11 years later... how is Mac OS 9?

[GimmeSlack12]

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]

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]

I still use it, despite its age.

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. The main computer labs had IBM all-in-ones, that were rigged to run Windows 3.X with some GUI called "Success Maker". There was one class that had a lot of Apple Pizza Boxes. They were loaded with software and games. 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. 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. 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.

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 as possible, and not as fancy-looking as possible. 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!!

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. 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?

 

[rickwTX]

OS9 daily use, yep, it works

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]

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]

program lineup

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]

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

 

[zen.state]

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]

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]

 

[jouster]

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.]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

I more than agree...

----------

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

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]

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 , 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]

Hello People:

Image

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

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

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 ) 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 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]

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.

 

[macOSEnthusiast1]

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)?

I liked the drag and drop cloning too, classic Mac OS to me is great, but anyway back to your question, protected memory is actually an OS feature that allows the whole OS to kind of act as a supervisor for the apps. Apps require memory to run and on a system with no protected memory, a poorly optimized application can decide whatever amount of memory it wants to take which takes that memory away from the rest of the OS and all other running apps and this could lead to a system wide crash because the OS doesn't have enough resources to operate. Or if the app itself crashes, it'll take down all other running apps and the OS with it because the OS gets confused because it can't get the huge chunk of memory back itself and that's a memory addressing panic. Protected memory solves both of these issues.

I hope that that was helpful!

 

[CooperBox]

I liked the drag and drop cloning too, classic Mac OS to me is great, but anyway back to your question, protected memory is actually an OS feature that allows the whole OS to kind of act as a supervisor for the apps. Apps require memory to run and on a system with no protected memory, a poorly optimized application can decide whatever amount of memory it wants to take which takes that memory away from the rest of the OS and all other running apps and this could lead to a system wide crash because the OS doesn't have enough resources to operate. Or if the app itself crashes, it'll take down all other running apps and the OS with it because the OS gets confused because it can't get the huge chunk of memory back itself and that's a memory addressing panic. Protected memory solves both of these issues.

I hope that that was helpful!

Unless I'm very mistaken, your answering a query that was put 7 years ago! Cox Orange is still pretty active on this forum so he may get back to you - if he's still in doubt.
When I was a newbie, I too adressed a question that had been posted back in the dark ages. I believe it shows that one is extremely keen......

 

[YaBe]

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.

He said User interface....


But OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were the best for me on the UI side.

 

[bobesch]

Ho, great fun to read this thread! Back to the roots ...

 

[mryingster]

I keep a G4 around for OS9. I use it occasionally. Mostly for old games that are OS9 only. I also have SheepShaver for that, but running natively is so much better.

I love(d) OS7, 8, and 9. I like the way things were laid, the menus, the control panels, the extensibility with extensions. It was light-years ahead of Windows in my book.

It's funny, at the time I was so excited for the look of OS X which made OS 9 look bland, but looking back, I feel like OS9 actually had a very sophisticated look that I miss a little bit these days.

Anyway, it's not all roses. As others have mentioned, lack of multi tasking (the biggest issue to me), no safe memory, and the whole "Chooser" application for networking which was weird are all dark spots on an otherwise wonderful OS.

 

[skinniezinho]

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!

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.

3dfx!
I still have 2 Voodoo 2 SLI and an AGP Voodoo 3 3000. I have to found a mac for them =)