Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9

[posterboy81]

Hello folks,

I am just doing some basic research here, so if you could take the time to answer my questions that'd be fantastic.

1) What do you use as your primary OS, Mac OS X or Mac OS 9? (If you use a mix of both, select the one you use more.)

2) If you are running OS 9 (or earlier), is your machine capable of running OS X?

Thanks in advance for any and all replies.

[MoparShaha]

I use OS X as my primary OS. My machine is not capable of running OS 9.

Are you doing a research paper or something?

[jxyama]

my personal machine is a 12" PB: it can only run OS X. (panther)

at work, we have everything from dual 2 G5 to beige 233 G3. all of them can run OS X and do. only one machine out of 10 or so runs OS 9 - the beige 233 G3. OS X in this case is jaguar.

[posterboy81]

Originally posted by MoparShaha
Are you doing a research paper or something?

Or something. ;)

[TEG]

I have a TiBook 500, I run OS X (10.3) most of the time and slip into OS9 for SC3K, ST:SFA, and Unreal Tournement.

TEG

[7on]

I run X baby!

Though I do have OS9 on my Pod if I want to go retro.

[rjrufo]

OS-X. I don't even know what OS-9 is anymore.

[jayscheuerle]

Dude, you're at a geek site. Most everybody is using OSX.

[Nermal]

Originally posted by rjrufo
OS-X. I don't even know what OS-9 is anymore.

OS-9 is an operating system used on Philips CDi players. OS 9, on the other hand, is an old version of the Mac OS :D

Anyway, I have a 1.25 GHz G4 and use X most of the time. I occasionally boot into 9, usually for running Virtual PC, since it's faster in 9 than X.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Nermal
OS-9 is an operating system used on Philips CDi players. OS 9, on the other hand, is an old version of the Mac OS :D

Anyway, I have a 1.25 GHz G4 and use X most of the time. I occasionally boot into 9, usually for running Virtual PC, since it's faster in 9 than X. Actually, that's not correct. The CD-i embedded applicaton of OS-9 is just one use of this OS that was originally developed on the Motorola 6809 microprocessor. You can read all about it here (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~pruyne/os9faq.html). On the otherhand, the last non-NeXT Apple operating system is MacOS 9. The fact that many people call it "OS 9" doesn't mean that that's its name.

[Powerbook G5]

I was using OS 9 exclusively until September when I got my new PowerBook. My old G3 was able to run OS X, but it was so slow that it was not worthwhile since OS 9 was far faster, more stable, and nicer to work with on the limited specs I had.

[Westside guy]

Okay that's three votes for OS X! :D

I can safely say I wouldn't be using a Mac if it weren't for OS X. I wasn't a big fan of the old-style Mac OSes - but this feels more like a turbo-charged version of Linux! Or BSD to be more correct. ;)

[beefcake]

OS X on a machine capable of running both

[encro]

OS X.3.2, capable of running 9 but don't ever. thank the lord ;)

[Horrortaxi]

I wouldn't run 9 on a Mac that could run X.

[MacsRgr8]

Mac OS X on al machines capable of running it :)

[revenuee]

I Switched To 10 ... Constantly evaluating the option of switching back to 9

it seemed to run faster and smoother with 320 MB of ram under 9 then it does with 834 under 10

[mj_1903]

PowerBook 15" - OS X only
PowerMac Dual 867 - Capable of both, OS X only
iBook 500 - Capable of both, OS X only
PowerMac 400 - Capable of both, Panther and Jaguar

Awaiting a new G5, obviously OS X only. :)

I personally hate OS 9. The only reason I switched to Mac was for OS X.

[MacBandit]

OS9 huh what? I don't remember any systems prior to 10.3.2.

[powerbookje]

OS X all the way, powerbook 12", can't run OS9 . in the office we have 6 mac's, all run panther, 2 can run OS9 (but we don't).

lol, under OS9 I had to reboot 4 times aday, with OSX my uptime is for the moment 28 days.

