Boot OS 9 on new PowerMacs?

[welborn]

Originally posted by john123
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.

For the record -- I don't think you can turn off Quartz. It's the compositing engine that draws the screen. It's the guts of OS X. And now, with Quartz Extreme, it really doesn't slow things down any more. (I understand what your point was, though.)

I agree with your general message here. If Apple had introduced OS X with a 9-looking appearance and then made the stoplight widgets, stripey backgrounds and candy buttons an option (even if default!), I think we'd all be better off.

It seems that Apple of old made decisions based on what was demonstrably more intuitive and better. For example, having the close, minimize and maximize widgets on opposite ends of the window just works better.

The problem is that Apple is now several years down this path, and there's not enough outcry to make changes like this. If they did, it would look like they were admitting a long-standing mistake. I can't imagine they want to do that.

I've just had to get over my prejudices. Now, I love OS 10! I've learned that I just really have to pay attention when I am clicking near the stoplight stuff. I now use a multi-button mouse, also, despite knowing that a single-button is easier to learn and a little more elegant.

Apple could have made my computer experience sublime -- with TRULY the power of Unix and the elegance and simplicity of the Macintosh. I have settled for what they've given us instead -- a better Unix box than anyone, with a "lickable" GUI that's not necessarily up to the standard of excellence I expected. Life goes on.

 

[gotohamish]

Re: 9 vs. 10

Originally posted by scorpion
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.

Well said.

I think of the "speed" of OS X to be something a little different from the majority of you. I have a G4 500 tower, and a G4 TiBook 500. OSX runs fine, sure it could be faster but it's fine.

I had to boot into 9 the other day for a little task, and it was the first time I'd been in 9 in ages. And it was SLOW. Don't get me wrong, opening windows, and menus is a lot snappier (!) but it's the OTHER SPEED issues:

1) Finding files in 'Open' dialogs TAKES FOREVER. Thank God for column view in X!

2) Opening Apps is tedious unless you've taken the time to make alias', launchers, and Apple menu items. Thank God for the dock in X!

3) This little App I had to run in 9 crashed due to lack of memory (I have 1.5GB) - so I had to go into the 'Get Info' and up it's memory allowance. This took time, now I know Apps have problems in X and you have to force quit them, but then you just reopen them - thank God for protected memory in X.

So, my point is, raw speed in 9 is there, but overall speed of productivity and navigation is much more a feature of X. It's a common sense, intuitive OS. I've used the classic os' since the first Mac, and I'm no slouch in the Finder, but X wipes the floor with it.

Do you get my point?

 

[greenfruit]

Apple are never gonna change the OSX interface to look like 9 at this point, itd be worse than the NEW Coca-Cola fiasco.

Ive NEVER found OSX particularly slower than 9, and ive been playing with it since the beta. I would say though, that when it looses a server on the network (ie if you pull the network cable out without disconnecting first) then the finder goes mad and i normally have to force quit it. Also, the way that servers seem to use IP addresses to get to each other is annoying. I dont know if it has changed from 9, but if i make an alias of a server and then that servers IP address changes the alias wont work - which is hella-annoying.

I installed OSX on my work mac last week, to give it a try as the only programs i use in classic are Quark, Distiller (because of Quark and presumably Quark 6 will have PDF capabilities built in) and whamnet transmission manager (for sending isdns) and i must say its gone fairly well, some fonts seem to have issues with OSX, but apart from that very few problems.

BTW, the last time i had to update my mac firmware, i had to boot into OS9 first, any ideas on how you update firmware on nonOS9-bootable macs?

 

[awulf]

I have found that OS 9 crashes more on some CPU's then others. OS 9 seems pretty stable on a G3, and 603e. On a G4 or 604 OS 9 likes to crash.

I use OS X on my G4 and it is pretty slow, I currently only have 128MB of RAM, and OS 9 beats the hell out of OS X in speed on my Mac. But I use OS X because it doesn't crash, for its cocoa apps and for its multitasking abilities.

