Mac OS 9 and the user base [Archive]

View Full Version : Mac OS 9 and the user base

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 4, 2008, 01:51 AM

So I was just watching the keynote from 2004, and Steve Jobs was talking about how Mac OS X was now being used by 40% of the Mac user base...Now this made me wonder...only 4 years later, does anybody really still use OS 9? I couldn't imagine going back to OS 9, because it just seems like it was so far behind every other OS of its time..Anyways, I'm just curious.

bartelby

Apr 4, 2008, 01:57 AM

I use OS 9 (as opposed to running Classic) as I need SCSI support for my sampler. Plus I like editing samples in SoundEdit 16:o

I've not found an OS X solution

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 4, 2008, 02:03 AM

Well, I understand how for certain things...But are there really people who still refuse to move to OS X, and who regularly use OS 9, or even prefer it?

FadeToBlack

Apr 4, 2008, 06:59 AM

In 2006, I bought a Power Mac G4 on eBay and when I turned it on, it booted up in OS 9. I was like "Wow, I wasn't expecting that!" It had all kinds of audio editing apps on it (Pro Tools, etc.) and I assume the person that had it before me used OS 9 regularly. Pretty crazy.

I have nothing at all against the classic Mac OS, but I can't imagine using it as my primary OS nowadays. Maybe boot up in it to mess around if you've got an older Mac that supports it, but using it all the time, I can't see doing that. I love OS X too much. :cool:

martychang

Apr 4, 2008, 08:50 PM

I've been messing around with it in a SheepShaver install and it actually seems better than the stories, surprising with me being the command line junkie I am. My biggest gripe is speed/responsiveness, which is probably simply a SheepShaver/emulation issue. If I had any apps whatsoever I'd probably give it a spin for a while just to see how it works as a main OS.

To me the old Finder was amazing, and the whole interface was substantially better than OS X IMO. The biggest gripe I have is the Apple Menu being so Start Menu-y, but at least it's fully customizeable, and the simplicity of the filesystem makes the Desktop something I could actually use: it's the only OS I've ever used that does the "Desktop" analogy properly in that regard.

Bottom line: I can see why people would still like/use it, though I haven't worked with it enough to see problems with stability/fake multitasking.

allbrokeup

Apr 4, 2008, 09:59 PM

I use a fully compiled SheepShaver install on my Mactel C1D too, I fixed it up with half of my actual RAM at 512 MB out of 1GB, I enabled Altivec Emulation which boosted the speed nicely and was happy. But to make it more real I forced sound through a hack which gave it the boot sound, output sound and great speed. Games like Myst and Titanic Adventure out of Time work wonderfully too!

If anyone wants to get a fully compiled SheepShaver Install, PM me :D:D

Cheers!

allbrokeup.

ZiggyPastorius

Apr 4, 2008, 11:00 PM

*shrugs* It's cool to mess around in, but nothing special in my opinion. I use it to play Math Blaster :p

Marble

Apr 4, 2008, 11:09 PM

Great for old games. OS 9 still feels more "responsive" than OS X to me. I think it's because the GUI transitions are shorter (i.e. opening a folder, menu, etc. where there isn't so much eye candy).

FF_productions

Apr 5, 2008, 12:22 AM

One thing I'll give OS 9 is its responsiveness. It doesn't have all the tacky GUI effects...

OS X is obviously superior because it's the supported OS and 9 was killed off for its oldness and lack of new technology.

All that eye-candy is a step-backwards in my opinion. I don't need to see any crazy ripples or shiit like that.

With all this 9 talk, i may want a OS 9 machine..

TH-Gunner

Apr 5, 2008, 04:31 AM

I hated Mac OS up until OS X. I especially hated OS 8. 9 wasn't that much better to me.

Cassie

Apr 5, 2008, 12:10 PM

I hated Mac OS up until OS X. I especially hated OS 8. 9 wasn't that much better to me.

