Mac OS 9.3

[TSE]

If Mac OS X was never a thing, and you were head of Mac OS Classic development, what would you have done to take Mac OS 9 / Classic to the next level? What sort of features, UI changes, and under the hood improvements could have foreseeably furthered Classic Mac OS's shelf life?

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Maybe have it pay a little more attention to file extensions. That sometimes causes issues when I'm transferring files between computers. Also maybe (if possible) make the resource forks a little more robust so it's not as easy to accidentally discard them for users who aren't as experienced.

 

[bobesch]

Multitasking.
On my 400MHz G3 formatting an USB-attached floppy-disk brings the whole system to a halt until the job is done ...

 

[DearthnVader]

By the time I fixed everything broken or outdated in the Classic Mac OS, I'd end up with something that looked a whole lot like OS X.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Multitasking.
On my 400MHz G3 formatting an USB-attached floppy-disk brings the whole system to a halt until the job is done ...

I like the idea, but OS 9 actually does have multitasking already. It's just not preemptive multitasking like you're used to. It uses what is called cooperative multitasking. I like that about Mac OS 9. It encourages you to focus more on one thing due to how cooperative multitasking operates.

 

[TheIntruder]

By the time I fixed everything broken or outdated in the Classic Mac OS, I'd end up with something that looked a whole lot like OS X.

I don't really miss a whole lot from Classic OS except for the Finder (FTFF!).

On 10.14, I still run into instances where a folder will develop a corrupt DS_Store file and forget its window attributes.

And in the process of trying to recreate it, and getting the view settings to "stick" involves some black magic voodoo I seemingly still haven't mastered after all these years of OS X.

Otherwise, I don't miss Extension conflicts, the need for boot order managers, or bomb dialogs at all.

 

[eyoungren]

I like the idea, but OS 9 actually does have multitasking already. It's just not preemptive multitasking like you're used to. It uses what is called cooperative multitasking. I like that about Mac OS 9. It encourages you to focus more on one thing due to how cooperative multitasking operates.

I think the graphic design world would probably disagree with you here. The ability to do other things while you have something else going on in the background means you can be more productive.

Adobe is explicitly aware of this, which is why you can send print jobs or PDF jobs out and continue working. Otherwise, you'd have to wait. A problem if a customer is waiting for that proof or the printer is expecting the PDF.

Of course, everyone's uses for the OS are different but I'm just making a counter argument.

 

[TSE]

Maybe have it pay a little more attention to file extensions. That sometimes causes issues when I'm transferring files between computers. Also maybe (if possible) make the resource forks a little more robust so it's not as easy to accidentally discard them for users who aren't as experienced.

Could you let me know how these differ in laymen's terms?

And also, so, in Mac OS 7 for example, you couldn't run two apps at the same time? It's been awhile since I busted out my Mac Clone, but I seem to remember you could, it just was very, very slow.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

I think the graphic design world would probably disagree with you here. The ability to do other things while you have something else going on in the background means you can be more productive.

Adobe is explicitly aware of this, which is why you can send print jobs or PDF jobs out and continue working. Otherwise, you'd have to wait. A problem if a customer is waiting for that proof or the printer is expecting the PDF.

Of course, everyone's uses for the OS are different but I'm just making a counter argument.

That's a fair point, I wasn't thinking of that

Could you let me know how these differ in laymen's terms?

And also, so, in Mac OS 7 for example, you couldn't run two apps at the same time? It's been awhile since I busted out my Mac Clone, but I seem to remember you could, it just was very, very slow.

You are correct that you can but they would run very slowly. The file extensions don't matter in OS 9. Instead the OS and applications look for the file type and creator codes. If those aren't set correctly, you can't open the file. Due to this, OS 9 somewhat ignores file extensions and therefore doesn't always append them (or appends the incorrect extension, a .mov extension on what should be a .dv file for instance). Sometimes I struggle with getting these to work because of something OS 9 is expecting and that isn't there or alternatively that OS 9 has done that other OSes don't know how to deal with.

