Un-Switchers: Still Using OS 9

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by sockeatingdryer, Jul 25, 2004.

  1. sockeatingdryer macrumors regular

    sockeatingdryer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Location:
    Athens, GA, USA
    #1
    Some people don't want to use OS X; even say OS 9 is superior. Comments on this situation? Do you still use 9 primarily? What do you think of the article/people in it?

     
  2. musicpyrite macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #2
    Although I do miss OS 9, I'm not going to go as far to say it's superior.

    But boy do I miss OS 9.....
     
  3. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #3
    OS 9 (actually System 9) is fine for older computers because it still works. On any newer hardware OS X is clearly superior. The only things better about 9 were that it was more responsive than Jaguar and required less RAM to run well. Panther has pretty much caught up in responsiveness and Tiger will probably be even better. Anybody with a 400MHz or faster computer with at least 384MB of RAM would probably be better off with OS X. However, if you are using legacy software and hardware that depends on OS 9 by all means continue to use it.

    In the article most people stated cost as the primary factor for delaying an upgrade since it would involve purchasing entirely new computers. Using legacy systems is fine but for some people the abundance of support for OS X and new capabilities will be compelling. As long as you don't expect much support or future growth for your old system but continue to find it useful I don't see the need to trash it. If you do have the money and desire a better computing experience, OS X will be waiting for you.
     
  4. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #4
    As mentioned above, OS 9 is great on older machines and for running some of the older apps. However, outside of the realm of old systems/apps, I see zero advantage to OS 9 over OS X. Zero.
     
  5. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #5
    I was a switcher about 6 months before OS X came out. System 9 wasn't the killer O/S to make me switch from Windows as my primary machine but it was enough to make me want a Mac part-time. It was fast and took very little memory. And 9.2 reduced the number of folders at the top level to a minimum. I like having the Platinum sounds turned on. It was a pain to have to turn that off for the DVD player to work without pops. I liked the ability to log in using only my voice. Sometimes I wish System 9 was available as an alternative to Windows / Linux on an Intel platform.
     
  6. mvc macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #6
    That's a cute idea, get people hooked on old Mac Shareware games running about 4000 x faster on a Pentium 4 3.2ghz . Now lets see you shoot those asteroids, Space Punk! :rolleyes:
     
  7. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #7
    Yes OS 9 has better access to hardware, so a hardware dependent app may run faster -- on a single CPU machine, unless you have a MP widget for your app for the 2nd CPU.

    But when it comes to burning a CD, downloading an update, printing something, while running your app -- OS X may just have the edge.

    The penalty in speed the hardware abstraction imposes for the OS X benefits and the easy access to the second CPU are worth it.

    Long live the grass over the grave of OS 9's bootability.
     
  8. sockeatingdryer thread starter macrumors regular

    sockeatingdryer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Location:
    Athens, GA, USA
    #8
    I still think that OS 9 was more responsive on my 466MHz G3 than on my 1.25GHz G4, though. Just seemed "snappier."

    And I still love Platinum. Was clean... maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but I wish they had an option to switch to Platinum on OS X.
     
  9. RandomDeadHead macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    fennario
    #9
    Yes, and some people still swear by Win 95.

    I know people who STILL use Commodore (sp)

    And old people who won't buy a new car because these new fangled computers take away from the driving experience.


    And my college prof who told me that computers will never have the ability to be used effectively for media applications.

    And the guy that just turned down my job offer because our computers are not as efficient as typewriters.
     
  10. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #10
    We're still using OS 9.2 at work (but not for much longer) -- have 10.3.4 on my 1.42DP at home.

    Re: Article -- Agree that many UK graphic studios are still on 9 but the bottom line is money. Those who aren't at least planning on moving within the next 18-24 months could be making life difficult for themselves in the long run without some exposure to OS X.

    Many studio managers are in their 40's or 50's and are comfortable with what they know... The first time I used an OS X machine, I couldn't understand it and so, feared & loathed it...

    Our OS X transition has taken almost a year to plan, cost and implement. We've had to wait until key apps & updaters are in place, staff trained, new machines purchased so there's a lot to consider.

    But there'll be no going back... I hate using OS9 now.
     
  11. rueyeet macrumors 65816

    rueyeet

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    MD
    #11
    I think a lot of it's just what you're used to, and what works. After switching to OS X and having that as my first real exposure to the Mac, I got a chance to play around for a bit in System 9. Coming from Windows via Jaguar, I had more than a little trouble figuring out where stuff was in System 9. Control panels everywhere, networking functions split between three or four of them, one place to go to run your app and another one to figure out what was running.....to me, it was a mess; not half as intuitive as the holdouts claim. But I figured that was mostly due to unfamiliarity.