Back in elementary school, we got brand new iMac G3's with OS 8 on them. It definitely put a bad taste in my mouth, and everyone else's, which is why no one was sad when the iMacs were dumped for PC's. OS 9 may have been a little better, I don't know, I've never used it, but if it's anything like OS 8, I don't want to go near it.

Full of Win

Apr 5, 2008, 12:55 PM

We use them (System 8) in the lab, or more specifically the lab down the hall, because they have software that will only run on them (resperotometers) and to replace it would be too much for how much it is used.

d_and_n5000

Apr 5, 2008, 07:52 PM

Ehh, we use OS 9 in my school's main lab(soon to be replaced with brand new iMacs set back to Tiger...), and I really don't like it that much. The things themselves are old, slow and all-around nasty, and I'm not all that fond of the interface. Part of the problem is that my school keeps the resolution so godawful low(800x600 on these beautiful 19" LCD monitors on the B&W G3's, and 640x460 on the G3 iMacs! :mad:), but the antiquity of apps such as Internet Explorer leaves a nasty taste in my mouth as well.

FadeToBlack

Apr 6, 2008, 02:22 AM

The classic OS was a fine OS in it's day, IMO.

I switched to the Mac in '04. (eMac with Panther) I wish I would have switched A LOT sooner! I'd wanted to switch since seeing an iMac at a store in about '00 and just didn't have the money at the time. I really wish I would have, though. I wanted an Indigo iMac G3! :cool:

MacsRgr8

Apr 9, 2008, 04:17 PM

Wasn't really into computers that much until Mac OS 8.6 came along, and so I have the pleasure of remembering the launch of Mac OS 9, and to be honest.... I didn't really get the "big deal' back then...
- Sherlock 2
- Slightly better Networking
- Intro of multi-user support (this sucked tremendously..)
Apple had already made Mac OS X Server 1.x (the Rhapsody version) available, and that really was something new to the Mac, but this was not really usable for normal use...

Man, it were tough times for Apple. The G4 just couldn't get past 500 MHz, Mac OS X 10.x was in its infancy (the Public Beta, and 10.0 were fun to play around with, but no way it could be used for real..) and Mac OS 9 still was that OS based on System 1 and that showed in stuff like bad memory management, no multi CPU support, no real multi-user environment and crappy networking.
Somehow it still worked though! Tremendous effort really...

RacerX

Apr 9, 2008, 05:54 PM

I still have a number of clients that use Mac OS 9 in the graphic design industry, and I used Mac OS 9 for Classic on two of my systems.

I was (arguably) using Mac OS X (and all it's previous incarnations) before any other member of this forum, yet I would never have gone as far as to discount the abilities of Pre-Mac OS X systems. I personally make nearly daily use of two systems which only run Mac OS 8.6 and with additional use of 8.6 as Blue Box on yet a third.

As for why I would still be using 8.6... mainly for applications I need, but have either no Mac OS X equivalent version or I don't make enough use of them to justify the expense of purchasing a newer version. These include the following...Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5 (OCR and Catalog features)
Adobe FrameMaker 6.0
Adobe PageMaker 6.5
Adobe Premiere 5.1
Corel PHOTO-PAINT 8 LE
Corel WordPerfect 3.5e
CorelDraw 8 LE
FileMaker Pro 5.0
Fractal Design Painter 5.0.3
Macromedia Flash 5.0
Mathcad PLUS 6
QuarkXPress 4.11
SoundEdit 16 2.0.7
Strata VideoShop 4.0
StrataVision 3D 4.0
Strata Studio Pro 1.5.2
Strata MediaPaint 1.1.2
Apple had already made Mac OS X Server 1.x (the Rhapsody version) available, and that really was something new to the Mac, but this was not really usable for normal use...Ummm... I would argue the opposite. Once I knew what applications were available and what they did, I was able to use both Rhapsody 5.1 and Mac OS X Server 1.0 for most all my tasks. The usability of Rhapsody has always come down to two factors... is there an application that does the task you need and are you willing/able to switch from some other application which is not supported in Rhapsody to perform those tasks.