I am going to get 512MB of RAM soon so that will speed things up.

 

[greenfruit]

MORE RAM definately helps, my G4/450 has 550something, and my ibook has 384meg, and theyre both fine.

Ive not had major OS9 crashes EVER, my work mac before i upgraded was generally up constantly for about a week (as i never shut down, just turned the screen off) before needing a reboot to defrag ram.

any crashes were (generally) quark related.

but with the same ram (384meg i think), OSX can happily have more apps open than 9, i now pretty much constantly have Quark, Photoshop, Flash, Mail, Fireworks, Dreamweaver and various other helpful apps open all the time.

 

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by john123
I was with you until this last sentence...

Lol, GWB has spent more than the last 12 administrations in any calendar year. He has also taken a trillion dollar surplus and turned it into a deficit of 384 billion in only 3 years (unnecessary tax cut anyone?) and he's a complete fool. This is a man that has never worked for a damn thing in his entire life and the morons of this country (actually a minority by the popular vote) wonder why things so quickly went to crap.

I hope by the time GWB is out of office he hasn't completely ruinned everything the Clinton administration did to help "everyone" instead of "the rich". Oh wait he has undone everything. Sad really. Foreign Policy == Joke, Economic Policy == Joke, Religion in Govt == Joke, Our President == Fscking Moron.

If that is what you want for a president, I'd rather have a Rhodes Scholor (on merit) who gets a BJ than some shmuck who can't even say terrorist (he says something like "tourist" or "terraist").

 

[Centris 650]

I am a late adopter of X. I got 10.2.2 for Christmas from the Ed. Store for $78. I figured if I was going to switch to X I'd better jump on it. It does feel slower on my iBook 466 SE (FW). But I'm living with it. It has been hard adapting to some core Mac OS things that had been around since I had started in 87 but I'm adapting. (I had all my programs listed in the Apple Menu. I still have a habit of hitting it and dragging down it. That's why my dock in on the left, to ease me in. )

I really like X. Though the Doc is a space hogger on my iBook's screen. I'm still getting used to it and hopefully by summer I'll have made a full transition to X. (I'm upgrading my programs to X one by one. Way to expensive to do them all at once!)

From 6-9 not much was changed at once. (Something added in one upgrade, another in another upgrade.) It took me a while just to upgrade from 8.5 to 9. Though I upgraded immediately from 6 to 7 just so I could easily make my own folder and disk icons! All in all, X is a different OS than we've EVER had. I'm enjoying the learning curve.

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by weev
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)

My PB667 (VGA) is not very fast I'll grant you that, but my DP 867 MD (at work) is reaaaaallly fast...
If people still like OS9 that's fine, and I am not saying good riddance to you if you choose the PC world instead of staying with Macs and making the transition to OSX, but I am telling you if you think that OSX is too different from OS9 for you, then forget about Windows... OSX, even if visually very different from OS9, is still true to the Apple philosophy of designing UIs that work... Now try a PC and you will remember why you became a Mac user in the first place. So I say to you (yes you my dear john123) BULLS**T if you are thinking of moving to PCs instead of going to OSX...
Just give OSX a chance. You don't have to do it now. As long as your current hardware answers your needs adequately, FINE, stay with OS9, but when you get a new machine (as in: more powerful, more geared towards OSX), well you will see what OSX is capable of.

NicoMan

 

[NicoMan]

Re: 9 vs. 10

Originally posted by scorpion
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.

Well said. Perfect...

NicoMan

 

[Lupin Addams]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
15" TiBooks still boot 9

I know, thanks... in fact I boot from a 9 partition for FTP and such - but someday I would like to get a new machine and still be able to use it fully!

 

[Foocha]

Hardware not software to blame

A thought. The speed problem some users encounter with OS X is more to do with hardware rather than software. It's naturally that the progression from OS 9 to OS X results in a performance penalty - it's the same with Windows. The extra work which the OS is doing to give you OS X's rock solid performance slows things down a little.

