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
OSX
John, we arent all making stuff up when we say OSX is more productive. Speed isn't everything,if it was than PC's running Windows 95 would be top dog,but obviously they are not. Instead of stubbornly sticking to an old way, adapt and use the new. I also used to dump all kinds of stuff in the Apple menu,and while I dont find the dock as usefull, I still make good use of it.
Heres a couple examples that greatly improve my productivity that I could not do in 9.
1. Column View. Simply wonderfull. You cant have EVERY file on your system arranged neatly in the Apple menu, you CAN have everything in column view,which makes navigation a snap.
2. Folders open in same window. I used to hate the clutter that would pile up on my OS9 desktop as I was browsing around, I love how I can open a folder in OSX and it doesnt throw a new window in my face.
John, we arent all making stuff up when we say OSX is more productive. Speed isn't everything,if it was than PC's running Windows 95 would be top dog,but obviously they are not. Instead of stubbornly sticking to an old way, adapt and use the new. I also used to dump all kinds of stuff in the Apple menu,and while I dont find the dock as usefull, I still make good use of it.
Heres a couple examples that greatly improve my productivity that I could not do in 9.
1. Column View. Simply wonderfull. You cant have EVERY file on your system arranged neatly in the Apple menu, you CAN have everything in column view,which makes navigation a snap.
2. Folders open in same window. I used to hate the clutter that would pile up on my OS9 desktop as I was browsing around, I love how I can open a folder in OSX and it doesnt throw a new window in my face.
i tend to have all my apps neatly in folders in Favorites (damn american spelling) and all my servers and anything else useful and then put favorites folder in the dock with a lovely heart icon on it.
that way theyre all easily at hand, IMHO its better than the apple menu.
Another alternative is yadal (http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=14907&db=mac) thats what i use on my ibook.
that way theyre all easily at hand, IMHO its better than the apple menu.
Another alternative is yadal (http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=14907&db=mac) thats what i use on my ibook.
john123
macrumors 68030
Re: OSX
Speed is important, though -- and my 2.53Ghz P4 with Windows 2000 absolutely flies and I love it for that.
I don't like the new way. I don't like Column View, personally, and I prefer the "clutter" of folders. In fact, on my PC, I have the "folders in same window" option off on there as well.
Speed is important, though -- and my 2.53Ghz P4 with Windows 2000 absolutely flies and I love it for that.
I don't like the new way. I don't like Column View, personally, and I prefer the "clutter" of folders. In fact, on my PC, I have the "folders in same window" option off on there as well.
Obviously the rocket scientist that came up with the idea to make a folder visible uses a MDD machine and NOT a NEW FW800...
Step1: Look on the back of your powermac if you can find 3 firewire ports!
If so preceed to the procedure to get OS9 to BOOT!
If not....hell forget about it. Then it's just an OLD machine!!!
I desperately need a FW800 to boot OS9!!!
Step1: Look on the back of your powermac if you can find 3 firewire ports!
If so preceed to the procedure to get OS9 to BOOT!
If not....hell forget about it. Then it's just an OLD machine!!!
I desperately need a FW800 to boot OS9!!!
*allow* us OS9
all this debate about which OS is better misses the point. i still need to use OS9 because of the software i'm using: some of it doesn't exist in OSX, and i can't afford to re-buy/upgrade all of the rest of it for a long time. and no, running it "inside" OSX won't work.
i'm specifically referring to Pro Tools, other audio apps, and lots of RTAS plugins.
