[rescue] Bondi-ng

Phil Stracchino phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net
Sun Jul 22 15:37:48 CDT 2007

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:10:40AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> We just acquired what, as best I can determine, is a Rev.A Bondi iMac,
>> with the "maximum" supported 128MB RAM, with OSX 10.0 installed on it,
>> to which we do not have the administrator password.  I understand a
>> Rev.A will actually, unofficially, support up to 384MB of RAM, and will
>> run up to OSX 10.3.9.  (I'm not 100% certain about the Rev.A part.)
> It's hard to say. RAM is essential. If I remember correctly, it uses
> PC100 SODIMM's.

Hmm.  I have a couple of PC100 SODIMMs around ... but they're only 64MB
parts, which probably won't gain me anything.

> It also uses a 3.6 volt lithum battery, which by
> now is no longer any good. If you are very careful about the polarity,
> you can use a CR-2 3 volt lithum camera battery, which is relatively
> cheap and easy to find.

The battery seems to be fine, actually.  It's not displaying any of the
typical Mac signs of low-CMOS-battery.  The previous owner may have
replaced it.

> Most PC-133 memory will work at the slower speed, but YMMV, I've had
> revision B iMacs happily run with a 128m and 256m SODIMM but I
> don't think I've ever actually seen a revision A model. 

There are two memory slots, then?  Which means it almost certainly has
64MB RAM modules in it now.

>> Can anyone point us at 10.3.* media or ISOs, or have an old and no
>> longer used set of 10.3.* (or for that matter, 10.2.*) media lying
>> around spare?
> If you can get it up to 256m or more, install XPostFacto and Tiger.
> It will run better than 10.3 or 10.2.

I have a set of 10.4 ISOs, and a copy of XPostFacto.  It'll run 10.4
with XPostFacto as long as it has at least 256M of RAM?

>> Also, can anyone recommend a quick intro-to-OS-X just to give us the
>> basic skinny on where to find what and how to do common tasks that one
>> would expect to do on a Unix-based OS, but which are, shall we say,
>> non-trivial on OS X?  (For instance, I understand that on OS X, one
>> cannot simply 'su -', because root doesn't exist as such.)
> sudo works fine.

Noted, thanks.

        Phil Stracchino                CDK#2
 Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
 phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net   alaric at caerllewys.net
 Landline: 603-429-0220           Mobile: 603-320-5438
        It's not the years, it's the mileage.

More information about the rescue mailing list