PDA

View Full Version : 11 years later... how is Mac OS 9?




dandeco
Oct 25, 2010, 04:24 PM
I distinctly remember using Mac OS 9 back when I was in high school (this was around 2002-2006). There were a few computer labs (mostly in the Fine Arts building) that all had old B&W PowerMac G3 computers. In my graphics class, we of course used Macs. At the time I was still mostly into Windows, and I thought the Mac OS 9 operating system looked obsolete compared to Windows XP (I didn't first use OS X until I was in college). But it was still pretty interesting to use a computer that wasn't a Windows machine, and there were virtually no problems compared to PCs.

Fast forward to today. The high school has since gotten rid of the B&W G3s; the main classrooms and computer labs now use Windows PCs with XP, but the Fine Arts building mostly has 2006-2007 17" Intel iMacs running Mac OS X Tiger, including in the graphics lab (the digital audio/music lab has mostly eMacs running Tiger or Leopard, but one was also replaced with an aluminum 17" iMac. Since I graduated, I mostly forgot about Mac OS 9, and became hooked on OS X when my college's TV studio acquired some Mac towers (a Mac Pro that still runs OS X Tiger, and some PowerMac G4 QuickSilvers that had Panther). I thought OS X was nicer and more stable than OS 9, and it looked cleaner and had more cool applications. (I didn't use Leopard until we upgraded the G4s, which ran the OS very smoothly; now we have since replaced those G4s with 24" iMacs).

But recently, I acquired a PowerMac G4 QuickSilver that I upgraded and customized, with an 867 MHz processor, 1 GB of SDRAM, two hard drives (one 40 GB and one 80 GB) and an HP DVD-writing drive and AirPort card. I figured since it was an older Mac and had the opportunity, I made it a dual-boot system of Mac OS 9.2.2 and OS X 10.5.8 Leopard!
I have to say, OS 9.2.2 runs very nicely on this machine, probably due to the G4 processor and 1 GB of RAM. It performs even better than my high school's old G3s did! I even went and installed Photoshop 4.0 and Final Cut Pro 1.0 on it so I could do "classic" digital media editing on it. Even though I still definitely prefer Mac OS X, sometimes using OS 9 can be fun depending on what your needs are.

Any comments on this final "classic" Mac operating system?



XaPHER
Oct 25, 2010, 04:58 PM
i hate osx :(

PowerGamerX
Oct 25, 2010, 08:21 PM
I much prefered the user interface of OS 9 to OS X. I'd love it if they re-did it and allowed it as an option for theming... but ha, like ole' crazy Steve would ever give us a choice.

Hrududu
Oct 25, 2010, 10:00 PM
If Mac OS 9 had protected memory, it would have been just about perfect. The Finder was so fast and responsive and didn't hog system resources. You're right, it is really fast on G4 and many G3 systems.

mrsir2009
Oct 25, 2010, 10:01 PM
I remember I had Mac OS9 when I was 6-10 years old ;) On the good ol' Preforma!

mgartner0622
Oct 25, 2010, 10:49 PM
If we had a modern web browser (or maybe there is, I'm not very educated about this) Mac OS 9 would be perfectly usable. I still play around on my 700MHz G3 iBook with OS 9, Internet Explorer, and iTunes 2.
Even Mac OS 9 seems recent to me, as until my parents bought a G3 iMac when I was growing up, we previously used a Performa with only a floppy drive and OS 7, which was later upgraded to OS 8.
We then bought a Windows 98 PC as well because my parents used a program that they thought was a virus on the Performa! :O
Anyways, to the original topic, Mac OS 9 was great, the only thing I like better in today's modern OS X, is how it's easier to control some aspects of things, especially in system preferences versus the older control panel. All in all though, when compared to a Pre-Windows 2k Windows PC, I really liked Mac OS 9 better. Game support was even pretty good back then, (Especially for me as a kid :D ) but it kind of died until recently.

lbro
Oct 25, 2010, 10:55 PM
i hate osx :(

Why?