OS9 works fine. sure, some things could be better. but IT WORKS. in the abstract, i think OSX is going to be great. for now, i have some music to work on, and my system works.
so my dilemma: i want a new laptop. i'd like to get into using OSX, actually. but i also need to be able to boot in OS9 sometimes so my old apps will work properly, until they're all rewritten *AND* i can re-afford them.
and this underlines a big problem with some of apple's new "strategies". they are too big-brother, too one-size-fits-all. Apple needs to keep things OPEN so that their computers can (ideally) be all things to all types of people. they don't have to make booting into 9 easy or common, but they shouldn't cripple it. their decision to disallow DVD+R burning reeks of the same attitude.
my advice to apple it: sure, keep things simple for the masses, but don't disallow those who have more advanced needs the flexibility to do things differently. Macs have had a (mostly unfair) rep as inflexible and not suited for experts or tinkerers. don't reinforce that!
let us "think different". please.
as it stands now, i will unfortunately be looking for a used PB rather than getting one of the new ones.
all this debate about which OS is better misses the point. i still need to use OS9 because of the software i'm using: some of it doesn't exist in OSX, and i can't afford to re-buy/upgrade all of the rest of it for a long time. and no, running it "inside" OSX won't work.
i'm specifically referring to Pro Tools, other audio apps, and lots of RTAS plugins.
OS9 works fine. sure, some things could be better. but IT WORKS. in the abstract, i think OSX is going to be great. for now, i have some music to work on, and my system works.
so my dilemma: i want a new laptop. i'd like to get into using OSX, actually. but i also need to be able to boot in OS9 sometimes so my old apps will work properly, until they're all rewritten *AND* i can re-afford them.
and this underlines a big problem with some of apple's new "strategies". they are too big-brother, too one-size-fits-all. Apple needs to keep things OPEN so that their computers can (ideally) be all things to all types of people. they don't have to make booting into 9 easy or common, but they shouldn't cripple it. their decision to disallow DVD+R burning reeks of the same attitude.
my advice to apple it: sure, keep things simple for the masses, but don't disallow those who have more advanced needs the flexibility to do things differently. Macs have had a (mostly unfair) rep as inflexible and not suited for experts or tinkerers. don't reinforce that!
let us "think different". please.
as it stands now, i will unfortunately be looking for a used PB rather than getting one of the new ones.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
ijon is right again,os 9 does suck, yes i had those crashes too, OSX rules, i have removed all traces of os9 and never want to see it on my mac again.os9 is obsolete and who the hell would want to run this on a new machine? Do what i did and drag the whole thing to the trash!if you need 9 keep your old machine and its software. TIME FOR FLAMES!😱
john123
macrumors 68030
No friction, you're not wrong.
I think the fella before you just doesn't know how to use OS 9. Like folks during McCarthyism, and like folks during the Boston witch trials, and like folks during the Spanish Inquisition...many are afraid of what they do not know or do not understand.
I think the fella before you just doesn't know how to use OS 9. Like folks during McCarthyism, and like folks during the Boston witch trials, and like folks during the Spanish Inquisition...many are afraid of what they do not know or do not understand.
NicoMan
macrumors 6502a
That's exactly my point, but the other way round. Your preference of OS9 notwithstanding, you know perfectly well that (on the Mac) evolution will have you adapt to OSX and not me adapt to OS9. I sincerely hope that Apple will do all they can to contend their loyal (pre-OSX) user base to make it an easier transition, but I also hope that the loyal Apple followers will see their interest in looking for ways to adapt as opposed to moving to the WinTel platform... you know it makes sense.
NicoMan
NicoMan
macrumors 6502a
Re: *allow* us OS9
NicoMan
Hmm I am not so sure about that. I think that Apple is supporting the DVD-R standard but at the same time they are realizing that there are some heavyweights supporting DVD+R (like Microsoft). So they are waiting to see what's happening in the battle of the standards: if DVD+R gets the upper hand, they can always come out with a software upgrade to make DVD+R a reality on their drives (I am talking about those Sony drives obviously). But for the moment, the party line is still DVD-R and for a good reason because that's the standard that insures compatibility with consumer DVD players and we all know that this is a consumer technology for Apple...
NicoMan
From Asian branch of Inquisiton Court
I cannot agree more to NicoMan who says
----
Your preference of OS9 notwithstanding, you know perfectly well that (on the Mac) evolution will have you adapt to OSX and not me adapt to OS9.
----
It is not the matter of "which OS is better or faster" at this particular point. You cannot reverse the trend even if OS9ers take over Apple.
