Why aren't OS 9 users upgrading?

[yzedf]

Interesting (if slightly wacky) story about why OS 9 users are not migrating to OS X. Covers reasons other than "No Quark" reasoning.

“As a Mac user, why have you not yet switched to OS X?”

10. What’s that?
9. I don’t think my Mac can use OS X, can it?
8. I have to buy a new computer, don’t I?
7. I thought that only came on new Macs?
6. Isn’t that the same as Windows?
5. I don’t want to use a command line (different words used for the same thing here), that’s why I use a Mac in the first place.
4. Wicked too expensive.
3. I hate those huge icons and that stupid dock.
2. I don’t want to learn something new, my Mac runs fine as it is.
1. Why should I?


Well, there you go. This information was gathered by asking 725 OS 9 users during the last 30 days or so.

http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=346_0_1_0_M

Is this really the truth? Everyone I know personally uses OS X except for a few professionals doing magazine layout design.

[deryk]

I have not migrated over yet. I am worried about the sluggishness that will occur with this upgrade. I know other people on this site of similar computers and state that OSX works fine on their iMacs, but I don't see the need to migrate. My system is stable and fast and I don't want to see a decrease in this speed.

On the other hand, I do love OSX and plan on purchasing a new Mac within the coming year.

Deryk

[iGav]

Originally posted by deryk
I have not migrated over yet. I am worried about the sluggishness that will occur with this upgrade. I know other people on this site of similar computers and state that OSX works fine on their iMacs, but I don't see the need to migrate. My system is stable and fast and I don't want to see a decrease in this speed.


I don't think OSX is sluggish.... although it lacks the overall GUI snapiness of OS9.

But where OSX really demolishes it, is in it's stability, (far, far greater than OS9) but also it's ability to multitask. When you open an app, you can continue working on other things. When you scan, you can work on other things.... so even though OSX feels slightly slower in snapiness, it excels in other area's, and improves productivty X amounts of times....

[loveshismac]

With the introduction of OS x mac users can finally say they have a more advanced operating system.
I can keep my mac running weeks without a single restart
Scan - render - burn - surf - and listen to music without a hicup!
try that in 9 - ha
I even installed it on my Moms 350 Mhz imac with 354 megs of ram.
Works beautifully

I use it at work, and at home.
And I will never go back

[deryk]

Originally posted by iGAV
I don't think OSX is sluggish.... although it lacks the overall GUI snapiness of OS9.

But where OSX really demolishes it, is in it's stability, (far, far greater than OS9) but also it's ability to multitask. When you open an app, you can continue working on other things. When you scan, you can work on other things.... so even though OSX feels slightly slower in snapiness, it excels in other area's, and improves productivty X amounts of times....

I understand that OSX is more stable; however, I have not experienced instability with my iMac DV. I've had it on for over a month with out restarting. I know that this is not common for OS9 users. I use my mac for email, web surfing, and some word processing. I am not a pro user and don't need the increased stability that power users need.

I do think that OSX is the better system for the Macintosh platform, but I am not convinced that it is the best system for my computer.

[dswoodley]

There are a number of people in my office who haven't switched for the same reason they ahve haven't switched friom Windows 95 and 98 - they are comfortable with what they have. Why deal with with potential new problems and hiccups if what they have at present works? If the only thing the need the machine for is Word, Excel, and Email, then it really doesn't make much sense to switch to a more advanced operating system that they are not going to take advantage of...

Me on the other hand, I love Jaguar. Long live OSX!

[alset]

Almost the entire audio industry is waiting for greater stability regarding Core Audio and Core MIDI. Audio apps are only just getting here, and if you make a living with your Mac and sound than you are probably waiting for your plugins to be ported to X.

I have been in X with Logic for almost six months, but almost everyone I know who runs a hefty amount of audio apps uses 9.

Dan

[jadariv]

I think dswoodly hit it on the nose. A lot of people don't need the latest greatest. They just need what works and OS 9 still delivers what they need.

As for me, i am in a flux stage. I love OS X and use it on my powerbook and imac, but my two work towers are still OS 9 because i am not ready to shell out the thousands of dollars for upgrades to all my graphic programs when it is just an upgrade to work in X (not for increased features). Wait until the new photoshop, illustrator, after effects and a bunch of others come out later this year or early next then you will start seeing a lot more converts.