[VIREBEL661]

I have four Macs of varying ages...

My two main Macs (Power Mac and Clamshell iBook) both are running X.

I have a 6200 running 9, and a Classic running 7...

I loved 9 - but once you go X, there's no going back!

[rjrufo]

Originally posted by Nermal
OS-9 is an operating system used on Philips CDi players. OS 9, on the other hand, is an old version of the Mac OS :D


I was being facetious when I said that I don't know what 9 is anymore - whether you call it OS 9, OS-9, 9, IX, or whatever. I don't use it anymore, and have no reason to either. Every piece of software I use is for OS-X, OS X, OS 10, 10, or whatever you want to call that too. :D

[MacBoyX]

OS X. On all 3 Macs, iBook G4, PB 12", PowerMac G5.

If it weren't for OS X, I'd never have even made the switch. I really don't find what people say about OS 9 being more stable or more reliable true. I haven't had any issues with OS X.

OS X simply rocks.

macboyX

[jefhatfield]

ibook 300...os 9, and not practically capable with os x

dual g4...os 9, but capable of os x and when i get os x, i can't think of a reason to switch back to os 9 since jaguar got most people convinced to support it

[krimson]

OS X, classic when i use rapscallion :cool:

[revenuee]

Originally posted by powerbookje
OS X all the way, powerbook 12", can't run OS9 . in the office we have 6 mac's, all run panther, 2 can run OS9 (but we don't).

lol, under OS9 I had to reboot 4 times aday, with OSX my uptime is for the moment 28 days.

I find i have more Application crashes under 10 then i did under 9

my 9 was quick responsive and solid as a rock

[zim]

iMac 400 G3 + 667 G4 PowerBook. Both running OS X 10.3.2 Both capable of running OS 9 but don't, not even installed.

Also maintain a Blue and White G3, my office computer, with OS X, no OS 9 present, as well as a beige G3, I gave it to my parents, running OS 9, not capable or running OS X.

[cpjakes]

TiBook 550MHz - OS X mostly, OS 9 for the rare outbreak of old school UT, I don't care for the half ass OS X port...

DP G4 450MHz - OS X mostly, stuck a little because I've got some OS 9 peripherals (ATI XClaim VR 128 video card/TV tuner that they won't support or release functioning software for in OS X...) so when the G5 comes I'm hanging on to the DP 450 but wouldn't want it OS 9 only for the video card functionality. The second processor would be useless. It's the only thing keeping the machine alive in OS X, I believe...

And last but not least, my LC III, running OS 7 with a IIe emulator card. Talk about old school!

cpjakes

[KBFinFan]

Use OS X on the Powerbook.... I think I used 'classic' mode once to try out some Oregon trail.

As I switched to Macs because of OS X, it's all I am familar with and will likely stay that way...

[encro]

Originally posted by revenuee
I Switched To 10 ... Constantly evaluating the option of switching back to 9

it seemed to run faster and smoother with 320 MB of ram under 9 then it does with 834 under 10

It's all about the Roman Numerals (X, not 10!)

Hopefully you ain't running a beta release of cheetah ;) Try 10.2.x minimus and preferably 10.3.x

[revenuee]

Originally posted by encro
It's all about the Roman Numerals (X, not 10!)

Hopefully you ain't running a beta release of cheetah ;) Try 10.2.x minimus and preferably 10.3.x

10.2.8

and i'll call it X when it's not so damn slow :p :D

maybe i'll pick up 10.3 today at the campus store

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by revenuee
I find i have more Application crashes under 10 then i did under 9

my 9 was quick responsive and solid as a rock

My apps were fairly stable under OS9 but my system was not. Even if I ran the base extensions and even if I edited those down I never had anything but bad luck with 9. In my opinion it was the worst system Apple ever released. Even worse the 10.0.

