Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Boot OS 9 on new PowerMacs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Could it be that I simply like the interface better. Perhaps I like running a leaner OS that doesn't suck up so much, in terms of resources. There shouldn't even be a need for something like Quartz Extreme. Why is there so much darn eye candy on the screen anyway? Who needs it?!!?!?! I would rather have the resources going to Photoshop for FCP something. The ol' OS is what attracted me to the Mac in the first place.....and take note that there are a lot of people who would rather use OS 9. It is a beautifully simple OS that is way faster than OS X. I say.....take that sleek, simple, and beautiful OS 9 interface and put it atop of that UNIX kernal, and let me have it!!!!! Of course anyone who knows anything about Macs will tell you I am describing Rhapsody, which I wish had actually hit the market, but hey, I can dream.
OS 9 RULES!!! Re-Elect G.W. BUSH 2004!
so was i then he shot himself in the foot
X is too eye candy rich yes, seems to be appealing to the new user/switcher.
You know what I'd like to see (drumroll pls ....) OS X PRO
Less resources spent on candy, more on power. Essentially, a cut down no frills (or a lot less frills) version of what we have now: I just want zip zip zip when opening windows, etc, no need for the bouncing/sliding/pulsing stuff!
Anyone agree?
my windows are zip zip zip without the crash crash crash.Originally posted by weev
so was i then he shot himself in the foot
X is too eye candy rich yes, seems to be appealing to the new user/switcher.
You know what I'd like to see (drumroll pls ....) OS X PRO
Less resources spent on candy, more on power. Essentially, a cut down no frills (or a lot less frills) version of what we have now: I just want zip zip zip when opening windows, etc, no need for the bouncing/sliding/pulsing stuff!
Anyone agree?
iJon
He -- and I -- don't have to be left in the dust. I am finding myself seriously becoming a switcher...to PCs. I've owned 7 macs in about 8 years, and I am seriously considering making this one my last if OS X doesn't get some critical 9-like features I demand.
FYI, with Apple having under 5% market share, I would suggest that you folks not come back with stupid comments like "good riddance." There's a better solution: INCORPORATE THE FEATURES TO APPEASE 9 USERS.
Same here. Like iJon said, if you like OS 9, then there's nothing wrong with that, but personally, I can't stand the constant crashes, memory management, and the rest of the "older features" in OS 9 (I got the "older features" thing from this Apple site). I was okay with it when before I had OS X, but now that I do have it, I could never go back. And the zip zip zip is just fine in OS X, as long as you have a pretty new machine with a good bit of RAM.
No. I get so mad everytime I go back to OS 9 with my vintage Mac as it freezes so many times, it isn't even funny. And my main machine is PowerMac G4 533 Dual, a two-year old machine, and it just feels fast in the OS X 10.2.4 as in the OS 9.2.2.
OS X Rules!
Heh, that's great. So which machines achieve this OS 9 level of speed?
I know the machines that don't (thorugh experience):
any ibook
Ti Powerbook 667
Duel 867 PM MD (the os doesn't feel as fast as my 500 mhz G3 imac)
On one hand I'd would have liked to see some 9 features maintained. This might sound silly but I like:
a) alias's that are in italics, so you know they are an alias
b) Labels - maybe I'm the only one who uses them, eg, I have a folder of 30 client jobs all as aliases, colored thus
green - waiting for approval
red - needs extra info
purple - ready for final proof
blue - finished (or whatever, something like this)
I couldn't get X to do this so my work process was slower as I had to use paper and pen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And on the other hand, I'll never ever use a PC. I don't dislike OS X, quite the contrary. It's just work that needs to be done -why - so I can afford a faster machine
weev
please, let us know your demands that are so important. this should be interesting. by the way, apple is doing just fine with 5%. and they are getting more and more each day to switch. they are less concerned about people like you stuck in the old times.
iJon
Labels X
Check out Labels X....it provides you with the colored labels under OS X just like in OS 9.
