Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

z970

macrumors 68040
Jun 2, 2017
3,589
4,541
So you've been hit by the collector's bug. I'm afraid there's no cure. Welcome to Collectors Anonymous.
So far, I have collected 4 more PowerBooks. I got another 2002 ‘15 I’m gonna put Jaguar on; 2003 ‘15 for Panther; 2004 ‘15 for Tiger and a late 2005 ‘15 PowerPC for Leopard.

Next year I will then begin collecting Intel MacBooks Pro’ up to the first 2012 Retina 15 inch.

Ye have been warned!
 

Mr. Dee

macrumors 603
Original poster
Dec 4, 2003
5,990
12,840
Jamaica
So you're following the one Mac for each OS rule. I'm the opposite: I decide which OS I want and then (try to) get the fastest PowerBook/early MBP that will run it.
I am kinda using a theory of the hardware is likely optimized for the version of the era. Even though this Wallstreet goes back to 1998. The Titanium PB4 I have is from early 2001, so I would say it’s 10.0/10.1 optimized machine. I got the 2003 PB 15, which in great condition, it has Leopard installed. But looking at the era, this likely would have originally had Panther on it. But it runs Leopard superbly and well!
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,798
12,203
The thing with early OS X (10.0 to 10.4) is that given enough RAM, it's actually gotten faster with each new version. 10.0 is s-l-o-w, especially on a G3.

If you wanna see your Wallstreet fly, use 8.1 :)
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
10.0 and 10.1 are terrible. I remember a few years back deciding I would set up a computer with every version of OS X, and ended up using a GigE. 10.0, bar none, gave me the most issues with installing.

10.2 finally got to somewhere usable, and whatever speed hit I get running 10.4 I'll take for much better software support. In general, though, I find too that 10.4 is the sweet spot of OS X for a lot of systems.
 

Mr. Dee

macrumors 603
Original poster
Dec 4, 2003
5,990
12,840
Jamaica
I think the issue with 10.0 back in 2001 was graphics and memory. 128MBs was recommended and considering the premium on memory especially from Apple, users were between a rock and a hard place, choosing performance/compatibility (OS 9) versus the slick new UI and stability offered by OS Xs preemptive multi tasking and memory management.

but for a 300 MHz machine with 160 MBs of RAM, it feels really fast.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
Yeah, 10.0 was so not all that bad that Apple released 10.1 after 6 months AND gave everyone who had bought 10.0 a free upgrade to 10.1.

I've had it KP multiple times on install using hardware that should have been more than adequate for it, and found that it can get fussy if I give it too much RAM. It seems to not like more than ~256mb or so.

I wouldn't call a 10.0 even a ready-for-use OS-my experience with it is that it really is more of an extension of the OS X Beta program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

swamprock

macrumors 65816
Aug 2, 2015
1,261
1,837
Michigan
Wow, free? Can't get a better deal than that, especially for a desirable old mac! As far as replacing the drive goes, I haven't taken one of these apart before so unfortunately I can't say what to do for that.

It's amazing how things change. As few as 12 years ago, you couldn't give a Wallstreet away. Now they're desirable and pricey. As the world turns... :)
[automerge]1592425601[/automerge]
10.0 and 10.1 are terrible. I remember a few years back deciding I would set up a computer with every version of OS X, and ended up using a GigE. 10.0, bar none, gave me the most issues with installing.

10.2 finally got to somewhere usable, and whatever speed hit I get running 10.4 I'll take for much better software support. In general, though, I find too that 10.4 is the sweet spot of OS X for a lot of systems.

10.2 was the first usable OS X, even without QE support. It was also the first OS X I used on my B&W G3 back in '03 (I think; memory is shot). I think it was somewhere in the middle of 10.2's updates that they really ironed the bugs out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
It's amazing how things change. As few as 12 years ago, you couldn't give a Wallstreet away. Now they're desirable and pricey. As the world turns... :)

Funny enough too, I gave away a couple of PDQs because I had them running out my ears and no one wanted them.

The Wallstreets that seem to pop up most often are the "Mainstreet" version without L2. I waited patiently and finally found a 292mhz/14" TFT on Ebay, but IIRC I had to dig a lot deeper than I wanted to get it. You don't see the high spec ones often, and the Mainstreets are all but unuseable as far as I'm concerned. At least there are plenty of 266mhz PDQs around, which are a nice all around experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

galgot

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2015
487
899
I have one of these Mainstreet 233 Mhz, with the 12” passive screen. Got it cheap for the sake of completing the collection.
These are really funny birds, it’s a bit like going back to using a passive screen PB1400cs or a PB5300cs with a few Mhz more and case too big for that small screen. Comical how backward.
Got it with the floppy drive, but maybe you could order it with the cd drive too.
It’s getting difficult (was difficult for me anyway...) to find these lo specs Mainstreet/Wallstreet in very good shape nowadays.
Often when hinges got broken, people would toss them. Also the black painted aluminum case parts usually got heavily scratched...
 

MacFoxG4

macrumors 6502
Nov 22, 2019
447
623
I have both the Main Street and a 233 Mhz PDQ. I bought the Main Street first and I learned that I did not like passive matrix screens, so I bought the PDQ to replace the Main Street. I got my PowerBook G3s for maybe $60-75 each 3 or 4 years ago. They cost more than that nowadays. I like the design of the Wallstreets and having the floppy module is great for writing floppy images to real floppies. I got the floppy module from the main street and then put it in my PDQ once I got that.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
Yeah, I was lucky that my 12.1" 233 PDQ was the better one with 512KB L2 and an active-matrix display.

PDQs all had a 14.1" active matrix and L2. One of the things that was drastically changed on them was the smorgasboard of options. Wallstreets came with 3 screen options-two different sizes of active matrix in addition to the 12" passive. There was also the fact that the higher speed models ran the FSB at 87mhz rather than 66mhz, which the Mainstreet and all the PDQs used. I actually find my 292mhz Wallstreet a bit faster than my 300mhz PDQ thanks to the faster FSB, but that's splitting hairs.
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,798
12,203
@bunnspecial - I'm sure mine was a PDQ. It had a 12.1" active matrix and 512KB L2. Mactracker calls it a Limited Edition.

pdq.png
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.