    And that, too, is just personal preference and aesthetic sense. I found Platinum so chunky-looking and Windows 3.1-ish that I put an Aqua theme over it the first week. Go figure. :p

    It's all about what works for you...and what works for you may be different than what works for the next person. I support anyone who finds that one OS works best for them, as long as they don't expect me to run it too. :)
     
  12. wowoah macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    #12
    I switched to Windows (yeah I know) back around Mac OS 8 came out, and I remember then that it was somewhat buggy, unstable, and slow...not that Windows was all that much better. I switched back around OS X.2, so I've never actually used OS 9, but I really do wish more people would switch. I've heard so many complaints that it's so, so slow. A couple of my good friends who aren't all that technologically inclined work at businesses which actually use OS 9, and they complain all the time how "Macs are so slow, they crash all the time. I HATE THEM."

    I really wish Apple would implement some type of transition program, maybe some price incentive or something to get businesses to switch to X, cuz at this point, OS 9 is hurting their reputation and the reputation of Macs as a reliable alternative. People who don't know any better are thinking OS 9 is all the Mac has to offer, which is so incredibly false.
     
  13. snooziums macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    Evergreen State
    #13
    Some of us still have to keep a copy of Mac OS 9 around just in case we need to reformat or reinstall Mac OS X.

    My computer will not boot into Mac OS X without the help of XPostFacto or Sonnet PCI-X. However, both of those programs require Mac OS 9 to run. So, basically, I need to keep them on hand just in case I have to reinstall the OS, reformat the hard drive, or install a new hard drive.

    *sigh* I really wish that Apple did not give up supporting the superior "legacy" Macs.
     
  14. sockeatingdryer thread starter macrumors regular

    sockeatingdryer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Location:
    Athens, GA, USA
    #14
    Oh, no. I wasn't saying I hate Aqua at all. I like it probably a bit more than Platinum... I've always just liked the sharp lines.
    But does it still seem more... snappy? I don't know. Sometimes it seems that way and sometimes it doesn't.
     
  15. broken_keyboard macrumors 65816

    broken_keyboard

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Secret Moon base
    #15
    I actually prefer the look of OS 9. Even though it is less pretty than X, I like systems that have English words instead of icons and symbols everywhere. The icons just don't convey the idea precisely enough like a word does.
     
  16. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #16
    I actually prefer the system 7 look.

    Then again I have my terminal windows default to amber on black....
     
  17. Bedawyn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    #17
    I use OS X for the sake of iTunes and other third-party apps that now require OS X to be supported or not to be hopelessly out of date, but I miss OS 9 like a limb. I use to love my computer. I use to love using my computer. It used to be an extension of myself. Now it's this thing that I have to wade through to get to my content.

    I hate brushed metal. Aqua's nice, but too cartoony for me to want to use regularly. I dislike stripes. I never had a problem with stability on 9, and the only visible improvements for me in X are graphic gimmicks that are great to look at but totally useless for anything but frivolity's sake.

    I can't use anything higher than 800 x 600, because when I do the fonts are too small to be readable, and both Apple and most of the third-party developers take it for granted that you're using higher resolutions (and plenty of apps won't run at all at 800 x 600). And everything in the GUI is all fuzzy and rounded instead of crisp and uncluttered.

    OS X is horribly, horribly slow on my machine, and yes, I know I need more RAM, but my system isn't _that_ old and it's factory-standard. If I were using a 5-year-old machine, yeah, sure, tell me to just upgrade. But it's more than young enough still that I shouldn't have to upgrade my hardware just to have support for the system software or the flagship app (iTunes).

    And I absolutely absolutely hate not having control of my directories any more. That was one of the best advantages of a Mac over Windows -- having one system folder, and everything else was folders you controlled, you knew what was in them, you knew what all the files did, you could organize them in a way that made sense to you, not what made sense to someone else. If there was anything you didn't use yourself around, it wasn't visible. Now my machine is as littered with "what the h--- does this do" files as a Windows machine, my directory structure makes no sense (thank you, I'm never never never going to want to keep images in one folder, text documents in another, and apps in a third instead of keeping all music-related files together, all RPG-related files together, all family files together, all fandom files together -- including text, images, vids, and games -- all rarely-use-them files together, etc.). My machine is also cluttered with files and directories to support multiuser functions, although I am and will always be the only person using this computer.