What tasks did I perform regularly on my systems and what apps did I use in Rhapsody for those task? I write a lot, and I used TextEdit for doing that in Rhapsody. And here is the thing... I still do all of my writing (several thousand words a day) in TextEdit in Mac OS X today. So for me there is no difference. But it was a nice change from Mac OS 8/9 because I was doing a lot of my writing in SimpleText and copy/pasting it into AppleWorks for spellchecking.
I've built websites quite a lot, and I had Create and the source editor in OmniWeb working on those types of tasks. I still use both today in Mac OS X for those tasks.
I do some graphic design work, and Create provides both illustration and page layout abilities. And even though I have both Illustrator CS and InDesign CS in Mac OS X, I still use the current version of Create for both of those tasks today.
I needed to be able to share my work and view the work of others. While Adobe didn't provide a copy of Acrobat Reader for Rhapsody, there were a number of apps (http://www.rhapsodyos.org/software/pdf_solutions/pdf_solutions_1.html) that could not only read PDFs, but included features above and beyond what Adobe provided in Reader. While there isn't a Mac OS X version of either PDFView or OmniPDF, I still make use of Stone Design's PStill for PDF creation in Mac OS X.
Back when Rhapsody was first released, iTunes didn't yet exist as the multimedia app it is today. But between Quicktime and MacOSXAmp, I wasn't cut off from watching some video and listening to my MP3 collection.
I do a lot of image editing, and while there really is no replacement for Photoshop, I was able to do just about everything I needed using TIFFany3 Professional, PixelNhance and ToyViewer. While I have all three in Mac OS X today, I tend to only use PixelNhance and ToyViewer as an alternative to opening up Photoshop.
And I spend a lot of time on the web, I made extended use of OmniWeb, RBrowser (FTP client) and MailViewer (which Apple later renamed just Mail). Those are still my applications of choice in Mac OS X today.
I played a number of games (http://www.rhapsodyos.org/software/monsters_id/id_games_1.html) to pass the time, and Rhapsody was an easy platform for that. Quake II was released for Mac OS X Server 1.0 before it was released for Mac OS 8 (mainly because John Carmack was a Rhapsody user). My list of first person shooters in Rhapsody included Ultimate Doom, Doom II Final Doom: The Plutonia Experiment, Final Doom: TNT - Evilution, Heretic, Hexen and Quake II. There was an early port of Quake III Arena to Mac OS X Server, but it was mainly designed for use with a VooDoo card (which I never had). On top of those ID games, there were quite a few other games that my wife used to love playing on my systems. And I spent an hour last Monday playing Quake II in Mac OS X, so it isn't like I've stopped playing those games even today.So yeah, while I'm sure Rhapsody wasn't for everyone, I think it is quite a stretch to say that it was not really usable for normal use. In fact, I found that by knowing about these apps from Rhapsody that I had a head start when Mac OS X was first released because I was already familiar with the apps that were ready while most people were waiting (and hoping) that the brand name titles they used would get ported soon. Even better, because all the apps I was using were Cocoa, they didn't suffer from the Carbon slow down of Mac OS X 10.0/10.1 that made those systems difficult to use.

FJ218700

Apr 9, 2008, 06:03 PM

I recently upgraded my 3400c to OS 9.1 from OS 8.5 so that I could use iTunes (2.0). It's online and I use it everyday for internet radio, sitting on my desk at home next to my Leopard machine.

pretty "snappy" too.

Dagless

Apr 9, 2008, 06:14 PM

I didn't like Macs before OSX. Not sure why. TBH I don't know if I would have continued buying Macs if they stuck with PPC. An intel iMac is the best computer I ever bought.

On the Windows front I don't like any of them except for XP. It's really fast and the compatibility is great - which you can't say for Vista.

MacsRgr8

Apr 9, 2008, 06:35 PM

Ummm... I would argue the opposite. Once I knew what applications were available and what they did, I was able to use both Rhapsody 5.1 and Mac OS X Server 1.0 for most all my tasks. The usability of Rhapsody has always come down to two factors... is there an application that does the task you need and are you willing/able to switch from some other application which is not supported in Rhapsody to perform those tasks.