Hrududu
Oct 25, 2010, 11:57 PM
If we had a modern web browser (or maybe there is, I'm not very educated about this) Mac OS 9 would be perfectly usable. I still play around on my 700MHz G3 iBook with OS 9, Internet Explorer, and iTunes 2.
Even Mac OS 9 seems recent to me, as until my parents bought a G3 iMac when I was growing up, we previously used a Performa with only a floppy drive and OS 7, which was later upgraded to OS 8.
We then bought a Windows 98 PC as well because my parents used a program that they thought was a virus on the Performa! :O
Anyways, to the original topic, Mac OS 9 was great, the only thing I like better in today's modern OS X, is how it's easier to control some aspects of things, especially in system preferences versus the older control panel. All in all though, when compared to a Pre-Windows 2k Windows PC, I really liked Mac OS 9 better. Game support was even pretty good back then, (Especially for me as a kid :D ) but it kind of died until recently.
If you haven't yet, you should check out Classilla (http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/) for your Classic OS web browsing. Its based on the Mozilla build that came out years ago, but the guy making it is rebuilding it and keeping it up to date. I find it runs quite nicely and is easily the most recently updated web browser in existence for old Mac OS.

MacHamster68
Oct 26, 2010, 01:13 AM
can vouch for that, classilla works , remember to use flashplayer 6 ;)

XaPHER
Oct 26, 2010, 11:54 AM
Yeah, classilla is working pretty good. I started to use this navigator 2-3 years ago

MacsRgr8
Oct 26, 2010, 04:36 PM
Mac OS 9...

IMHO, the ONLY advantage of Mac OS 9 (or System 9...) is the fact that the GUI is blazingly fast.
For the rest...? No protective memory... no multitasking... no multi user support...
The GUI was so fast was due to the fact that the GUI had nothing to do. Not so many colours, no preview mode, no indexing, no fancy 3D stuff...
System 7 was even faster! :rolleyes:

Really, Mac OS 9 on PPC was lagging far, far behind. Buying a Dual 500 MHz G4 on one single 100 MHz FSB 2 years after the initial 500 MHz G4 was introduced, running Mac OS 9 with hardly any apps which would even utilize the 2nd CPU... wasn't the best investment..
Luckily Steve got Apple (as computer maker) back on track: Mac OS X, and later the Intel switch.

But, must admit... I like firing up my dearest "classic Mac": a B&W G3 400 MHz, 768 MB RAM, 60 GB 7200 rpm HD, Voodoo 5500 PCI grfx :)
Ya know... stroll along memory lane.... playing with older games... etc.

raysfan81
Oct 26, 2010, 05:44 PM
Ah, I remember the days when I was in kindergarten going to the computer lab to use kid pix on the iMac g3's :) They had some bondi blue ones, some tangerine, ruby models complete with the matching hockey puck mouse and keyboard . They got some Snow and Graphite models a little later. They were brand new then in '99. I didn't know how much of a treat using a Mac was back then.

mrsir2009
Oct 26, 2010, 11:57 PM
Ah, I remember the days when I was in kindergarten going to the computer lab to use kid pix on the iMac g3's :) They had some bondi blue ones, some tangerine, ruby models complete with the matching hockey puck mouse and keyboard . They got some Snow and Graphite models a little later. They were brand new then in '99. I didn't know how much of a treat using a Mac was back then.

They have iMac G3s with KidPix on them at my old primary school ;)

Dan7491
Oct 27, 2010, 11:30 AM
Apple had a winner policy in the past. It allowed hardware upgrades upgrades and this was a winner.

Now not only there are no upgrades but the hardware life span is ridiculously short.

I've bought my first Mac when it came out in 1983 and I have a huge collection with different machines. All of them work for what they are meant to do at the time they designed them and with the specific system they came out with. From the original 1983 Macintosh and further down the line.

Some allowed easy soft and hard upgrades so I have about 20 different old macs still working fine with everything up to system 9. This include the first colour MAC II wich I upfraded to the FX motherboard.

Not Apple policy changed but the hardware quality sucks. Also every single machine has a sysgtem specific installer, and if the installer doesn't work for a varity of reasons, one can only move forward upgrading with the latest system or any retail system deigned after a substantial update.

Made in China does not mean bad quality because Chinese work badly, but because they get paid so very little they need to save on something to make any minimal profit at all. This is not only true of computers but in general.

If anyone can find it the China Blue PBS documentary tells many things about western companies making their product in Asia, and why these products cannot be up to their required standards.

Example: I have the latest dual bootable G4. made In Ireland and it is a high class piece of equipment. However time goes by and some things go wrong for a variety of reasons. Yet as my original installer set got stolen with my car and I can no longer use the machine for the reasons I decided to buy it. The hardware works fine but rejects any retail sys 9 disk and I can only use it with sys X. I bought it to boot in sys 9 and work with a fast dual processor. They advertise this model as such. But I cannot use it as Apple is unable to supply the system replacement. Trust me I really tried and spent serious money in international phone calls throughout the world and Apple stores.

