[DM-MUG] Tiger without Appletalk issues

Wed Jun 22 00:17:45 CDT 2005

On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:58 PM, pegleg wrote:
> Thanks to both Alan and Bryan for your feedback and ideas.
[trim]
>> There is probably a GIMP Print driver available for your  
>> StyleWriter 1500
>> the open source group has written some great drivers for just about
>> everything for Mac OS X.
[trim]
> Another list told me that a Color StyleWriter 1500 was just a  
> rebadged Canon
> printer (don't know the model yet) and so the driver might work  
> with my printer. I
> will have to try it when I can find out more.
>
> Which brings up another question, I have that StyleWriter hooked to  
> my Ethernet
> network with an Apple brand Ethernet/Appletalk bridge called the  
> "StyleWriter
> Ethernet adapter". I am guessing that the Canon version of the  
> driver will not see
> that bridge and therefore won't see the printer if it is hooked to  
> it. If anyone
> has any educated guesses as to why that should/shouldn't work, I  
> would like to
> here. Otherwise I will have to hook it directly to one machine, not  
> as flexible.

That may be a problem. Here is the SW1500 page from LinuxPrinting.org:

http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=Apple- 
Color_StyleWriter_1500

[trim]

>> Subject: Re: [DM-MUG] Tiger without Appletalk issues
>> From: Bryan Baker <ka_klick at mac.com>
>> I mentioned this before, but have you thought about some sort of
>> bridge machine?
[trim]
> That is a good idea. Can PPC Linux run this Netatalk? How about 68k  
> Linux? Can you
> point me in the right direction here?

Technically I think either could work, but I have to say 68k linux is  
a bit painful.
I've done it, but mostly as a curiosity. A decent PPC might do  
nicely, say 1st gen PCI boxes or so. They usually have at least a  
10mbit ethernet card built in (w/o needing a dongle) and PCI 10 and  
10/100 cards are plentiful. Having said that I also just downloaded  
the ISO's for NetBSD for both 68k and PPC and could probably burn  
them for someone. Haven't tried either out yet, but it might be a bit  
more minimal and better suited for this with that hardware, but Linux  
on x86 is much less daunting and pretty decent machines for this  
purpose are overflowing the dumpsters.
[trim]
>> IIRC Apple has been making noises about trying to ditch "classic"
>> appletalk for at least 5 years now
[trim]
> Yes, I was one of the ones who bitched when they disabled it. :-)
>
> I know that Appletalk slows down the network. But Colleges and  
> Universities hold
> onto their old computers a very long time. As you probably know old  
> Mac hardware
> lasts forever. In a College setting they get passed down from board  
> member to
> administrator to faculty member to secretary to work study student.  
> The fact that
> Macs just keep on ticking. can justify their higher cost in such a  
> setting. Even an
> old SE or Mac Plus can still work as a word processor.
>
> One size dose not fit all when it comes to networks. If Apple makes  
> the IT people
> in one setting happy then they will give nightmares to others. A  
> better choice
> would be to give people more options not take them away.

Yes, but keeping support for that protocol means keeping /support/  
for that architecture, and as much as I'd like to see them keep it, I  
understand this since it: A. Rewards customers for keeping up (and  
they did give a pretty long reprieve) and B. Simplifies their support  
map. Sometimes businesses have to make those calls. Also, as I recall  
"classic" was not only chatty, but I think it was also a greater drag  
on machine resources (CPU, bandwidth overhead, etc.) So, one of the  
prices of better performance and stability may be loosing legacy  
protocols. It's like SCSI, ADB, and famously floppies. They are gone,  
but I don't really mourn them.

>>> Personally, I think Apple should keep straight AppleTalk as an
>>> option as a
>>> show of support for their long time supporters and businesses.
>> But if you /have/ to use it, you aren't buying current gear. ;-)
> That is right and there is a good reason for that. I don't find  
> Apple's current
> lineup of hardware very attractive. iMac and Mac Mini hardware  
> isn't flexible
> enough for my purposes. In the beige days every Mac from the "Mac  
> SE" on had at
> least one slot for upgrade purposes. It might have been a COMM slot  
> or a PDS slot
> or a PCI slot but they all had at least one. Many had two or more.  
> iMacs did away
> with this flexibility.

But from their perspective, to be honest - if you haven't bought a  
new machine in five years you /aren't/ a customer. And what was the  
most common thing put in the PDS slot? Probably an ethernet card (or  
possibly a proc upgrade or external video card) but anyway, a new  
iMac comes with 10/100 ethernet built in, and they are much less  
expensive (and more inherently expandable) machines - my SE (and an  
Imagewriter II) cost me nearly 3 grand /with/ a student discount. It  
had SCSI, 2 serial ports and ADB. A new iMac G5 has an Airport slot,  
a bluetooth option, as well as the standard ethernet, USB 2 and  
Firewire ports, and a built in miniVGA port (wiping out the need for  
2 of the most used SE PDS options). Actually the Plus and below did  
not have any expansion slots. I believe they may have also killed  
them again in the later "classic" line.

> I have a Quadra 630 which has both a COMM and a PDS slot. I could  
> put a Etherent
> card in each slot and use it as a network bridge if it could run  
> Appletalk IP. ;-)
> You couldn't do that with an iMac.

As for getting 2 ethernet ports on an iMac - easy: 1. Use Airport for  
one, built in ethernet for other - or - 2. Use a USB ethernet dongle  
- there's a bunch of them out there.

Quite frankly, if slots are that important to you, buy a PowerMac.  
They all have 3 + 1 AGP.

[trim]
> That is an idea worth considering. I know there are some PPC  
> versions of Linux.
> Could I run Linux with netatalk on Mac hardware as a bridge on the  
> network? I don't
> have any PC boxes so would like to stick to 68k/PPC hardware.
>
> I haven't gotten into linux yet, but I am beginning to see the  
> wider range of
> options available.

http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/mac68k/
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/

Most of the big Linux distros have working PPC versions (though they  
work better on the newer stuff).

> Thanks Bryan for your help also.
> Bob Titus

NP. Hope this is helping sort some things out.

--
Bryan Baker
President
Des Moines Macintosh Users Group
http://www.dmmug.org
president at dmmug.org