[junior]

I'm still having to have to go back to OS 9 in order to use Pro Tools. Although it supports OS X now, not enough pluggin manufacturers do, and because music is my life (my job), I need all the pluggins I already have on OS 9. If anything's missing, it could potentially be really damaging. Most of my fellow professionals are still using OS 9, though things could change once the 970 monsters come out.

[Eniregnat]

Originally posted by yzedf

9. I don’t think my Mac can use OS X, can it?
8. I have to buy a new computer, don’t I?
4. Wicked too expensive.


These are my reasons. I can't afford it. I would have to re-buy a lot of Adobe and M$ software. I would need a new Mac, as my revB iBook does not run OSX efficiently.

I need to upgrade to a new computer and OS, but for now, the need for the LAG (Latest And Greatest) hasn't moved me forward. I won't change until I have to, and until I can afford it.

It's odd that users running OS 6,7,8 and earlier don't get any flack for not upgrading. It seems if you use a vintage machine and OS your cool, but if you drive a slightly out of date hooptie your stuck in the Stone Age.

[sethwerkheiser]

Originally posted by loveshismac
Scan - render - burn - surf - and listen to music without a hicup!
try that in 9

Heh, I just "switched" from Windows and I'm so hesitant to do too many things at once. I open, wait, then save, then copy... I never try to do too much at once fearing that some blue screen of death will pop up. Hehe... I guess that doesnt happen :)

[Chomolungma]

at work: software issue (biotech related) and budget (I'm still using 9.1). Between the two of us, we have 4 computers (3 windows and the PowerMac). We use the PowerMac to do analyses because it is the most stable. Although, the Window XP machine is quite stable itself. The Window 98 machine gives me the blue screen of death every two days without fail. This machine is used ONLY for email and Word! The Window 2000 Professional machine is comparable to the XP machine in terms of stability.

at home: I have switched, and yes restarting and/or turning off the computer is the thing of the past. I can't remember the last time I restarted my powerbook:)

[gotohamish]

Here's a thought.

Not for those of you worried about about migrating to 10...

For those of use using 10 - can you imagine going back? AAAGGHH! That's a terrifying thought!

I've used the MacOS daily since 1984, and have never had it better than right now. Well done Apple, long may it continue.:D

[sinbushar]

i have an original iMac the most memory i CAN have is 128..and i'm running a G3 at 233..so..it's just not possible..though i'm jealous as all hells...really happy with this though...she runs beautifullly...original bondi blue...when they very first came out...

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by sethwerkheiser
Heh, I just "switched" from Windows ...iBook (900mhz, 128meg, 40GB harddrive)


Good for you!
Just one word of advice: get more RAM, you'll be even happier :)

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by sinbushar
i have an original iMac the most memory i CAN have is 128..and i'm running a G3 at 233..so..it's just not possible..though i'm jealous as all hells...really happy with this though...she runs beautifullly...original bondi blue...when they very first came out...

That's what the box says, but I'm almost certain they can take at least 258MB if not 512MB. Ask around...

[vouder17]

Well i did upgrade on my iMac 233, but i was just too slow, it took forever, for applications to open, to open a song , drag files....etc. I did upgrade my RAM to 160MB but either that is too little or my comp is too slow , or maybe just a bit of both ;) .

[Eniregnat]

Originally posted by gotohamish
That's what the box says, but I'm almost certain they can take at least 258MB if not 512MB. Ask around...

I remember this problem (well question).

Not to go off topic, but the Rev A 233 could get as much as 384Mb but there was a problem, the iMac did not always recognize anything slotted beyond 128Mb. The rev Bs could take and recognize at least one 256Mb DIMM, but the Rev A models were never guaranteed to work with 256Mb DIMMs.

Old stat sheet that says about the same. (http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/imac.shtml) And another list (http://www.theimac.com/#history)

Here is a comparison between a rev (A-D?) Bondi and a G4 flatscreen, both running OSX. (http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/reviews/machines/desktop/imac/04_02/233-vs-800.shtml)-So it can be done.

I still would guess with a 4gB HD, a speed of 233, and a small memory size that the Bondi Blue iMac's would run osX slowly.

[evil]

real reasons they dont upgrade:
like ugly stuff
ignorant
"USING OLD SCHOOL STUFF IS COOL"


and there are the real reasons

[junior]

Originally posted by evil
real reasons they dont upgrade:
like ugly stuff
ignorant
"USING OLD SCHOOL STUFF IS COOL"


and there are the real reasons


Haha. So you live by your name:p

[funkywhat2]

While I don't actually use a Mac (soon, soon) I must say that the initial shock of OS X has worn off. It's cool and all, but OS 9 and lower has the classic chartm that I enjoy. I miss OS 9. It was friendly to look at, even if the look was 17 or so years old. I want an iBook just so I can keep OS 9 booting.