What tasks did I perform regularly on my systems and what apps did I use in Rhapsody for those task? I write a lot, and I used TextEdit for doing that in Rhapsody. And here is the thing... I still do all of my writing (several thousand words a day) in TextEdit in Mac OS X today. So for me there is no difference. But it was a nice change from Mac OS 8/9 because I was doing a lot of my writing in SimpleText and copy/pasting it into AppleWorks for spellchecking.
I've built websites quite a lot, and I had Create and the source editor in OmniWeb working on those types of tasks. I still use both today in Mac OS X for those tasks.
I do some graphic design work, and Create provides both illustration and page layout abilities. And even though I have both Illustrator CS and InDesign CS in Mac OS X, I still use the current version of Create for both of those tasks today.
I needed to be able to share my work and view the work of others. While Adobe didn't provide a copy of Acrobat Reader for Rhapsody, there were a number of apps (http://www.rhapsodyos.org/software/pdf_solutions/pdf_solutions_1.html) that could not only read PDFs, but included features above and beyond what Adobe provided in Reader. While there isn't a Mac OS X version of either PDFView or OmniPDF, I still make use of Stone Design's PStill for PDF creation in Mac OS X.
Back when Rhapsody was first released, iTunes didn't yet exist as the multimedia app it is today. But between Quicktime and MacOSXAmp, I wasn't cut off from watching some video and listening to my MP3 collection.
I do a lot of image editing, and while there really is no replacement for Photoshop, I was able to do just about everything I needed using TIFFany3 Professional, PixelNhance and ToyViewer. While I have all three in Mac OS X today, I tend to only use PixelNhance and ToyViewer as an alternative to opening up Photoshop.
And I spend a lot of time on the web, I made extended use of OmniWeb, RBrowser (FTP client) and MailViewer (which Apple later renamed just Mail). Those are still my applications of choice in Mac OS X today.
I played a number of games (http://www.rhapsodyos.org/software/monsters_id/id_games_1.html) to pass the time, and Rhapsody was an easy platform for that. Quake II was released for Mac OS X Server 1.0 before it was released for Mac OS 8 (mainly because John Carmack was a Rhapsody user). My list of first person shooters in Rhapsody included Ultimate Doom, Doom II Final Doom: The Plutonia Experiment, Final Doom: TNT - Evilution, Heretic, Hexen and Quake II. There was an early port of Quake III Arena to Mac OS X Server, but it was mainly designed for use with a VooDoo card (which I never had). On top of those ID games, there were quite a few other games that my wife used to love playing on my systems. And I spent an hour last Monday playing Quake II in Mac OS X, so it isn't like I've stopped playing those games even today.So yeah, while I'm sure Rhapsody wasn't for everyone, I think it is quite a stretch to say that it was not really usable for normal use. In fact, I found that by knowing about these apps from Rhapsody that I had a head start when Mac OS X was first released because I was already familiar with the apps that were ready while most people were waiting (and hoping) that the brand name titles they used would get ported soon. Even better, because all the apps I was using were Cocoa, they didn't suffer from the Carbon slow down of Mac OS X 10.0/10.1 that made those systems difficult to use.

Wow.. tnx for that!

I have an iMac (Rev. A) installed with Mac OS X Server 1.2 just for fun. I never knew these games were made available..! I feel some extra fun coming up.. :)

I do remember John Carmack showing off Doom 3's engine on the just announced GeForce 3 @ MW Tokyo 2001, but it was never really clear during that demo that John was actually running Mac OS X. But, if he were a Rhapsody user, one can imagine Carmack really putting the effort in using this OS, and thus Mac OS X. :cool:

yellow

Apr 9, 2008, 06:38 PM

I have 1 MacOS 9 box... like others, because of a SCSI device.

RacerX

Apr 9, 2008, 06:55 PM

Prof.