Originally posted by weev
On one hand I'd would have liked to see some 9 features maintained. This might sound silly but I like:
a) alias's that are in italics, so you know they are an alias
b) Labels - maybe I'm the only one who uses them, eg, I have a folder of 30 client jobs all as aliases, colored thus
green - waiting for approval
red - needs extra info
purple - ready for final proof
blue - finished (or whatever, something like this)
I couldn't get X to do this so my work process was slower as I had to use paper and pen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And on the other hand, I'll never ever use a PC. I don't dislike OS X, quite the contrary. It's just work that needs to be done -why - so I can afford a faster machine
weev
Check out Labels X....it provides you with the colored labels under OS X just like in OS 9.
Haha, even after I warned you, you fell into the same trap of dismissing me and users like me, insisting that Apple is "doing fine."
The company's economic fundamentals are not much improved, as demonstrated by fact that the stock price is only about 20% higher now than where it was when Jobs first came on board (after taking into account the stock split). And when the market had its periods of rallying in the Nasdaq in the last part of 2002, Apple's stock was conspicuously absent from those rallies. Its PE ratio is extremely high, too. The gap between PC speeds and Mac speeds continues to grow every day. And while I understand programmers' and sysadmins' like for OS X, the obsession of Joe Q. Public with the GUI in OS X is eerily reminiscent of a retarded kid's obsession with a bouncing ball.
So what are my demands? They are, in reality, very simple.
They amount to speed and GUI options (not even changes -- just options!).
I want OS X to be, at the GUI level, as fast as OS 9. Get rid of Quartz -- or at least let me turn it off. Antialiased fonts? With the low-resolution LCDs used in the PowerBooks, where font smoothing means that you're going to have a relatively large pixel some shade of gray, I don't want them...I far prefer the fonts in OS 9 which, while "blocky," are very readable and clear to me. I hate that in OS X, the lowercase "L" in the menubar font has a line of red pixels to the right of it. I want my text to be all black pixels. It would seem not much to ask Apple to have a very simple "OS 9 fonts" checkbox in the General pane. TinkerTool tries to do it but doesn't do a very good job. Silk tries to play with fonts but again has its share of problems. Why not make it an OS option? Would it really be that bad? Let's add a "Use OpenGL instead of Quartz" option as well. MAKE MY INTERFACE JUST LIKE I HAD IT IN OS 9, WITH ALL THE SPEED INHERENT THERIN. I want my desktop icon font to be Geneva 10, unsmoothed, and I want my menubar font to be Charcoal, again unsmoothed. And I want to get rid of those horizontal striping lines which just make things hard to read (yes, you can do this via third party themes, but again, why should I have to bother?). And I want my Apple menu back, and to be able to turn off the Dock, and no, I don't want to have to use FruitMenu.
You people claim that you love the stability of OS X. 9 doesn't crash on me much at all. I run a pretty lean OS and I know my computer. I work with a dozen apps open and crash maybe once a week, on average. And far more often than not, I can avert the crash by knowing, "OK, there's a problem," and saving my work in open apps and then restarting rather than running it into the ground. I am quite sure, after having used both OSes extensively, that I am more productive and waste less time in 9 than in X.
This is not to say that X doesn't have advantages. If you want a Apache server, it's the place to be. If you want to run Java 2 applets, you ain't gonna do it in 9.
But why do these things and stability have to be mutually exclusive with GUI performance and responsiveness? In trying to make the GUI pretty and cute, Apple has quite intentionally crippled its performance. All I'm asking for is a user-level option to turn that crap off.