I have some software which never converted to System X and system X cannot understand at all. Now I have hundred of DV footage files sitting in my back up drives. Specifically they are the original EditDV-Cinestream files. The first and still best video editor for the Mac I have worked with.

I can concert the media (AKA the original films files as imported) but I lost all the editing I already did, therefore I must redo it all in Final Cut.

Edit DV went bankrupt after Apple's final cut pro entrance in the market. Apple doesn't like competitors. Cinestream was parts of a deal with Autodesk a windows company and soon Cinestream-Edit DV died.

Apple SHOULD keep a database for all the machines they built with their own bootable system specific files allowing customers to purchase them.

CDs abd DVDs are not eternal devices. They might break for a variety of reasons. Even because the customer is stupid or careless. Greed cannot lead very far. Looking back at history we're all aware of it.

While I still update, upgrade and buy newer machines because I use the new options each of them gives me I still want to be able to use what I paid for in the past beyond the needs of Apple's policy. I don't want it for "free" and a software database which recognizes which model comes in, or which model we hope to rescue is a service they should create with little effort.

I tried for months to get the backup installer for the dual boot I finally managed to get one through a nice soul at the Apple Store. I paid well over 250 US but the Disk was unusable as it reached my home, maybe poorly packed, or badly copied and I gave up.

Sad

Sad they don't.

chrismacguy
Oct 31, 2010, 04:30 PM
I still use OS 9 for non-production and hobbyist work, apart from the frequent system crashes while running Final Cut, its brilliant :D - When im not at uni I still use my G4/450 under 9.2 with AppleWorks to get Work done, and its fantastic! (I mean I cant get anywhere near as much done on it as I can on my Pro, but I love it to death, the old machine is still rocking 11 Years later :D)

Quicksilver2001
Nov 12, 2010, 03:20 PM
I have a Quicksilver 2001 Power Mac G4 which I have all sorts of supplementary computers for. To start, I have a G4 Cube Living Room Extension (just $60 from Craigslist), a Graphite iMac G3 600MHz 384MB 40GB CD-RW Summer 2001 Secondary Desktop Extension ($25 from Craigslist, the G4 Cube and iMac G3 Graphite together were only $85, something I considered a steal and snapped up), a Graphite Clamshell iBook G3 Portable Extension, a pair of HP LaserJet 4000 Series PostScript Network Laser Printing Extensions, a HP DeskJet 832c Secondary Color Printer, and the 4 G-Series Macs in question all use Mac OS 9.2.2.

There is also a Performa 6400/200 Optimal Kitchen Extension (still running stock 200MHz 603ev PowerPC chip) with System 7.5.3 Revision 2.2 and Mac OS 8.6 on dual 6GB hard disks with Apple ROMs. The 6400 Kitchen Extension has a video input card and TV tuner ready for a cable box (since we have cable service.)

I need a Comm Slot II Ethernet Card to connect it to the network so it can print to the network printers, that will come for Christmas most likely.

They all run the Classic Mac OS solely, except for the Quicksilver, which does have X but only for bridging purposes. (I have two Snow Leopard Macs and X 10.1 + 10.3 do come in handy for bridging Mac OS 9.2.2 and lower to X 10.6.) But only for that. Other than that it's a Mac OS 9.2.2 Mac to the core as well.

Thanks so much and have a great day all!

Madd the Sane
Nov 14, 2010, 02:46 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I usually use SheepShaver for my OS 9 fix (well, 8.6 fix). I occasionally boot my G4 into 10.4 or 9.2 when I have a game that just doesn't work on SheepShaver.

molala
Nov 15, 2010, 05:14 PM
I still have an iMac G5 that I hardly use, but I need to keep a machine that runs OS9/Classic. I still have Corel Word Perfect files that have not been converted into something Pages can read! So until I convert them all (plus all the AppleWorks files), I'm keeping the machine.

But I have to say, OSX is so much better. I like having Terminal, multitasking, protected memory. I don't miss assigning the maximum memory I allocate Photoshop or Illustrator, or using RamDoubler (which managed virtual memory better). I miss OS9 as little as I miss the SCSI interface :).

mabaker
Jan 24, 2011, 02:38 PM
Mac OS X has YET to match the snappiness of the original Mac OS. There are also many things I do adore from the classic OS that have not been implemented into X.