I have no emotion to OS X, but I love OS 9. It actually looks different. OS X reminds me of Windows.

[alset]

Originally posted by funkywhat2
While I don't actually use a Mac (soon, soon) I must say that the initial shock of OS X has worn off. It's cool and all, but OS 9 and lower has the classic chartm that I enjoy. I miss OS 9. It was friendly to look at, even if the look was 17 or so years old. I want an iBook just so I can keep OS 9 booting.

I have no emotion to OS X, but I love OS 9. It actually looks different. OS X reminds me of Windows.

I installed X back when it was a public beta and kept upgrading, but rarely using it. Once I got into Jaguar and stuck with it for a month, 9 became a distant memory. All the things I didn't like about X became the most crucial reasons to use it, once I became more accustomed to it. Maybe once you clock more dedicated hours in X it will grow on you.

Dan

[maradong]

Originally posted by alset
I installed X back when it was a public beta and kept upgrading, but rarely using it. Once I got into Jaguar and stuck with it for a month, 9 became a distant memory. All the things I didn't like about X became the most crucial reasons to use it, once I became more accustomed to it. Maybe once you clock more dedicated hours in X it will grow on you.

Dan
:eek: what about 10.1 :confused: was nt that a big improvement ? esp. at the end with 10.1.5 i though there was a major speed bump, and a much "snappier" gui ,no?

[mattmack]

Originally posted by alset
I installed X back when it was a public beta and kept upgrading, but rarely using it. Once I got into Jaguar and stuck with it for a month, 9 became a distant memory. All the things I didn't like about X became the most crucial reasons to use it, once I became more accustomed to it. Maybe once you clock more dedicated hours in X it will grow on you.

Dan
I did the same thing and once I hit 10.1.5 I never went back to nine.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by funkywhat2
While I don't actually use a Mac (soon, soon) I must say that the initial shock of OS X has worn off. It's cool and all, but OS 9 and lower has the classic chartm that I enjoy. I miss OS 9. It was friendly to look at, even if the look was 17 or so years old. I want an iBook just so I can keep OS 9 booting.

I have no emotion to OS X, but I love OS 9. It actually looks different. OS X reminds me of Windows.

Classic charm will wear off on a computer when Apple/3rd-party bring out ANOTHER cool thing, that will of course, only run on 10.3!

[Eniregnat]

Originally posted by gotohamish
Classic charm will wear off on a computer when Apple/3rd-party bring out ANOTHER cool thing, that will of course, only run on 10.3!

I think that what I mostly see (on this thread and elseware) is that it is not the "charm" but the financial reality that seems to keep most Mac users away from X.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Eniregnat
I think that what I mostly see (on this thread and elseware) is that it is not the "charm" but the financial reality that seems to keep most Mac users away from X.
Aren't any of the software vendors offering upgrade deals for stuff going from OS 9 to OS X? Or is it the 'business as usual' attitude?

[mymemory]

I have OSX just in one of my computers and even it feels good the file managment is lame compared with OS9 and I'm 150% more efficient looking for things under 9 than under OSX.

OSX is more stable and stuff but getting to a file using the file managment takes longer than in OS9.

OSX has lots of cosmetic advantages but OS9 is just strait to the point.

About scrips and stuff... I just do not care about that.

Any way I have one of my computer with OSX but for sure it is not my main computer 9.2.2 still my stuff.

[springscansing]

Maybe because they do pro audio work and their software won't run in classic?

What do you do with your mac... word process?

[ouketii]

if you have something that works well for you, there really is no reason to upgrade. there is still plenty of software out there for os9

[maradong]

Originally posted by ouketii
if you have something that works well for you, there really is no reason to upgrade. there is still plenty of software out there for os9
well true, but eventually they will need to upgrade as their will be no more new software coming out for 9 in some years. Look at adobe for instance.. they don t develop anything anymore for os 9...

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by maradong
well true, but eventually they will need to upgrade as their will be no more new software coming out for 9 in some years. Look at adobe for instance.. they don t develop anything anymore for os 9...

Yeah, M$ is the first not to develop for OS 9 anymore (aren't they?).
Extra problem: if you need a new Mac, it's OS X only now. If you have only classic -apps only, you're in for a bad time.