I've had only OS X on my home computer for almost a year now (no classic). At one of my jobs we use 9, and the other X with classic. I wouldn't use 9 if I didn't have to. X is so much better, and for those of you who complain that it isn't zippy we should have a test. Use the same computer with each operating system to see which is more time-effective (remember to count in crashes). I had this computer up for 8 days without a problem until the power went out. I could have never had done that with 9. I restarted multiple times a day without fail. Force-quit an app and you most likely would freeze up your comp. And for those of you wanting more 9-like features, what would those be? Rendevous, usb printer sharing, print as a pdf are just a few options that I couldn't live without now. Anything you want as a 9 feature can probably be found as a freeware/shareware program anyway. While your at it though go try to install 7.5 on your G3, it won't work, why should it? Same with today's computers, why waste the money and cripple your hardware by supporting an old OS. Doesn't make sense. Go to Windows for all I care, that sure won't be speedier, and won't have the 9-like features you want either.
this is exactly what people dont want. when they are being sold a mac, they dont want to know that there computer will probably crash once a week, i cant rememember the last time my os x crashed. os x is the future, it has just about anything most people could as for in an os (besides your). just because you ahve an old computer doesnt mean apple should stop everything for you, technology changes, os 9 is old. just about every mac made now can run os x extremly well and people never will have the need to go back into os 9. i want to know what kind of computer you are running cause i wanna know what your basing your statements on. i think you are one of the few who feel this way. when os x first came out we all had to sacrifice speed for the gorgeous look of the os with the seemless workflow without any crashes. now times have changed and we have macs that run os x great. and enough with the mhz myth, we know we are behind but i sure dont care. unless you are rendering jar jar for the next star wars, the processors now are just fine.
iJon
Old computer? LOL. I have a 1Ghz PowerBook with 1GB of RAM and the 60GB harddrive (with SuperDrive). And I'll tell you, 9 runs significantly faster than X.
You've been sold a bill of goods with OS X. Besides, honestly, how much development would really have to go into doing most of the stuff I suggested in my post? Not much.
ok fair enough. this argument is going no where fast. you have a mac, thats great. you like os 9, thats great. im not gonna stop you because that would be stupid. you bought it with your own money and you use it how you wish. im glad a crash a week doesnt bother you. personally i feel your a little too picky about the speeds, i have a 12 inch powerbook, which isnt near as good as yours, and it runs os x like a dream. hope you stay with the mac, but i can understand why you would want a pc considering your speed issues with os 9 & X on a 1ghz powerbook.
iJon
Questions
Good question, one I wish I had an answer for. Perhaps some people, companies or labs have all of their systems running OS 9, and they know what they are doing and how they want things to be set up and don't want to try and learn OS X. But then, maybe they still run some app which is still only OS 9, or they don't want or have the money to upgrade to the latest version, and decide to stick with OS 9 instead, since being in OS 9 is faster than trying to run an app under Classic.
Good question, one I wish I had an answer for. Perhaps some people, companies or labs have all of their systems running OS 9, and they know what they are doing and how they want things to be set up and don't want to try and learn OS X. But then, maybe they still run some app which is still only OS 9, or they don't want or have the money to upgrade to the latest version, and decide to stick with OS 9 instead, since being in OS 9 is faster than trying to run an app under Classic.
seriously, well said. don't get me wrong, i think OS X is pretty and i've been using it since it's birth but its as slow as a crippled turtle and it isn't much use to me right now. i do sound design and composition for a living, i'm a Logic user, and feel totally shafted by Apple for dropping VST. it's cute to think they are going to start a new "standard" but come on. i still, and will continue to boot into OS 9 to run all my VSTis and plug-ins that have not, or will not ever make it to OS X. i don't think Audio Units will "make it". i thought Apple was trying to conform to standards, not make silly ones that don't exist. yeah, AU is a great concept but when the market is saturated with VST , just allow it and move on. why **** me out of hundreds of dollars worth of software just for bragging rights?
Rhapsody
Rhapsody was released - it was Mac OS X Server 1.0.
It's funny to hear an OS 9 fan claiming that Rhapsody is the answer, since it did not include the Carbon framework, and so in effect it was more different to OS 9 than today's OS X is. In addition, OS 9 apps running in the classic environment could not run in their own application windows, they ran in an OS 9 emulation window, a bit like Virtual PC.
From what I read of OS 9 users who are not happy with OS X, they tend to focus on the superficial aspects - mainly the GUI.