The irony is here that Apple is kind of pulling even more features off X in favor of simplicity. I am almost afraid of "Lion". :o

Cox Orange
Jan 26, 2011, 06:51 AM
I liked the possibility to just drag and drop your whole system to clone/backup it.


btw: can someone explain/translate to me what protected memory is (is this something like ECC)?

Nameci
Jan 26, 2011, 06:56 AM
the contents of your memory is encrypted.

chrismacguy
Jan 26, 2011, 07:09 AM
btw: can someone explain/translate to me what protected memory is (is this something like ECC)?

Not quite. Its basically a different and much safer way for the Operating System to handle what memory is doled out where, and which Processes can modify whats in that memory. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_protection) for a longer more detailed explanation.

macgeek18
Jan 26, 2011, 12:36 PM
I distinctly remember using Mac OS 9 back when I was in high school (this was around 2002-2006). There were a few computer labs (mostly in the Fine Arts building) that all had old B&W PowerMac G3 computers. In my graphics class, we of course used Macs. At the time I was still mostly into Windows, and I thought the Mac OS 9 operating system looked obsolete compared to Windows XP (I didn't first use OS X until I was in college). But it was still pretty interesting to use a computer that wasn't a Windows machine, and there were virtually no problems compared to PCs.

Fast forward to today. The high school has since gotten rid of the B&W G3s; the main classrooms and computer labs now use Windows PCs with XP, but the Fine Arts building mostly has 2006-2007 17" Intel iMacs running Mac OS X Tiger, including in the graphics lab (the digital audio/music lab has mostly eMacs running Tiger or Leopard, but one was also replaced with an aluminum 17" iMac. Since I graduated, I mostly forgot about Mac OS 9, and became hooked on OS X when my college's TV studio acquired some Mac towers (a Mac Pro that still runs OS X Tiger, and some PowerMac G4 QuickSilvers that had Panther). I thought OS X was nicer and more stable than OS 9, and it looked cleaner and had more cool applications. (I didn't use Leopard until we upgraded the G4s, which ran the OS very smoothly; now we have since replaced those G4s with 24" iMacs).

But recently, I acquired a PowerMac G4 QuickSilver that I upgraded and customized, with an 867 MHz processor, 1 GB of SDRAM, two hard drives (one 40 GB and one 80 GB) and an HP DVD-writing drive and AirPort card. I figured since it was an older Mac and had the opportunity, I made it a dual-boot system of Mac OS 9.2.2 and OS X 10.5.8 Leopard!
I have to say, OS 9.2.2 runs very nicely on this machine, probably due to the G4 processor and 1 GB of RAM. It performs even better than my high school's old G3s did! I even went and installed Photoshop 4.0 and Final Cut Pro 1.0 on it so I could do "classic" digital media editing on it. Even though I still definitely prefer Mac OS X, sometimes using OS 9 can be fun depending on what your needs are.

Any comments on this final "classic" Mac operating system?

Funny, I'm typing this on the exact machine you have. I love my G4's under OSX. I had OS9 before and it was unusable to me. I'm running Leopard and Tiger on my QS G4 and have no problems with it. I love my G4's. OS9 I could install it but my other question would be why?

Madd the Sane
Jan 26, 2011, 12:44 PM
OS9 I could install it but my other question would be why?
Games :D
Other than that, there are still some apps that don't have Mac OS replacements, I'm sure. They are few and far between, but one that comes to mind is sewing.

chrismacguy
Jan 26, 2011, 03:11 PM
Games :D
Other than that, there are still some apps that don't have Mac OS replacements, I'm sure. They are few and far between, but one that comes to mind is sewing.

Another one is Claris Home Page - completely standardless, but reliable.

GimmeSlack12
Jan 26, 2011, 03:21 PM
I much prefered the user interface of OS 9 to OS X.

You can't be serious?

How can anyone (not just you PowerGamer) prefer OS 9 over OS X? You must have forgotten about the compatibility issues, extensions issues, lack of real multi-tasking, and control panel conflicts. Sure, I guess theming was fun but a needless bell and whistle. Yes, it was a fast Finder but nothing life changing.