But I would sugget a possible amicable solution. How about somebody among die-hard OS9 sectarians develop "Virtual OS9"? Nothing like current "classic", but something similar to VirtualPC; a Window in which you have full OS9 environment with full access to all ports and peripherals. Yes, it would be sllow because of its nature as an emulator. But think about running it on PC970 machines and beyond! I am sure there is no lack of programming skill among you, and no doubt what so ever about passion among you..
You will have the OS9 as long as OSX is there. ( And as long as there is no third party who comes in to buy up that "VirtualOS9" and let it rot..)
I cannot agree more to NicoMan who says
----
Your preference of OS9 notwithstanding, you know perfectly well that (on the Mac) evolution will have you adapt to OSX and not me adapt to OS9.
----
It is not the matter of "which OS is better or faster" at this particular point. You cannot reverse the trend even if OS9ers take over Apple.
But I would sugget a possible amicable solution. How about somebody among die-hard OS9 sectarians develop "Virtual OS9"? Nothing like current "classic", but something similar to VirtualPC; a Window in which you have full OS9 environment with full access to all ports and peripherals. Yes, it would be sllow because of its nature as an emulator. But think about running it on PC970 machines and beyond! I am sure there is no lack of programming skill among you, and no doubt what so ever about passion among you..
You will have the OS9 as long as OSX is there. ( And as long as there is no third party who comes in to buy up that "VirtualOS9" and let it rot..)
ummmm . . .
Um, OS9 is a great OS. I still use it regularly because apple's OSX drivers DONT WORK 🙂mad: ) with my Apple LW Personal. Ummmmmm . . . this pisses me off 😕 . But maybe its because I only have 10.15. Well, I would still need OS9 anyway for Cubase .🙄 I don't understand why the switch to 10.2 has to be so expensive???
Um, OS9 is a great OS. I still use it regularly because apple's OSX drivers DONT WORK 🙂mad: ) with my Apple LW Personal. Ummmmmm . . . this pisses me off 😕 . But maybe its because I only have 10.15. Well, I would still need OS9 anyway for Cubase .🙄 I don't understand why the switch to 10.2 has to be so expensive???
Re: ummmm . . .
One reason for killing OS 9 booting, beyond having to keep writing hooks to new hardware to something they don't want to waste payroll hours on, is to be able to provide that same clear path for developers to move to carbon and cocoa. Some developers would rather drop the mac altogether than develop for X. It's a chicken and egg problem.
Which is a shame for those running expensive music or publishing apps dependant on plug ins that might not ever be rewritten by the original authors.
I use OS X, but haven't bought office x, (which makes MS whine), because I had just bought office 2001. I haven't bought early adopters like Photoshop and Illustrator yet... Acrobat Distiller functionality still on the classic side. Hell I may not buy any OS X megabuck apps until I have new hardware, and I may not get new hardware until they dump motorola. There are a lot of reasons for dragging feet, some are lamer than others.
I will fill better about investing in the software when more is settled on the OS X side. I don't think a lot of peripheral drivers are there yet, but they may get there faster if there was not os 9 lingering about. So good riddance to 9.
If you still need 9 that badly, you probably have a mac around that boots into it.
One reason for killing OS 9 booting, beyond having to keep writing hooks to new hardware to something they don't want to waste payroll hours on, is to be able to provide that same clear path for developers to move to carbon and cocoa. Some developers would rather drop the mac altogether than develop for X. It's a chicken and egg problem.
Which is a shame for those running expensive music or publishing apps dependant on plug ins that might not ever be rewritten by the original authors.
I use OS X, but haven't bought office x, (which makes MS whine), because I had just bought office 2001. I haven't bought early adopters like Photoshop and Illustrator yet... Acrobat Distiller functionality still on the classic side. Hell I may not buy any OS X megabuck apps until I have new hardware, and I may not get new hardware until they dump motorola. There are a lot of reasons for dragging feet, some are lamer than others.
I will fill better about investing in the software when more is settled on the OS X side. I don't think a lot of peripheral drivers are there yet, but they may get there faster if there was not os 9 lingering about. So good riddance to 9.
