but the addressibility of the processor as coded into the ROM of the computer. Some machines simply can't address that much. Others the issue is the timing with the processor.

I appreciate your background and knowledge. I am relatively new in these Discussions and I am forever learning from those who have been around long before I came along.

In terms of what you said about addressibility and timing, can you tell us how that works out in the case of specific hardware, for example, the Pismo? There is not question that it is the experience of the majority, if not all, Pismo users who have upgraded their RAM to 1 GB, and those of us who have used the PC 133 modules, that our systems have not crashed or exploded. Indeed, we have been enjoying the performance enhanced that this upgrade has afforded.

Again, then, what makes the difference from computer to computer? And why what you say may be detrimental to another computer, works so well with the Pismo?

Thanks.

cornelius

There are numerous shady RAM quality vendors, as well as simply poorly manufactued RAM simply because of the number of circuits on a RAM board can not be wholy tested for quality even within the age of the universe. As my FAQ*:

http://www.macmaps.com/badram.html

illustrates this is an issue which has been ongoing since the very first personal computers though the complexity has meant it has become harder and harder to tell if you have a good quality RAM. The fact that no single test can give you a report of a RAM module being bad in all instances where they are bad, says the situation has become too complex. And since instructions are random in how to address RAM, and the number of possible pathways exceeds the number of possible tests to perform in the age of the universe, it is no wonder we see more and more people reporting kernel panics.

At least specs give us some sort of guideline as to what is tested to work well. If you go beyond specs, and the RAM doesn't clock itself properly to the level tested for the computer, then you are probably going to run into trouble.

- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.