Back in the days of Classic Mac OS I could only dream of an OS on my Mac like 10.6.

coupdetat
Jan 26, 2011, 05:38 PM
The interface of OS9 is so beautiful and clean compared to the childish-looking OSX! I love the dockable folder tabs that flipped up when you clicked them. I still use OS9 with Office 2001 on my iMac G3. I also just acquired an iMac G4 700 which will be dual booting 9.2.2 and Tiger.

In-Correct
Jan 27, 2011, 05:48 AM
When I was in school, beginning with Kindergarten, the only computers that my teachers had were Apple II series. I was even impressed with THAT. :D The main computer labs had IBM all-in-ones, that were rigged to run Windows 3.X with some GUI called "Success Maker". :rolleyes: There was one class that had a lot of Apple :apple: Pizza Boxes. :p They were loaded with software and games. :cool: I enjoy the After Dark screensavers, and there was a random screensaver every time. There was even a half-way dimmed screen screensaver one. :) It was fun to watch the fish colliding with each other, and one of them eats the other fish. :eek: I was only familiar with Windows 3.1, and vaguely Windows 95. (which back then I looked at Windows 95 the way I look at Windows 7 now ) And then there was Windows 98, with the Plus themes. All of this is very nice, but nothing compared to Mac OS System ? (Probably 7 or 8) ... There was so much on there, I did not even know I did not get online with them... When I was in 4th grade, They installed ethernet connection boxes in every classroom. They also were introducing Windows 95 PCs to the entire school. For a while they had custom-built PC clones, and then they had Tangent, but then all they have now is Dell. :( :mad: filled with viruses also. They did not scan for viruses. I actually was sneaky and logged in as a teacher and got full access, so I downloaded spyware scanners. There was 45,000+ items found.

Who cares?! My school is dumb. :rolleyes:

It is still sad that they are all BARELY taught how to use computers, which is Keyboarding, and Microsoft Office. The author of "A Mythological Reference" is a retired teacher that substitutes...he brought a chrome-colored Mac with him.

I don't know what everybody uses for computers. But Windows is expensive, and also difficult to work with.

I know that Mac OS Original System has problems, but Mac OS X has so many more problems. I know that Mac OS X is fun, but it is suitable for only a media center computer. If Apple ever enters the Video Game console market, Mac OS X would be perfect for video game consoles. But It is annoying for computers. I think of computers as tools, not as toys. The Finder is so bloated, that I actually have it shut off and I don't even want to bother with it unless my processor is 1GHZ and up. And then I think...what makes the OS X finder so much better than the original finder?! The original finder can work perfectly on processors that are much slower than 1GHZ. That means it is much more efficient. It means that it is faster. The computer companies need to focus on making their computers as FAST :cool: as possible, and not as fancy-looking as possible. :eek: I can restart really fast...by the time OSX, windows, and whatever... has yet to log off, OS 9 has already restarted and logged back in!! :cool: :p :D

Mac OS 9 can have graphics...such as desktop wallpaper images. It can play lots of games. (but the actual operating system looks kinda dull...but that Brushed Metal skin is possible with Mac OS 9)

Also, there is aftermarket software such as After Dark, Classilla, A-Dock, and I-Text. :D :p :cool: I like using Mac OS 9 to organize files. :) It is much more stable...or at least I have had a much better experience.

While the Operating System is very old, I still use it a lot more than OS X. I think I will try AROS, or even Linux... and I will be much more likely to donate to AROS before buying a newest "Mac", or "PC" systems.

But I will get Ipods and Ipads (which require "Mac Or PC" to sync) IOS is much cooler than Mac OS X. In my opinion, today's Macintosh is actually the worst thing that Apple sells... The iPods, iPads, iPhones, QuickTime, iTunes, iTunes Store, ... are all more interesting.

They are very overpriced... and also... the hardware is made to not last very long. How long before a computer is considered outdated? 6 months? :eek:

rickwTX
Jan 27, 2011, 12:51 PM
Still rock solid, work on it every day on 1.0dual MDD, never turn off the computer, use for everything from illustrator to photoshop, light animation, page layout... People that have told me that had a lot of crashes usually had every extension under the sun running, virtual memory turned on, and used a font management program. If you get your extensions down to the minimum, max the memory, and just keep it clean you can expect one crash every 140-180 hours of work (usually Acrobat error).

It's not the software, it's the user. Newer is not automatically better. If you saw the work I'm doing under OS9 you wouldn't have a clue that it wasn't OSX and CS5.