The move to NT/2000/XP took its toll on Windows performance too, however the extrodinary increase in Pentium performance more than compensated for this. Sadly, PowerPC never came up with the goods, making OS X a little on the slow side.

Let's not get our knives out for Quartz - it's revolutionary and way ahead of Windows - it's one of the few areas where OS X clearly has an advantage over XP - i.e. something to be proud of. It'll take some time before Windows supports features like transparency and alpha channels.

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by blakespot
The real question is how to downclock the CPU by 200MHz or so...
blakespot

Powerbooks have a powersaving utility that do just that. I wonder if it works on the desktop macs.

I find it in the task bar under sleep options on a Ti.

Rocketman

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by weev

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?

I agree. Apple could call it "expert mode" and make it sound really impressive so they can sell more macs to lemmings. Meantime power users would switch to it after they learn X.

Rocketman

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by iJon
just because you ahve an old computer doesnt mean apple should stop everything for you,

iJon

I agree. But what OS6,7,8,9 users need is ability to run their legacy programs and files on the new platform. They need to be able to maintain workflow habits that work for them. Labels and italic aliases being small examples. Supporting these features would be a boon to OSX users. Not because it is some insanely great new application to attract new users, but because it is backward compatibuility to keep the millions of existing users productive.

Consider this. If you use an 0x0 or older PowerPC chip because it provides the compatibility you need. You are not going to buy a new CPU no matter how much money is burning a hole in your pocket.

BUT if you can use those old MacDraw files you have megabytes of, and keep all those colorfully labeled folders you felt so mission critical, and can open, modify and write whatever file I have left out, then you will have no reason NOT to buy the latest CPU.

Just because it is cool.

Rocketman

 

[Jimong5]

I'd just like to say OSX is faster on my Dual 867 then in OS 9 by feel and such. The fact that OSX also has double the horsepower level since it can take advantage of its second G4 and Quartz extreme. Everything basic is instant, and the whole system is snappy. as for the reelect GWB, if you don't like the man, don't vote for him, this isn't the time or place to whine about how he's running things.

 

[greenfruit]

im not sure being able to open macdraw is so important, after all i would imagine PhotoShop can do this, and pretty much any old file can be opened by some kind of OSX app.

the italic alias and labels are more important, and yes apple should fix it, but id rather they keep to the more core first, in the meantime theres always 3rd party solutions to these relativly minor problems.

afterall OSX is still a relativly young OS.

 

[Jimong5]

Originally posted by Rocketman
I agree. But what OS6,7,8,9 users need is ability to run their legacy programs and files on the new platform. They need to be able to maintain workflow habits that work for them. Labels and italic aliases being small examples. Supporting these features would be a boon to OSX users. Not because it is some insanely great new application to attract new users, but because it is backward compatibuility to keep the millions of existing users productive.

Consider this. If you use an 0x0 or older PowerPC chip because it provides the compatibility you need. You are not going to buy a new CPU no matter how much money is burning a hole in your pocket.

BUT if you can use those old MacDraw files you have megabytes of, and keep all those colorfully labeled folders you felt so mission critical, and can open, modify and write whatever file I have left out, then you will have no reason NOT to buy the latest CPU.

Just because it is cool.

Rocketman

I dont think Apple still needs to boot 9, I think apple needs to improve the Classic environment to be even more compatible, and maybe incorporate Quickdraw into the Quartz system. right now, my biggest complaint of classic is the issue with quick draw and quartz overlapping.

 

[biscool]

I agree. But what OS6,7,8,9 users need is ability to run their legacy programs and files on the new platform. They need to be able to maintain workflow habits that work for them. Labels and italic aliases being small examples. Supporting these features would be a boon to OSX users. Not because it is some insanely great new application to attract new users, but because it is backward compatibuility to keep the millions of existing users productive.

Consider this. If you use an 0x0 or older PowerPC chip because it provides the compatibility you need. You are not going to buy a new CPU no matter how much money is burning a hole in your pocket.