There are problems with OS X, but they're nothing in comparison to the problems with OS 9. The fact that OS 9 is faster is not an indication that it is a better OS - you'll find that Windows 95 runs faster than Windows 2000, but no one would make an arguement that Windows 95 is better, would they?
My biggest nostagia for OS 9/8/7 concerns networking & sharing. In the olden days, you could just hook up a bunch of Macs on a network and they would all talk to each other and share with no problems. Everyone could browse everyone else on the network, and no one had to think about issues like LDAP, SMB, Long File Names... The truth is, the reason OS X is more complex than OS 9 is because we expect to do so much more with it. Try setting up an SMB share or Apache on OS 9. Try copying a file from one Mac to another with a file name of longer than 32 characters. Hmm, OS 9 not so great now, huh?
Rhapsody was released - it was Mac OS X Server 1.0.
It's funny to hear an OS 9 fan claiming that Rhapsody is the answer, since it did not include the Carbon framework, and so in effect it was more different to OS 9 than today's OS X is. In addition, OS 9 apps running in the classic environment could not run in their own application windows, they ran in an OS 9 emulation window, a bit like Virtual PC.
From what I read of OS 9 users who are not happy with OS X, they tend to focus on the superficial aspects - mainly the GUI.
There are problems with OS X, but they're nothing in comparison to the problems with OS 9. The fact that OS 9 is faster is not an indication that it is a better OS - you'll find that Windows 95 runs faster than Windows 2000, but no one would make an arguement that Windows 95 is better, would they?
My biggest nostagia for OS 9/8/7 concerns networking & sharing. In the olden days, you could just hook up a bunch of Macs on a network and they would all talk to each other and share with no problems. Everyone could browse everyone else on the network, and no one had to think about issues like LDAP, SMB, Long File Names... The truth is, the reason OS X is more complex than OS 9 is because we expect to do so much more with it. Try setting up an SMB share or Apache on OS 9. Try copying a file from one Mac to another with a file name of longer than 32 characters. Hmm, OS 9 not so great now, huh?
9 vs. 10
This is basically a silly argument. Some people are early adopters and some aren't. (I've bought 30 year old cameras because I like their "feel" -- but today's cameras are optically superior, in most cases.) I was a diehard 9 user but I think it's pretty hard to make the argument that 10 offers more hassle and fewer features. They're actually quite similar -- and I run X on my iMac 333 because it's prbably close to the same speed!
X has a ton of features which are great for even the casual user. But many 9 users aren't comfortable. That's OK -- you can always buy older computers on eBay, much like my 30 year old cameras. And you can run 9 on them. But it's an uphill battle for sentimentality, in my opinion. The (relatively) minor differences that many seem wedded to in 9 are a small sacrifice for the stability and flexibility of X.
In fact, X really reignited my love for Macs. i've always loved them but there's so much more functionality in X than before.
And of course, the only reason I have to use 9 is my old scanner which we now have VueScan for, so no reason now.
Office X is also better than Office 2001.
That's all. Good night.
This is basically a silly argument. Some people are early adopters and some aren't. (I've bought 30 year old cameras because I like their "feel" -- but today's cameras are optically superior, in most cases.) I was a diehard 9 user but I think it's pretty hard to make the argument that 10 offers more hassle and fewer features. They're actually quite similar -- and I run X on my iMac 333 because it's prbably close to the same speed!
X has a ton of features which are great for even the casual user. But many 9 users aren't comfortable. That's OK -- you can always buy older computers on eBay, much like my 30 year old cameras. And you can run 9 on them. But it's an uphill battle for sentimentality, in my opinion. The (relatively) minor differences that many seem wedded to in 9 are a small sacrifice for the stability and flexibility of X.
In fact, X really reignited my love for Macs. i've always loved them but there's so much more functionality in X than before.
And of course, the only reason I have to use 9 is my old scanner which we now have VueScan for, so no reason now.
Office X is also better than Office 2001.
That's all. Good night.