Apr 9, 2008, 07:51 PM

Back in elementary school, we got brand new iMac G3's with OS 8 on them. It definitely put a bad taste in my mouth, and everyone else's, which is why no one was sad when the iMacs were dumped for PC's. OS 9 may have been a little better, I don't know, I've never used it, but if it's anything like OS 8, I don't want to go near it.
Do you think that's why some ppl don't like Macs today? Cuz they had a bad experience with the older OS's? I absolutely hated our Mac we had in '94. Sure I was only five but I hated it with a passion.

What OS/computer would it have been in '93? All I remember is the computer. It was big and grey/white. That thing was HUGE!

MacsRgr8

Apr 10, 2008, 07:05 PM

His involvement with the OS goes back to the development of Doom (which was done in NEXTSTEP). And when Apple bought NeXT, he saw it as an opportunity to return to that platform which he loved so much. This was part of the reason why (during Mac OS X's development) Id put so much effort towards Macs in general. Remember that Quake III Arena was released as a beta to Mac OS 9 users while Windows users had to wait for the final version to be released.

Oddly, while Carmack worked closely with the Omni Group to bring out a version of Quake III Arena for Mac OS X Developer Preview 4 and the Public Beta, the application was pulled shortly after 10.0 was released so that Id could bring the development back in house (and it was reworked as a Carbon game at that point).

Carmack helped weed out a number of issues in the developer releases of Rhapsody and in the 1.0 release of Server. Versions 1.0.2, 1.2 and 1.2v3 owe a lot to having Carmack as a user.

I also remember Phil Schiller trying to demo Quake 3 during one of Steve's keynote speeches on Mac OS X to try to boast about the OpenGL speed.... but the game froze when it tried to load an "arena". :o
I really never knew JC was so involved in the development of Mac OS X. Especially in the early Rhapsody -> DP 1 through DP 4 days of Mac OS X Client, he must have made a real inpact.

Does make me wonder though why Doom 3 made such a late entrance to gaming on the Mac. I assume it must have been a commercial decision (clearly the faster P4's with better grfx cards made it easier to develop and sell the game on a PC), but reading your posts, it just feels like he also does things out of sheer affection of the platform... :cool:

John Carmack = cool.

kainjow

Apr 10, 2008, 10:49 PM

I recently helped one of my mom's friends move from an old iMac running OS 9 to a MacBook. I love using OS 9. It is so much more responsive and snappier than OS X (probably mostly from the lack of animations). I really wish Apple would have done a modern Platinum appearance for OS X instead of Aqua.

Dimwhit

Apr 10, 2008, 10:57 PM

I hated Mac OS up until OS X. I especially hated OS 8. 9 wasn't that much better to me.

Well, personally, I still don't know the difference between OS 8 and OS 9.

GSMiller

Apr 10, 2008, 11:15 PM

I didn't even get my first computer until December 2000, and by the time I even knew what a "Mac" was, OS X was released. I gotta say though, the eye candy in OS X was probably the first thing that made me want to switch.

FJ218700

Apr 11, 2008, 12:54 AM

Well, personally, I still don't know the difference between OS 8 and OS 9.

Sherlock :cool:

D3LM3L

Apr 18, 2008, 10:44 AM

QuarterSwede

Apr 18, 2008, 10:47 AM

Although I didn't switch to Mac (10.3) till 2004, I did use OS 8 and OS 9 a couple years ago many times. IMO, they were terrible OSes--multi-tasking was nearly impossible, and I found them harder to use than Windows :confused:. I love OS X, but I'd much rather use Windows than any pre-OS X Mac operating system.
Amen on that one. They did indeed suck. I'll take it one step further. I'd rather use Windows than anything pre-Tiger. Spotlight is what blew me away.

martychang

Apr 18, 2008, 06:45 PM

Amen on that one. They did indeed suck. I'll take it one step further. I'd rather use Windows than anything pre-Tiger. Spotlight is what blew me away.

wat...