BUT if you can use those old MacDraw files you have megabytes of, and keep all those colorfully labeled folders you felt so mission critical, and can open, modify and write whatever file I have left out, then you will have no reason NOT to buy the latest CPU.

Just because it is cool.

Rocketman

Like others have said, you can add labels to OS X. Why do you need italic aliases? You can use the dock and aliases on the desktop, or anywhere else, have an easy to see arrow thing...

 

[deepkid]

Ti500 isn't really *old*, just maturing

the main reason (other than cost!!) that I won't be updating my battered old TiBook 550 anytime soon.

Hey!!! The ti550 isn't really *old*!
This is still a very competitive powerbook.
Just a little tipaint on it and voila. Max out the ram, fast HDs.

BTW, is it still possible to have that combo drive upgrade anywhere? Is Apple or any third party still performing these for tibooks?

 

[Jimong5]

Re: Ti500 isn't really *old*, just maturing

Originally posted by deepkid
Hey!!! The ti550 isn't really *old*!
This is still a very competitive powerbook.
Just a little tipaint on it and voila. Max out the ram, fast HDs.

BTW, is it still possible to have that combo drive upgrade anywhere? Is Apple or any third party still performing these for tibooks?

I don't remember where, but I heard that a 3rd party was doing Superdrive upgrades for the Ti.

 

[greenfruit]

Originally posted by Jimong5
I dont think Apple still needs to boot 9, I think apple needs to improve the Classic environment to be even more compatible, and maybe incorporate Quickdraw into the Quartz system. right now, my biggest complaint of classic is the issue with quick draw and quartz overlapping.

I think thats *somewhat* true, however, i imagine what with the dwindling amount of classic/os9 apps, by the time apple implimented this there wouldnt be any apps to run under classic or indeed any need for classic.

As it is, i never run classic at home, and only use quark/distiller/whamnet at work.

Something ive noticed is that games seem FAR slower in X than 9, Medal of Honor is jerky as hell in X while in a higher screen res in 9 its silky smooth.

though the new games (ghost recon for example) seem to be better in X but it looks like ill need a new mac for UT2003.

 

[UnixMac]

A point of interest.... the new Mac's will not boot drive 10 either.. I tried to defrag my friends new Dual1.25 and it didn't read the disk.... Apple says it's possibly due to the boot sector of the Drive 10 disk being readable by older macs???

go figure..

 

[Over Achiever]

Re: Re: Ti500 isn't really *old*, just maturing

Originally posted by Jimong5
I don't remember where, but I heard that a 3rd party was doing Superdrive upgrades for the Ti.

MCE is doing the upgrades.

http://www.mcetech.com/sdpbg4.html

Costs $500, and is expected to be available in two days (2/25)

 

[zac4mac]

When is this issue gonna die?

If you've got an old Mac(like my 7500/604e233 and 8500/G3-454) or older, run 9.x, that's the best it'll do, they're primitive. If you use software that's OS 9 only, buy an old Mac. (They're cheaper than the new ones)

If you've got a newer Mac, especially a duallie, get as far away from OS 9 as you can. Any speed increase in OS 9 on a duallie is purely illusory. Very few windows in 9 are "live draw", while most in OS X are. Try iTunes. Drag a window around in 9 & X, I think you'll be surprised at how slow OS 9 really is.

If 9 works, spend your money on something besides a new Mac. I finally got a 22"Cinema Display and it's better than a new CPU, IMO.
I think my DP550/1GB/.24TB/Radeon32/Orion16/22"ACD/20"MS/10.2.4 will last a little longer, especially after adding a Sonnet Raid 133 card and an ATi 9000 Pro.

p.s to the guy with red lines on his text - set your convergence(if you can) flat panels don't suffer this; my ACD is so clear and crisp, it makes my old Apple Multi-Sync look like it has tissue paper over the front.

Zack

 

[mattmack]

Re: Ti500 isn't really *old*, just maturing

Originally posted by deepkid
Is Apple or any third party still performing these for tibooks?

Try http://www.mcetech.com. I believe they're even coming out with a superdrive upgrade