[Powerbook G5]

I don't get how so many people had issues with OS 9 being slow or unstable because it was rock solid and insanely fast for me. I normally went for months at a time before a restart and everything was still far snappier in OS 9 with my 400 MHz G3 than OS X sometimes is with my 1.25 GHz G4.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I don't get how so many people had issues with OS 9 being slow or unstable because it was rock solid and insanely fast for me. I normally went for months at a time before a restart and everything was still far snappier in OS 9 with my 400 MHz G3 than OS X sometimes is with my 1.25 GHz G4.

Yeah I don't understand the reason either. It could be that I used OS 9 like I do OS X. I usually have about 8 apps open at once and they are all performing some function or another simultaneously. For me OSX is a god send it is so much more stable I can't even begin to describe it. For one I can leave the machine on over night working for weeks on end where as if I did that with OS 9 I would have to restart the next morning because it was running slowly or behaving oddly.

[hulugu]

I have moved to OSX.3 on all of my machines (see sig) and all of them behave very well, although the iMac is a little slow.
I loved OS 9 until I met OS X, the first day I switched System Folders and booted into OS X I loved it, but it wasn't quite ready for me until Jaguar. Once 10.2 came out I've stopped using OS 9 altogether.
Personally, OS 9 did seem a little faster before OS 10.3 but now I really can't see a difference. Also, OS 9 was good, but OS X is more stable and more user friendly than OS 9, the dock is very useful, the new iApps are great, the command line, Preview, Safari, iTunes and iTMS, Konfabulator, etc. I'm more interested in my computer now than I was with OS 9, I don't feel like I'm going end up with an extensions conflict or get a Flash module that doesn't work properly in Netscape.
My iMac running OS 8 - 9 crashed once a week, sometimes more, my PB has had a kernal panic once or twice since I started using OS 10.1.1.

[numediaman]

As I write this, I'm running Mac OS 8.6 on a Power Macintosh 8600/250. It's got a CD, a Zip Drive and a Floppy Drive. Pretty awesome, huh?!

Why? Have you heard Apple might offer updates? I sure could use a faster Mac!

[snickelfritz]

OSX(Panther) for everything except Pagemaker and Distiller(Classic)

[denjeff]

1) OSX (also dual boot with Yellow Dog Linux, but not used in about a year, i think) on the G4, the rest of the computers OS9 (one dual boot with Yellow Dog Linux) or OS6.0.7 or OS7.5

2) only the G4 is capable and has OSX on it from the first day OSX came out and the rest of the computers is not able to run OSX

I think I (I and my family) have about 6 or 7 working macs of witch 2 or 3 are regulary used. My brother used to collect a bit. We also have a couple of Apple IIe (including 2 clones of the IIe) running ProDOS.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by numediaman
As I write this, I'm running Mac OS 8.6 on a Power Macintosh 8600/250. It's got a CD, a Zip Drive and a Floppy Drive. Pretty awesome, huh?!

Why? Have you heard Apple might offer updates? I sure could use a faster Mac!

8.6 was the best operating system Apple ever made prior to OSX.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by MacBandit
8.6 was the best operating system Apple ever made prior to OSX.

Yep. Certainly more stable than Mac OS 9.0. No multiple-user features (read: issues)...
Mac OS 9.1 was a very good update, though.

[Edot]

Booting into console mode is far snappier than MacOS9!:rolleyes: :D You have to admit that 9 was going nowhere, and even if it is "snappier", the advantages of OS X are worth much more than OS 9's "snappiness".

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Edot
Booting into console mode is far snappier than MacOS9!:rolleyes: :D You have to admit that 9 was going nowhere, and even if it is "snappier", the advantages of OS X are worth much more than OS 9's "snappiness".

I was referring to MacBandit's post:
"8.6 was the best operating system Apple ever made prior to OSX"

Prior to Mac OS X..... ;)

I agree with him.

