Get this (About OS X Jag.)

[slooksterPSV]

I take my computer into my Web Design class to get it fixed. (We use Macs in there and it was my Powerbook) I asked the teacher if he had TechTools, he did, and I asked if I could use it to fix my Powerbook and so he let me. Well the person who had the CD's, Josh, came in and that and I got the CD from him. Well, he starts asking me why I installed OS X, and why I didn't just leave OS 9.2 on there. I simply told him that OS X runs so much faster. He tried telling me that OS 9.2 should run faster than OS X. Ok, now the same situation with my AMD. It had Win98 on it and it ran so slow, couldn't even listen to CD's, and the AMD was 1100MHz yes thats right 1.10 GHz. Well, I installed XP and it made everything so much faster. OS X Jaggy runs so much faster than 9.2 ever did. I run videos with a 10% increase of speed. I open Applications at 2% increase and I can listen to Audio and traverse the internet at the same time. Anyways, thats my little spiel

 

[Macs R Us]

Yeah, you are right OS X will run faster the 9.2.X... Its a no brainer... However I can't say for sure on the PC, as I dislike PCs and never use them unless I'm to help someone... AND I DISLIKE XP too... But, that just what I think...

 

[mms]

I run videos with a 10% increase of speed. I open Applications at 2% increase

Yes, in my experience OS X can run faster but I'm not aware that there's a way of measuring such increases of speed such as opening folders. Especially that 2% figure sounds pretty dubious to me. How did you come up with this.

 

[slooksterPSV]

Stopwatch, I timed it before just to see what kind of things changed with OS 10

 

[Makosuke]

Although it's not technically wrong to say that OS9 is "faster" (in that simple tasks respond more quickly) than X under most circumstances (OS9 has less overhead), I find it honestly amusing that anybody in 2004 would be recommending OS9 over OSX on anything but MAYBE a G3 under 300MHz, in which case OS9 is reasonably snappy and OSX is pretty pokey doing anything but the basics.

Of course, I'd still take OSX (Panther, anyway) since it wouldn't crash on me every time Netscape decided to have a coronary and I'd prefer access to more modern browsers than 9 provides and niceties like iPhoto.

How could anybody who claims to be studying Web Design be using OS9, anyway? Can't test under Mozilla newer than 1.21, Opera past 6.03, or Safari at all. Hello?

 

[Billicus]

Although it's not technically wrong to say that OS9 is "faster" (in that simple tasks respond more quickly) than X under most circumstances (OS9 has less overhead), I find it honestly amusing that anybody in 2004 would be recommending OS9 over OSX on anything but MAYBE a G3 under 300MHz, in which case OS9 is reasonably snappy and OSX is pretty pokey doing anything but the basics.

Of course, I'd still take OSX (Panther, anyway) since it wouldn't crash on me every time Netscape decided to have a coronary and I'd prefer access to more modern browsers than 9 provides and niceties like iPhoto.

How could anybody who claims to be studying Web Design be using OS9, anyway? Can't test under Mozilla newer than 1.21, Opera past 6.03, or Safari at all. Hello?

He does have a G3 PowerBook Wallstreet...

 

[Empathy]

I gotta say, OS 9 is _noticeably_ faster than Jaguar on my G4 AGP 450... So I'm buying a 1.4GHz processor upgrade!

 

[Col. Panic]

As soon as my company gets QuarkXPress 6 I'll never open OS 9 or classic again. The only thing I miss is the consistency in the interface. But that's another discussion.

 

[Littleodie914]

Hmm... Using stopwatch to determine a 2% decrease in application load time isn't that accurate, if you ask me. Many OS 9 programs that you're running on OS X have most likely been re-written in Cocoa or Carbon... (Those are the right two C-words, aren't they?) And when you say you can listen to audio and traverse the internet at the same time, what exactly do you mean? Are you implying that your internet connection is smoother, and you can listen to streaming music while surfing the web? Or just normal iTunes jams? I can say from experience though that OS 9 does seem pretty snappy on my old clamshell, but any machine over that speed seems to run Panther much more happily.

 

[Blue Velvet]

As soon as my company gets QuarkXPress 6 I'll never open OS 9 or classic again.

Ha! That's what we said...

Until we had to supply some ver4 templates to a freelancer.
We have Quark 5 and 6 on all our work machines because Quark 6 will not save down to ver 4 files.

Furthermore, only 1 of our core 6 printing firms will take Quark 6 files because most of them are still running OS9.

Quark 6.1 is rubbish (particularly PDFs in & out), best wait till 6.5 comes out in a few weeks.

 

[Col. Panic]

Ha! That's what we said...

Until we had to supply some ver4 templates to a freelancer.
We have Quark 5 and 6 on all our work machines because Quark 6 will not save down to ver 4 files.

Furthermore, only 1 of our core 6 printing firms will take Quark 6 files because most of them are still running OS9.

Quark 6.1 is rubbish (particularly PDFs in & out), best wait till 6.5 comes out in a few weeks.

Couldn't quite convince the shop to switch to InDesign and saw no point in upgrading to XPress 5. So now it the wait for XPress 6 which we probably won't get until the end of this quater or the beginnig of the next which means XPress 6.5, probably.

With the state of the printing industry these days I am suprised your printers won't take whatever files you give them. They should cater to you not you to them. When I was making the case for the switch to ID I spoke with all our printers and they all said "you just give us the files. we'll make it work". We've even had to print some stuff from PowerPoint. No, no . . . don't laugh! It's true.

 

[slooksterPSV]

Hmm... Using stopwatch to determine a 2% decrease in application load time isn't that accurate, if you ask me. Many OS 9 programs that you're running on OS X have most likely been re-written in Cocoa or Carbon... (Those are the right two C-words, aren't they?) And when you say you can listen to audio and traverse the internet at the same time, what exactly do you mean? Are you implying that your internet connection is smoother, and you can listen to streaming music while surfing the web? Or just normal iTunes jams? I can say from experience though that OS 9 does seem pretty snappy on my old clamshell, but any machine over that speed seems to run Panther much more happily.

The CD will start skipping over areas because the processor isn't allowing it to truely multi-task. So I'm going on the internet and listening to a CD the internet needs the CPU so the music will just stop playing and then continue when it has enough speed to play. Make sense?

 

[7on]

What's all this Quark talk? InDesign all the way! Honestly as long as you send the Printer a PDF all should be peachy. Output to PS, Distill, check in Acrobat is usually my route.