Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2aw

Suspended
Original poster
Apr 27, 2023
58
22
MR.png


I found MacOS 9 is underwhelming, the GUI is very primitive, and slow (it could be QEMU or UTM's fault, although I doubt a spinning HDD on a real Mac would be any faster).

It made me feel I shouldn't buy an iMac G3 or an iMac G4 or an eMac.

I installed Classilla, still many websites do not work.
I installed Office, Word was very primitive looking, but usable.

One big problem is that I havn't found a way to transfer word files between MacOS 9 and MacOS 11, does anyone know how to do that with QEMU & UTM?

With QEMU & UTM, there were some start up bugs with the audio and restarting the virtual machine.

With the above being said, can you all tell me tips to make MacOS 9 run better?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Malus120

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,807
12,223
I found MacOS 9 is underwhelming, the GUI is very primitive, and slow (it could be QEMU or UTM's fault, although I doubt a spinning HDD on a real Mac would be any faster).
I installed Office, Word was very primitive looking, but usable.
The "primitive" GUI is typical for a late-1990's OS and applications. It's not like e.g. Windows 98 or a 1999 Linux distro has a much "better" GUI OOTB, although it's all subjective. The GUI being slow could well be due to QEMU not providing 2D acceleration. Mac OS 8.6's GUI is very fast on my 400 MHz G4 with an ATI Rage 128 Pro and a spinning (7200rpm) hard drive BTW.

It made me feel I shouldn't buy an iMac G3 or an iMac G4 or an eMac.
Don't use an emulator to judge performance of OS 9 on a real machine. Honest answer, please: What would you use it for? If you don't have a genuine use (such as period-correct applications or games) for a Mac running OS 9, don't buy one. Don't even think about browsing the web on OS 9.

I installed Classilla, still many websites do not work.
Classilla is abandoned and outdated. It's less capable than TenFourFox.

With the above being said, can you all tell me tips to make MacOS 9 run better?
Run it on a real, fast G4 Mac, such as a Mac mini, which makes a surprisingly good little OS 9 box (unofficially, but who cares?).
 
Last edited:

Doq

macrumors 6502a
Dec 8, 2019
543
807
The Lab DX
Hmm... OS 9 still works pretty good on my eMac.
That makes two of us.

Plus my two Titaniums (Vittorio, Littorio) run OS 9 very well.

It'll scream on a G4 mini but I don't have one of those (yet, stay tuned).

the GUI is very primitive
There are many, many tools and extensions out there to build out your ideal Classic Mac experience. If you like the Dock in OS X and macOS after, A-Dock is your best friend and is an essential piece for my personal OS 9 installs.

I havn't found a way to transfer word files between MacOS 9 and MacOS 11, does anyone know how to do that with QEMU & UTM?
If you have network configured you can use DAVE to connect to a file share on your host, though you may need a bridge machine to get it fully across as as far as I know, DAVE only has SMBv1 support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

repairedCheese

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2020
632
835
View attachment 2204919

I found MacOS 9 is underwhelming, the GUI is very primitive, and slow (it could be QEMU or UTM's fault, although I doubt a spinning HDD on a real Mac would be any faster).

It made me feel I shouldn't buy an iMac G3 or an iMac G4 or an eMac.

I installed Classilla, still many websites do not work.
I installed Office, Word was very primitive looking, but usable.

One big problem is that I havn't found a way to transfer word files between MacOS 9 and MacOS 11, does anyone know how to do that with QEMU & UTM?

With QEMU & UTM, there were some start up bugs with the audio and restarting the virtual machine.

With the above being said, can you all tell me tips to make MacOS 9 run better?
As others have said, welcome to the 90s. There is no improving it. This is it. This is what you get. And transferring files between the current version of macOS and the old Mac OS usually involves something called a bridge machine, something that knows how to talk both SMB and their own proprietary AFP, used only by old versions of the operating system.

There are no better web browsers for OS 9. It's all primitive. Oh, and it's also very unstable compared to modern operating systems. It will crash, quite a bit.

That all said, QEMU is not a great way to run OS 9, SheepShaver runs much better. Sure, it only runs up to 9.0.4, but it does it much faster. It's also pretty unstable, unlike good old Basilisk II, but that only emulates 68k Macs up to OS 8.1. Also both of these emulators make it much easier to transfer files.
 

TheShortTimer

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2017
3,264
5,665
London, UK
View attachment 2204919

I found MacOS 9 is underwhelming, the GUI is very primitive...

@Amethyst1 has pretty much encapsulated the general consensus. What did you expect from a 24 year old operating system?

This, is what I was using at the time.

MS-DOS-8752.jpg


Note the absence of any GUI - now, that's primitive! :D

It made me feel I shouldn't buy an iMac G3 or an iMac G4 or an eMac.

You've been warned repeatedly that you're going to be disappointed by the performance of these machines and their software. Please do not buy any PPC Mac - they remain viable computers but they will not live up to your expectations. Ever.

I installed Office, Word was very primitive looking, but usable.

This stuff is decades old! It will inevitably look extremely primitive alongside the latest software.

This gave me a good laugh 😂

This thread initially gave me a hearty chuckle...

6fca5d83c868998e948feccdaf1e3727.png
 

startergo

macrumors 603
Sep 20, 2018
5,020
2,282
View attachment 2204919

I found MacOS 9 is underwhelming, the GUI is very primitive, and slow (it could be QEMU or UTM's fault, although I doubt a spinning HDD on a real Mac would be any faster).