Mac OS X is one of the best things that has happened to Apple's recent history, IMHO.
You are right. Mac OS 9 was going nowhere. Especially if you had the opportunity to look at Mac OS X in the early stages (Server 1.2 and later the DPs of the Client)...
Looking back, it was pretty obvious that Mac OS X was the way to go, even when running DP4 on a 400 MHz G4 wasn't considered snappy at all! Not even DVD support, nor CD burning and so on. But the stability was pretty much there allready, as the use of real multi-user environments.
But WOW.. we are spoiled now with Panther on a G5....

Times are good for us. :)

[blue&whiteman]

I used 8.6 till Jaguar came out and now i'm on panther. as good as 8.6 was it doesn't even compare to osx. when I was on jaguar I still had the original G3 350 cpu in my tower and just after I upgraded to panther I got my G4 upgrade. the G4 chip makes a huge difference, its only 150MHz faster than the G3 was but altivec makes a huge difference. not many things do support altivec but osx really comes alive with it.

[revenuee]

this month ... i bought a bigger system drive (40 gig)... i need more space first ... but next month i'm going to buy panther

i've been hearing a lot of positive facts about it ... but i hope that it can handle my SCSI

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by revenuee
this month ... i bought a bigger system drive (40 gig)... i need more space first ... but next month i'm going to buy panther

i've been hearing a lot of positive facts about it ... but i hope that it can handle my SCSI

Do you have an OEM SCSI card?

[revenuee]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Do you have an OEM SCSI card?

I have a adaptec micro orange

which i have a lot of problems with under 10.2 ... when i install the driver it only works under the s initial reboot ... the second reboot doesn't mind the drive anymore ... i have to delete the driver and then reinstall and then restart in order for the drive to mount

[coolsoldier]

I run 10.2.8 on a 350 MHz G3 iMac and 10.3.2 on a 800 MHz g4 iMac and an 800 MHz G3 iBook.

All are capable of running 9, and if I didn't need apps that were X-only, I would still be running 9. 9 was easier to teach/learn (the underlying technical stuff was less visible), and the interface, although it was ugly, was clean and simple to use.

There were reliability issues with 9.0.4, but 9.1 and above were stable, and produced a lot fewer of those "Unexpectedly Quit" boxes than X (any version) does.

[mms]

I have a Lombard (PowerBook G3 Bronze Keyboard Model) 333mhz, running OS 9 (or whatever you want to call it) for now. Upgrading to OS X as soon as the extra RAM comes and I find a driver for my wireless card. So capable of running OS X, but running 9 for now.

The other one is a 500mhz Cube, capable of both, but primarily running Panther, booting into 9 once in a while.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I run 10.2.8 on a 350 MHz G3 iMac and 10.3.2 on a 800 MHz g4 iMac and an 800 MHz G3 iBook.

All are capable of running 9, and if I didn't need apps that were X-only, I would still be running 9. 9 was easier to teach/learn (the underlying technical stuff was less visible), and the interface, although it was ugly, was clean and simple to use.

There were reliability issues with 9.0.4, but 9.1 and above were stable, and produced a lot fewer of those "Unexpectedly Quit" boxes than X (any version) does.

I personally find X way easier to teach then OS 9. I can set someone up as a normal user with no access to important files like they did in OS X. Then I set it up so the only things that show up on there desktop and in finder windows is their home account and applications. They can do anything they want and they can't screw the system up.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by revenuee
I have a adaptec micro orange

which i have a lot of problems with under 10.2 ... when i install the driver it only works under the s initial reboot ... the second reboot doesn't mind the drive anymore ... i have to delete the driver and then reinstall and then restart in order for the drive to mount

Do you have your hard drive properly terminated?

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I personally find X way easier to teach then OS 9. I can set someone up as a normal user with no access to important files like they did in OS X. Then I set it up so the only things that show up on there desktop and in finder windows is their home account and applications. They can do anything they want and they can't screw the system up.

Therein lies the difference between "teaching, using a computer" and "teaching using a computer".