The fact of the matter is that OSX is designed to work well for a greater variety of people and uses (i.e. great for web designers, music editors, and web surfers), but if you just write in word, crunch in excel, edit photos, or do illustration and layouts, OS9 will the job... and I have NEVER had a job come back because the PDF wouldn't print (CS2 and newer creates pretty files that have so many glitches). And I can't tell you how many times people have bragged to me about using CSwhatever on a MacPro and I look at their work and just shake my head.

mabaker
Jan 27, 2011, 12:54 PM
Still rock solid, work on it every day on 1.0dual MDD, never turn off the computer, use for everything from illustrator to photoshop, light animation, page layout... People that have told me that had a lot of crashes usually had every extension under the sun running, virtual memory turned on, and used a font management program. If you get your extensions down to the minimum, max the memory, and just keep it clean you can expect one crash every 140-180 hours of work (usually Acrobat error).

It's not the software, it's the user. Newer is not automatically better. If you saw the work I'm doing under OS9 you wouldn't have a clue that it wasn't OSX and CS5.

The fact of the matter is that OSX is designed to work well for a greater variety of people and uses (i.e. great for web designers, music editors, and web surfers), but if you just write in word, crunch in excel, edit photos, or do illustration and layouts, OS9 will the job... and I have NEVER had a job come back because the PDF wouldn't print (CS2 and newer creates pretty files that have so many glitches). And I can't tell you how many times people have bragged to me about using CSwhatever on a MacPro and I look at their work and just shake my head.
That is a nice story there. What program versions are you using under OS 9?

rickwTX
Jan 27, 2011, 03:26 PM
Photoshop 7 (still a benchmark version), Illustrator 6 and 9 (6 is fast... no, not just fast, warp speed compared to CS4, and fine for 80% of design work and illustrations), and the usual Word, Excel, Quark, Indesign. Most design, brochures, logos, catalogs, can be done with Illustrator 9 and look just like anything done in CS4... it truly is about the designer not the software.

I do have a G5 with CS4 that I use for a few things, but god the overhead and all the useless (or rarely) used functions are just distracting.

The truth for me is that a OS9 machine properly set up and optimized is like having a good muscle car, super fast, not a lot of pretty options or glitter, but gets the job done is less time. One tip that I carry across to even my G5: monitors set to thousands of colors (not millions), unless you are doing pixel level editing, millions is overkill. SPEED... SPEED.. GIVE ME SPEED.

macboy13
Aug 14, 2011, 10:31 AM
I distinctly remember using Mac OS 9 back when I was in high school (this was around 2002-2006). There were a few computer labs (mostly in the Fine Arts building) that all had old B&W PowerMac G3 computers. In my graphics class, we of course used Macs. At the time I was still mostly into Windows, and I thought the Mac OS 9 operating system looked obsolete compared to Windows XP (I didn't first use OS X until I was in college). But it was still pretty interesting to use a computer that wasn't a Windows machine, and there were virtually no problems compared to PCs.

Fast forward to today. The high school has since gotten rid of the B&W G3s; the main classrooms and computer labs now use Windows PCs with XP, but the Fine Arts building mostly has 2006-2007 17" Intel iMacs running Mac OS X Tiger, including in the graphics lab (the digital audio/music lab has mostly eMacs running Tiger or Leopard, but one was also replaced with an aluminum 17" iMac. Since I graduated, I mostly forgot about Mac OS 9, and became hooked on OS X when my college's TV studio acquired some Mac towers (a Mac Pro that still runs OS X Tiger, and some PowerMac G4 QuickSilvers that had Panther). I thought OS X was nicer and more stable than OS 9, and it looked cleaner and had more cool applications. (I didn't use Leopard until we upgraded the G4s, which ran the OS very smoothly; now we have since replaced those G4s with 24" iMacs).

But recently, I acquired a PowerMac G4 QuickSilver that I upgraded and customized, with an 867 MHz processor, 1 GB of SDRAM, two hard drives (one 40 GB and one 80 GB) and an HP DVD-writing drive and AirPort card. I figured since it was an older Mac and had the opportunity, I made it a dual-boot system of Mac OS 9.2.2 and OS X 10.5.8 Leopard!
I have to say, OS 9.2.2 runs very nicely on this machine, probably due to the G4 processor and 1 GB of RAM. It performs even better than my high school's old G3s did! I even went and installed Photoshop 4.0 and Final Cut Pro 1.0 on it so I could do "classic" digital media editing on it. Even though I still definitely prefer Mac OS X, sometimes using OS 9 can be fun depending on what your needs are.