If you still need 9 that badly, you probably have a mac around that boots into it.
Solution
Personally, I strongly prefer OS X. But like others, I use OS 9 often for one specific program that is only written for OS 9.
Anyway, no need to argue which is better, as they each have their strengths, and both sides have been well debated already.
The point of my post rather, is to offer a suggestion for those of you who want the benefit of the new hardware and faster processors, but are concerned about the inability of the latest machines to boot into OS 9...
...the solution for your concerns can be found here -> http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/pfdualg4133/index.html
These upgrades offer performance equal to, and in some cases superior to the latest machines (thanks to a larger L3 cache), are OS 9 compatible, and best of all, are cheaper than buying a new machine. I can't believe no one has suggested this option !
Bluetooth, Firewire 800 and such are great, but you don't really need them right now, and can potentially be added later via other upgrade cards. Why buy a new machine that can't boot into your OS of choice, when you can get one of these slick processor upgrades and max out your RAM for a fraction of the cost ?
Powerlogix just lowered their prices too. On the high end, get a Dual 1.2 GHz PPC 7455 w/ a 2MB L3 cache for $1099, or if you're on a budget, get an single 800 MHz PPC 7455 w/ a 2MB L3 cache for only $329 !
Sounds like a perfect upgrade solution to me, while we await the arrival of the next gen Macs based on the IBM PowerPC 970.
(No, I don't work for Powerlogix) 😉
On a last note, OS X kicks ass, and is only going to get better. 9.2 is great, but face it, it's dead as far as Apple's concerned, and there's not much you can do about it. Use OS 9 when it suits your purpose, but it's better to embrace OS X sooner, rather than later, IMO.
Personally, I strongly prefer OS X. But like others, I use OS 9 often for one specific program that is only written for OS 9.
Anyway, no need to argue which is better, as they each have their strengths, and both sides have been well debated already.
The point of my post rather, is to offer a suggestion for those of you who want the benefit of the new hardware and faster processors, but are concerned about the inability of the latest machines to boot into OS 9...
...the solution for your concerns can be found here -> http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/pfdualg4133/index.html
These upgrades offer performance equal to, and in some cases superior to the latest machines (thanks to a larger L3 cache), are OS 9 compatible, and best of all, are cheaper than buying a new machine. I can't believe no one has suggested this option !
Bluetooth, Firewire 800 and such are great, but you don't really need them right now, and can potentially be added later via other upgrade cards. Why buy a new machine that can't boot into your OS of choice, when you can get one of these slick processor upgrades and max out your RAM for a fraction of the cost ?
Powerlogix just lowered their prices too. On the high end, get a Dual 1.2 GHz PPC 7455 w/ a 2MB L3 cache for $1099, or if you're on a budget, get an single 800 MHz PPC 7455 w/ a 2MB L3 cache for only $329 !
Sounds like a perfect upgrade solution to me, while we await the arrival of the next gen Macs based on the IBM PowerPC 970.
(No, I don't work for Powerlogix) 😉
On a last note, OS X kicks ass, and is only going to get better. 9.2 is great, but face it, it's dead as far as Apple's concerned, and there's not much you can do about it. Use OS 9 when it suits your purpose, but it's better to embrace OS X sooner, rather than later, IMO.
Re: Solution
Because historically the third party CPU upgrades have been a ratsnest of compatibility problems, in OS 9 and X, on the software, hardware and OS level. My particular sawtooth motherboard for example, has a earlier chip that does not recognize dual processing in any form.
Similarly, one could ask, what are the situations where classic within OS X are just not cutting it for people, and booting is necessary?
I know that, at least for a while, if I wanted my classic apps to recognize their third party plug ins, I would have to boot OS 9. I actually use OS 9.1 as my Classic for similar reasons.
Because historically the third party CPU upgrades have been a ratsnest of compatibility problems, in OS 9 and X, on the software, hardware and OS level. My particular sawtooth motherboard for example, has a earlier chip that does not recognize dual processing in any form.