If the computer is a tool for teaching something else, you can limit the user to doing just about nothing ("Tabbed Users" in 9 also did this, although it was never perfected)

When teaching how to use a computer, there is a bigger problem, because it has to function the way a computer somewhere else would function, since teaching people how to use "this specific computer" is not very useful.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Therein lies the difference between "teaching, using a computer" and "teaching using a computer".

If the computer is a tool for teaching something else, you can limit the user to doing just about nothing ("Tabbed Users" in 9 also did this, although it was never perfected)

When teaching how to use a computer, there is a bigger problem, because it has to function the way a computer somewhere else would function, since teaching people how to use "this specific computer" is not very useful.

I find my method works because it allows someone to explore without caution. They can then learn and make mistakes and not cause any problems once they are comfortable with this level then you provide them with an admin password but not an admin account. This still allows them to make changes to the system but only after first entering the password for each case which ensures they are consciously making the changes and not just blundering into them.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Do you have your hard drive properly terminated?

It's an internal drive

the hard drive cable has 3 connection points on it lets call it

A -------- B ------- C


A is connected into the SCSI drive and C is connected into the internal SCSI card

B is not connected to anything

Based on what i know about SCSI that seems like the proper set up

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by revenuee
It's an internal drive

the hard drive cable has 3 connection points on it lets call it

A -------- B ------- C


A is connected into the SCSI drive and C is connected into the internal SCSI card

B is not connected to anything

Based on what i know about SCSI that seems like the proper set up

You do have the drive properly placed in the SCSI chain but you still need to terminate it. I couldn't find information on your SCSI card and you will have to look at an owners manual for you hard drive on how to terminate it.

Basically SCSI drive systems work in a chain and if the end of the chain is not terminated then it's an open loop and the data. This from my experience doesn't necessarily prevent the system from working but kind of hobbles it where it can cause problems and doesn't necessarily run at full speed. Some SCSI cards can self terminate but even with some of those cards you need to terminate the drive for it to be reliable.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by MacBandit
You do have the drive properly placed in the SCSI chain but you still need to terminate it. I couldn't find information on your SCSI card and you will have to look at an owners manual for you hard drive on how to terminate it.

Basically SCSI drive systems work in a chain and if the end of the chain is not terminated then it's an open loop and the data. This from my experience doesn't necessarily prevent the system from working but kind of hobbles it where it can cause problems and doesn't necessarily run at full speed. Some SCSI cards can self terminate but even with some of those cards you need to terminate the drive for it to be reliable.

But i didn't have this problem until i loaded OS 10.2 ... it worked just fine under OS 9

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by revenuee
But i didn't have this problem until i loaded OS 10.2 ... it worked just fine under OS 9

OSX tends to be pickier about all hardware. Where OS9 was written in a way that you could have bad ram and a poor hardware setup and still use it OSX you can not. I believe Apple did this on purpose because the problems with RAM and hardware made OS9 unstable. Apple knowing this made OSX so it would not be compatible at all so that you would have to fix the problems thus eliminating the majority of system instabilities making OSX more stable from the start.

[varmit]

OS X on both of my computers. OS 9 is just a back up system for me on another disk, but I don't use it.

[jaw04005]

B&W G4 450Mhz - OS X (Panther)
Powerbook 1Ghz 12" - OS X (Panther)
iMac 800Mhz G4 - OS X (Panther)
iBook G3 600Mhz - OS X (Panther)


Do I count 4x?

[Powerbook G5]

Last night I fired up my PowerBook G3 with OS 9.2.2 and spent some time on it. I really can't see any problems with stability and it is still a bit faster overall than OS 10.3.2 even. I am sure that as we go towards 10.4 and beyond, it will become more evident that X will be the speed king, but currently I am blown away by the insane responsiveness of OS 9 on the lowly 400 MHz G3. It still doesn't compare to X with features and experience, I will have to admit. Nothing can really describe the wonderful feeling you get from using OS X, it's just in a league of its own.