Any comments on this final "classic" Mac operating system?

I second that OS 9 runs great on the same exact machine that we have but with 1.5 GB of ram although I prefer Mac OS X i think OS 9 can be just as benifical and fun to use, also check out Macintosh Garden for plenty of Mac OS 9 and below software:):apple:

zen.state
Aug 14, 2011, 11:26 AM
Two things I don't get about the OP:

1. He prefers the OS 9 interface to OS X?

2. He seems surprised that OS 9 runs faster on a G4 tower than the G3 towers he used in school.

I don't find it at all surprising that a newer faster computer runs an OS faster.

MultiFinder17
Aug 14, 2011, 12:02 PM
I still have System 9 running on my G4 tower on my desk, next to my mini running Lion. I use it these days as a simple, distraction-free productivity environment these days. Whenever I want to just get work done and not be distracted by the 503498750498732098 things that the mini can (and happily will) do for me, I go to the G4. It's a great solution that's worked well for me for many years, ever since the mini replaced the G4 as my production machine a few years back :)

Also, switch between Aqua and Platinum on a decent-resolution display. 1280x1024 seems decent on Leopard, while it seems to go on forever on Platinum. It's really far more conservative with the amount of screen space that it takes up.

kelau09
Sep 10, 2011, 04:01 PM
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2426/macosbombsystemerror.gif

jouster
Sep 10, 2011, 08:26 PM
My first ever Mac was a PowerBook G3 Lombard. I got it in '99 or '00; can't remember which. It came with OS 8.6 and to be brutally honest, I'd rather stab myself with hot needles than use that OS again. I can't imagine OS 9 was much better.

Dane D.
Sep 11, 2011, 08:24 PM
I still use OS 9.2.2 to play UT GOTY edition, run Photoshop 7 with all the old filters I purchased, Links Pro, Links LS 2000 and ClarisWorks v2.1. It is extremely fast, stable (never crashes, nor apps), lightweight. I like it for the legacy apps. I use OS 10.4.6 on my modified B/W G3 for everyday apps like email, internet, iTunes, and so on.

Unlike a lot of posts, I thought it was pretty stable, very rare in the day that it would crash. Back then I was pushing gigabyte Photoshop/Illustrator files through without problems. Today my files are much bigger on average but in the time period of OS 9, those were big. It works well if you know what you are doing.

Hastings101
Sep 11, 2011, 10:40 PM
11 years ago? It was terrible, even compared to Windows 98. 11 years later as in.. now? It's still terrible, very few internet plugins or standards are supported, and you shouldn't use it unless you have a good reason to - software or hardware that isn't compatible with newer stuff.

One good thing though was how fast it ran. I swear OS X was slower than OS 9 until Leopard came out, and that was on much better hardware.

MacHamster68
Sep 12, 2011, 06:49 AM
11 years ago? It was terrible, even compared to Windows 98. 11 years later as in.. now? It's still terrible, very few internet plugins or standards are supported, and you shouldn't use it unless you have a good reason to - software or hardware that isn't compatible with newer stuff.

One good thing though was how fast it ran. I swear OS X was slower than OS 9 until Leopard came out, and that was on much better hardware.

....i think you must have a very special one off version of leopard then:confused:

leopard in my opinion should have the label Bloatware and runs slower then tiger on the same spec Mac
Tiger had the ideal balance between features and performance
OS9 :
small , nice GUI , no unnecessary features just what a OS should be " simple"
ok it lags multi tasking , but thats not a real problem


and you always need to remeber the last support OS9 got in 2002 since then no support from Apple any more , if Apple had supported it it could be the best OS on the market today
and best of all you can quiet easy get some of the features of OSX onto it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5NsiOECcKQ

zen.state
Sep 12, 2011, 06:56 AM
11 years ago? It was terrible, even compared to Windows 98. 11 years later as in.. now? It's still terrible, very few internet plugins or standards are supported, and you shouldn't use it unless you have a good reason to - software or hardware that isn't compatible with newer stuff.

One good thing though was how fast it ran. I swear OS X was slower than OS 9 until Leopard came out, and that was on much better hardware.

Things that people who don't get it say..

We have had a few like you around here. People who blame the OS rather than their own ignorance and inability to use it properly.

Nameci
Sep 12, 2011, 07:42 AM
I more than agree...