    If I weren't about to be late for work, I could go on for another hour about how much better OS 9 was to X. Not a week goes by that I don't think about switching back, and every time I boot to my external, 9-running drive, it's with this immediate intense relief and sense of homecoming. It's just, "Ah, now, my computer will _work_ again. Now it's _mine_ again."
     
  18. FelixDerKater macrumors 68000

    FelixDerKater

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    #18
    I'm glad to be rid of OS 9. I tried to go back for a few days, but it was too painful to see the system grind to a halt as one application dvoured all of the system's resources, leaving the rest of the open applications gasping for air. Aside from that, OS 9 was simply ugly in comparison to both Windows XP and Mac OS X.
     
  19. Thom_Edwards macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #19
    a buddy of mine and i just had a little debate on the 'real' names of the different mac oses. it really doesn't matter, so don't take this as a flame, but it was 'system' until 8. when it became 8, it was then 'os'.
     
  20. FelixDerKater macrumors 68000

    FelixDerKater

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    #20
    Feel free to explain their superiority...
     
  21. rueyeet macrumors 65816

    rueyeet

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    MD
    #21
    I'm not going to try and change your mind, because what's comfortable to you is comfortable to you; but on these couple of points I'd like to offer ways that your OS X experience might be made better.

    You can turn off font smoothing in System Preferences, which may help with the resolution thing. It won't help with the overall rounded look of Aqua, but may help for readability.

    Consider your user home directory the equivalent of 9's non-System space. You can do ANYTHING in your home directory, and while Apple offers the default Documents, Photos, and Music folders (largely, I suspect, to make things more familiar to Windows switchers) you don't have to use them. I've made folders similar to what you describe (fandom, netstuff, gaming, etc) and put any old thing in them. The only concession I make to Apple's directories is that I do keep my iPhoto library in the Photo directory, and my iTunes library in the Music one, because the search/browse functions of both applications makes it easier to approach that content from those applications. But you could just as easily delete all the default stuff and make your own directories. The apps don't really care.

    I hope that helps lessen the pain of OS X for you at least a bit. :)
     
  22. rueyeet macrumors 65816

    rueyeet

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    MD
    #22
    Sorry for the double post, but this is a separate point....Y'know, I know a lot more Mac users these days, and a good percentage of them are still on 9 either at work or at home, and I hear that very same complaint a LOT. And there are all too many Windows users who've heard this stuff from their Mac-using friends who are still on System 9. How the heck is Apple supposed to increase marketshare if the Windows people who DO know anything about Macs hear only complaints from real Mac users?

    I agree; switching from 9 to X ought to be made easier, especially when people have issues with 9.
     
  23. FelixDerKater macrumors 68000

    FelixDerKater

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    #23
    How do you suggest making it any easier?
     
  24. osprey76 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    #24
    I do miss some of the attributes of OS 9 mentioned above. The Finder feels snappier on similar hardware. Overall, I'd say it's a wash since I have a MP Mac. I did like knowing what almost everything in the System Folder was about. Now, there is a fairly cryptic System and Library folders. Along with the UNIX additions with /etc, /bin, etc.

    The things I really do like about OS X include not having to reboot a time or two a day. I am hardly ever waiting on an application now. Firing up IE in 9 meant I couldn't continue to read my email. Now, I can load 10 tabs at once in Safari and answer an IM while they download. I think that was my most frustrating factor going back to 9 was waiting on operations to happen.

    10.3 isn't perfect, but I think it's heading the right direction. 9 had its day, but it has mostly passed.

    Also, I think most folks still using 9 simply don't have the hardware to run 10. My fiance is using my old 7200 and 9.1 is as high as it will ever go. Apple could offer me some incentive to buy 10 for it, but what good would that do if the machine can't run it?
     
  25. Crikey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Spencer's Butte, Oregon
    #25
    The "old" MacOS was a pretty cool system. It had its own unique look and way of working, and lots of software ran on it. My PowerBook 3400C still runs MacOS 8.6.

    But I was never a switcher until I got my QuickSilver dualie with MacOS X. Unix on the desktop, with iApps and even Office if you want it. My tower can run both MacOS 9.2 and Panther; I think I've only booted into 9.2 twice -- once just to play around and once to install a firmware update.

    But that's all just my personal preference. I think it's cool that some people are into older systems, and resisting the mass-cultural imperative to buy the latest thing.

    I still have a PC that runs BeOS. And an Amiga, an Atari 520ST, and a 286 running MS-DOS 3.3.


    Crikey
     

Share This Page