It made me feel I shouldn't buy an iMac G3 or an iMac G4 or an eMac.

I installed Classilla, still many websites do not work.
I installed Office, Word was very primitive looking, but usable.

One big problem is that I havn't found a way to transfer word files between MacOS 9 and MacOS 11, does anyone know how to do that with QEMU & UTM?

With QEMU & UTM, there were some start up bugs with the audio and restarting the virtual machine.

With the above being said, can you all tell me tips to make MacOS 9 run better?
Try these settings.
 

Attachments

  • command.txt
    2.2 KB · Views: 133

2aw

Suspended
Original poster
Apr 27, 2023
58
22
I already deleted QEMU, it was too slow and there were no good programs to run and I couldn't transfer files back and forth between my main computer and MacOS 9.

I will stick to a modern OS like MacOS X and up, from this point on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

retta283

Suspended
Jun 8, 2018
3,180
3,482
I already deleted QEMU, it was too slow and there were no good programs to run and I couldn't transfer files back and forth between my main computer and MacOS 9.

I will stick to a modern OS like MacOS X and up, from this point on.
Dare I say that early versions of Mac OS X will not please you either. Your browser options will be just as poor before Tiger, and the UI is still rather different than a modern version (though not as markedly). I fear it may be a case of grasping at straws.
 

orionquest

Suspended
Mar 16, 2022
871
791
The Great White North
Dare I say that early versions of Mac OS X will not please you either. Your browser options will be just as poor before Tiger, and the UI is still rather different than a modern version (though not as markedly). I fear it may be a case of grasping at straws.
True, I never install OS X until 10.3 came out. I knew the prior version were still very rough just from reading reviews. They didn't even have list view in the Finder FFS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackoverfull

orionquest

Suspended
Mar 16, 2022
871
791
The Great White North
I already deleted QEMU, it was too slow and there were no good programs to run and I couldn't transfer files back and forth between my main computer and MacOS 9.

I will stick to a modern OS like MacOS X and up, from this point on.
Lol so no Part 4? or 5?

There is always sheepshaver... yeah stupid name but it also runs OS 9 on MacOS.
Here is a prebuilt system ready to go

I've used this to open some old files I had, which only worked with old OS 9 programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,807
12,223
[…] there were no good programs to run […]
There are many cool/interesting applications and fun games for the classic Mac OS… But they’re best experienced “the proper way”: on a real Mac. :)

I will stick to a modern OS like MacOS X and up, from this point on.
And stick to real hardware. OS X sucks even more in an emulator (or VM) than OS 9 does. The lack of graphics acceleration makes for a progressively worse experience the more recent you go.

It’s funny because I’ve been playing around with QEMU too. […] I have not been successful with Rhapsody or the Dev Previews.
I had DP2 and DP3 running in QEMU. I don’t remember if I tried DP4 or PB (I probably did), but Rhapsody and DP1 require extra work.
 
Last edited:

za9ra22

macrumors 65816
Sep 25, 2003
1,441
1,931
I already deleted QEMU, it was too slow and there were no good programs to run and I couldn't transfer files back and forth between my main computer and MacOS 9.

I will stick to a modern OS like MacOS X and up, from this point on.
I've never used QEMU because there are other platforms - Sheepshaver and Basilisk II specifically - which reputedly run more smoothly and offer easy file exchange with other systems. Basilisk is good for earlier versions of Mac OS (System 6-7) and Sheepshaver up to Mac OS 9.0.4 (I think)

I pretty much use 'classic Mac OS' for everything except internet/email, sometimes emulated but usually on vintage hardware such as a PowerBook 170 or Wallstreet/PDQ. There are several advantages, not least of which being that almost the entire range of software from that time is available for free, from a few repositories, so unless you need something 'mission critical' like the latest functions in Excel, you can get, and run, just about anything you are likely to need.

There's also the benefits of simplicity in classic Mac OS, where it is easier to focus on what you're doing, rather than on the demands of the system and constant notifications/feature creep/updates which are not exactly productive. Using Word 5 or 6 with its easy-access tools and features, versus doing battle with post-2007 versions with The Ribbon makes life a great deal easier, for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackoverfull

AphoticD

macrumors 68020
Feb 17, 2017
2,283
3,466
Yup, I used MacOS 8.6 when it was pretty recent and the Windows systems of the time were equally bad looking.
But we've come a long way since then and we're spoilt brats :)
macosboxhat.jpg
Yep, I pre-ordered this when it was brand spanking new :apple:

I always felt Mac OS 8.5 (and then 8.6) looked great. Somehow the slickest, "funnest" Mac OS in my nostalgic memory banks. Maybe it was playing Snood, Dirt Bike 3D and Nanosaur on the "5 Flavor" iMac G3s in the computer lab in high school that made this particular OS stand out for me... Either way, solid as a rock and quick to boot!

It's all relative, and yes, we are too spoilt. Humans are the worst :oops:
 

dandeco

macrumors 65816
Dec 5, 2008
1,252
1,049
Brockton, MA
I've also tried running Mac OS 9.2.2 on UTM on my M1 MacBook Air, and the VM starts out working fine until either it locks up or the sound goes dead at some point. I don't have this problem with my Windows XP VM on UTM...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.