----------

....i think you must have a very special one off version of leopard then:confused:

leopard in my opinion should have the label Bloatware and runs slower then tiger on the same spec Mac
Tiger had the ideal balance between features and performance
OS9 :
small , nice GUI , no unnecessary features just what a OS should be " simple"
ok it lags multi tasking , but thats not a real problem


and you always need to remeber the last support OS9 got in 2002 since then no support from Apple any more , if Apple had supported it it could be the best OS on the market today
and best of all you can quiet easy get some of the features of OSX onto it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5NsiOECcKQ

I just wish apple could come up with an OS as lightweight as OS9 again... simple and fast, of course with multi-tasking...

MacHamster68
Sep 12, 2011, 10:49 AM
I more than agree...

----------



I just wish apple could come up with an OS as lightweight as OS9 again... simple and fast, of course with multi-tasking...

that would be great , but as not all of us want a simple OS dont ask why:confused: , but where is the problem of creating a OS where you choose how many features you want in it after installation of the basic OS then everybody could be happy the ones that prefere simplicity and the ones that just cant get enough features in the OS ....

and before someone else is asking yes i know i can disable all features in any version of OSX if i wish , but thats not the point i need to install them first and there is the point , why should i have to as a example install dashboard only to disable it after installation using the terminal

if i think about OS9 as the thread is all about it , then ideally Apple should resurrect it and make it multitask , then as you all can see in the video i posted above you the user can install a dock if you want that , and near all other things too like stacks , make it a add on OS , thats no bloated up with features most never even use from start
and same for Mac's make them upgradeable , but not like now , because as everyone knows you dont need a i5 to surf the web , stream music or even play youtube , for those tasks a i5 is like driving around in a town within speed limits and having to buy a s-class merc, while a smart would be more then sufficient

In-Correct
Sep 12, 2011, 09:43 PM
Image (http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2426/macosbombsystemerror.gif)

Frankly, this was the ONLY unsolvable crash error I got from The Original And Real Mac OS. :confused:

It is best to reinstall the operating system, which is FAST to install. :p

And no, Mac OS X is not immune to the recommended reinstalling of the OS. ;)

I did get a similar error... a "Bus Error" which was because my keyboard was plugged into an AC-powered USB hub. (two USB ports is NEVER enough :D) but I plugged the keyboard directly into the computer.

Mac OS 9 is filled with several annoying little problems, none of which can't be repaired, but :apple: does not want to. Also, that metallic look in Mac OS X can in fact be done with Mac OS 9.2.2 because that look was already possible with QuickTime, iTunes, and Sherlock. And Protected Memory IS possible with a microkernel OS. but it is not common. perhaps if more people used them, it could be added.

If Mac OS ran on an EXTREMELY fast specs, imagine the possibilities. (and on an OWC SSD hard drive)

:)

Those that want a simple and more current (and officially updated) operating system should try Amiga OS :) since Apple won't ever release a 9.2.3 :(

MacSince1990
Sep 15, 2011, 12:39 PM
If it'd had protected memory it would have been just about perfect.

They actually tried, but it simply wasn't feasible, if even possible. There was a rumor that it was pulled at the request of SJ due to wanting OS X to have it as a touted feature, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't true. Or if it was, it still wouldn't have been easy/possible to implement anyway.

If Mac OS 9 had protected memory, it would have been just about perfect. The Finder was so fast and responsive and didn't hog system resources. You're right, it is really fast on G4 and many G3 systems.

Ugh. I know. I'm running Tiger (and I've trimmed the hell out of it.. no Language installs, run Monolingual and XSlimmer on the whole system, turned off Widgets/Dashboard via TinkerTool and mucked around a bit in Onyx), and it's still ridiculous. I mean, it's usable. But I'd like a snapper UI. PCI Extreme helps... but still.

OS 9 was amazingly snappy. It was just coded better. Better in the sense that it was coded carefully not to hog resources, and to take advantage of CPU features without doing tons of extra work it didn't have to... when I first got this Beige G3 in 1998 (300 MHz G3, 64 MB RAM, 2 MB ATI Rage Pro), it was smoother/snappier than Tiger is today on the same machine w/1 GHz G4 upgrade, 768 MB RAM, and a Radeon 32 MB DDR.

If I could run OS 9 w/2D acceleration, I would, but there's a bug that prevents me from using the ATI Resource Manager in OS 9 with this specific ROM version I have in the Radeon when Coupled with any CPU upgrade (G3 or G4). Serious pain.