Similarly, one could ask, what are the situations where classic within OS X are just not cutting it for people, and booting is necessary?
I know that, at least for a while, if I wanted my classic apps to recognize their third party plug ins, I would have to boot OS 9. I actually use OS 9.1 as my Classic for similar reasons.
the other problem with just getting a CPU upgrade is that it doesnt address other speed issues like faster RAM, faster Buses, Faster Drives etc.
None of the ones ive seen have been owrth the cost when you weigh up that and compatibity issues.
Ive got a G4/450 tower at home, and at some point i shall be buying a new one, but as i have no real need yet (i bought an ibook 700 12.1" screen and i use that ALOT more, but i would have bought a powerbook if id have known now the use i get from it), but when the time comes i will. If for nothing else, then for AGPx4 (or whatever it is) for UT2003. but by then there will probably be G5s out ;-).
we're just about to buy an OS9 bootable dual 1.25ghz at work. We have just started putting X on some machines, but we arent happy enough yet to commit to purely X bootable macs (due mainly to quark). Ive had X on my work mac for about 2 weeks now doing quark stuff with no major issues.
None of the ones ive seen have been owrth the cost when you weigh up that and compatibity issues.
Ive got a G4/450 tower at home, and at some point i shall be buying a new one, but as i have no real need yet (i bought an ibook 700 12.1" screen and i use that ALOT more, but i would have bought a powerbook if id have known now the use i get from it), but when the time comes i will. If for nothing else, then for AGPx4 (or whatever it is) for UT2003. but by then there will probably be G5s out ;-).
we're just about to buy an OS9 bootable dual 1.25ghz at work. We have just started putting X on some machines, but we arent happy enough yet to commit to purely X bootable macs (due mainly to quark). Ive had X on my work mac for about 2 weeks now doing quark stuff with no major issues.
Quark
Thank Quark for holding back so many people.. Im glad to see Adobe get the jump on them and release a product that many are finding to be better anyway. Adobe rocks.
Thank Quark for holding back so many people.. Im glad to see Adobe get the jump on them and release a product that many are finding to be better anyway. Adobe rocks.
all the os's that apple has made are great.. ofcourse some fit differently the finger, but at the end, we all fell in love with apple during the clasic stage... a few newer fell in love during the present X stage...
of course I love X and use it... but used 9 and loved it too... X is better for me and that's it... for someone else in a different forum, Linux blows up the skirt but, that is the magic of Mac and cmputing in general...
I do hate the not allowing to boot into 9 in the newer machines... but not cause it would affect me, but because it takes away a little of the freedom in choice I have... but if I do choose to buy a newer mac, I'll be choosing X so I really don't see much the hassle in it...
Meanwhile, I can¡t wait to see what happens in the future with X... if now I love it and feel it's great... imagine in a few more years....
G.-
of course I love X and use it... but used 9 and loved it too... X is better for me and that's it... for someone else in a different forum, Linux blows up the skirt but, that is the magic of Mac and cmputing in general...
I do hate the not allowing to boot into 9 in the newer machines... but not cause it would affect me, but because it takes away a little of the freedom in choice I have... but if I do choose to buy a newer mac, I'll be choosing X so I really don't see much the hassle in it...
Meanwhile, I can¡t wait to see what happens in the future with X... if now I love it and feel it's great... imagine in a few more years....
G.-
UnixMac
macrumors 6502
OS X is in its infancy compared with a mature OS like 9, which really started back in the day.. Wait till the PPC970 at 2.5GHz is sitting in that Dual Processor Tower instead of that 1/2 speed moto, and with a 10.3 that will be even more advanced and refined than 10.2
M$ look out.... Apple is right on you tail..
M$ look out.... Apple is right on you tail..
Don't want to rain on your parade, but keep in mind that the reason OS X may be seeming to come to fruition fairly fast is because NextStep has been around since the motorola 68040 processor or earlier. And that slow gestation period for Copland itself in which BeOs went from cradle to grave probably didn't hurt matters either.