I want my disk space and CPU back from that awful thing. UNIX has built in search capabilities that work perfectly, and don't require an index. Personally I'd like to get a system running 10.3 or earlier just to see what a pre-Spotlight/Dashboard OS X was like, from a system bloat standpoint.

I also liked the art in earlier OS X's better, I love obnoxious pinstripes. :o The Finder also seems to have gotten worse over time interface wise(can't speak much for reliability).

QuarterSwede

Apr 18, 2008, 07:05 PM

I want my disk space and CPU back from that awful thing. UNIX has built in search capabilities that work perfectly, and don't require an index. Personally I'd like to get a system running 10.3 or earlier just to see what a pre-Spotlight/Dashboard OS X was like, from a system bloat standpoint.
You have to remember I was using XP at the time which had an AWEFUL indexed system search engine. It was seriously useless to me. Live-as-you-type searching that actually worked was brilliant coming from that. While UNIX has great non indexed searching it isn't particularly fast. I've still yet to use anything better than Spotlight for my personal needs. It's fast and always finds what I am looking for.

I also liked the art in earlier OS X's better, I love obnoxious pinstripes. :o The Finder also seems to have gotten worse over time interface wise(can't speak much for reliability).
I completely disagree. Pinstripes were aweful. Finder is definitely better now although still not all that good and overall system stability is a heck of a lot better. Panther would constantly crash (total system lockup) on me when I was authoring DVD's and doing other tasks.

I still maintain that any Mac OS pre-Tiger is complete garbage.

pbbaker123

Apr 18, 2008, 08:28 PM

I had a professional print shop do all of our companies publications last year, and they were still on OS 9, much to my surprise, but as I later learned, it was because the owner didn't want to spend the cash on new Quark licenses...

d_and_n5000

Apr 18, 2008, 08:58 PM

You have to remember I was using XP at the time which had an AWEFUL indexed system search engine. It was seriously useless to me. Live-as-you-type searching that actually worked was brilliant coming from that. While UNIX has great non indexed searching it isn't particularly fast. I've still yet to use anything better than Spotlight for my personal needs. It's fast and always finds what I am looking for.

I completely disagree. Pinstripes were aweful. Finder is definitely better now although still not all that good and overall system stability is a heck of a lot better. Panther would constantly crash (total system lockup) on me when I was authoring DVD's and doing other tasks.

I still maintain that any Mac OS pre-Tiger is complete garbage.

I wouldn't say complete garbage - My PowerBook with 10.2 runs just fine for most things. The only real reason I really want to get Tiger on it(or, even better, pick up an iBook with Tiger on it) is because I want to update iTunes and Adium to their latest versions. Other than that, I have the latest Firefox on it, and that's all I use on a regular basis.

Cassie

Apr 18, 2008, 10:49 PM

Do you think that's why some ppl don't like Macs today? Cuz they had a bad experience with the older OS's? I absolutely hated our Mac we had in '94. Sure I was only five but I hated it with a passion.

What OS/computer would it have been in '93? All I remember is the computer. It was big and grey/white. That thing was HUGE!

Yes, I would agree with that statement. I hated Macs for yearsssssss after that. Not until I saw the iMac G5 and Panther did I really start looking into Macs again.

7on

Apr 18, 2008, 11:07 PM

I still like OS9's collapsable windows. I still haven't go around to minimizing to the dock. Also I liked that every UI element had it's own sound effect. Woosh, plunk, pop!
:p

stainlessliquid

Apr 19, 2008, 12:17 AM

OS9 is rarer than bigfoot. My website has 6 times as many PSP visitors as pre OSX visitors... And more people have used Symbian OS than OS9 (I think thats mobile phones). Windows 95 has a very small lead over OS9 use too which I think is weird, I thought there were more windows 95 users. It seems like I get enough visitors to get a sense of OS use, OSX is at 5.5% which is a little under the current Mac market share, OS9 doesnt even register with 0%.

Dimwhit

Apr 19, 2008, 10:12 AM