In terms of resource forks, it is incredibly easy for them to get discarded. If you copy a file to a drive formatted in a format that doesn't support resource forks (FAT32 for example), the forks will get discarded. This creates issues later on. You can also run into issues zipping files and extracting them, which can discard resource forks. It would be nice to have resource forks be a little more persistent, even if they are plonked on a volume that doesn't support them (if that's even possible, like maybe including a little checker that will split the resource fork off into a binary file or something if a situation is detected that would otherwise discard the resource fork). There are ways around this (MacBinary/BinHex encoding), but not everyone can do that easily.

 

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

To be completely honest, I absolutely loved OSX when it came out. I just wished it was faster and snappier (at the time).

 

[DearthnVader]

Long live the Nono-kernel we used it from 1984-2000, so what 16 years?

It just became an unusable codebase.

Copland was your basic idea of making the Mac OS last without ditching the classic feel, and that was an utter failure that some parts of found their way into OS 8 and persisted through 9.2.2.

Apple moved to a Unix complaint BSD kernel in 2000-20xx, so 20 years and running.

The only reasons to use the Classic Mac OS are legacy hardware, or pure nostalgia, both are valid reason to use it, however when it comes to which is "better", hands down it's the mach_kernel.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Long live the Nono-kernel we used it from 1984-2000, so what 16 years?

It just became an unusable codebase.

Copland was your basic idea of making the Mac OS last without ditching the classic feel, and that was an utter failure that some parts of found their way into OS 8 and persisted through 9.2.2.

Apple moved to a Unix complaint BSD kernel in 2000-20xx, so 20 years and running.

The only reasons to use the Classic Mac OS are legacy hardware, or pure nostalgia, both are valid reason to use it, however when it comes to which is "better", hands down it's the mach_kernel.

It would be fun to have a version of Mac OS that uses mach_kernel but has the light interface of the Classic Mac OS. Sort of like Rhapsody or similar but updated.

 

[eyoungren]

You are correct that you can but they would run very slowly. The file extensions don't matter in OS 9. Instead the OS and applications look for the file type and creator codes. If those aren't set correctly, you can't open the file. Due to this, OS 9 somewhat ignores file extensions and therefore doesn't always append them (or appends the incorrect extension, a .mov extension on what should be a .dv file for instance). Sometimes I struggle with getting these to work because of something OS 9 is expecting and that isn't there or alternatively that OS 9 has done that other OSes don't know how to deal with.

In terms of resource forks, it is incredibly easy for them to get discarded. If you copy a file to a drive formatted in a format that doesn't support resource forks (FAT32 for example), the forks will get discarded. This creates issues later on. You can also run into issues zipping files and extracting them, which can discard resource forks. It would be nice to have resource forks be a little more persistent, even if they are plonked on a volume that doesn't support them (if that's even possible, like maybe including a little checker that will split the resource fork off into a binary file or something if a situation is detected that would otherwise discard the resource fork). There are ways around this (MacBinary/BinHex encoding), but not everyone can do that easily.

I particularly love (not) when OS9 uses .tiff or .jpeg for file extensions. That's pretty much worthless cross platform because Windows ignores four character extensions. Now, not only do you have a misnamed file you actually have to go fix it.

Apple going it's own way when it came to file extensions. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[AphoticD]

It would be fun to have a version of Mac OS that uses mach_kernel but has the light interface of the Classic Mac OS. Sort of like Rhapsody or similar but updated.

Mac OS X DP2 did just that!

Post Your "About This Mac" Screenshots (PowerPC)!

My Mac Mini G4

forums.macrumors.com

Thinking about how Mac OS 9 could have grown into a more solid contender...

1. A command line interface.
AppleScript is cool, but doing something simple like a `cat *.txt > combined.txt` was just not easy in the old OS. I know A/UX existed, but I was never able to make it useful for me.

2. Improved Network File sharing
File sharing was slow and unstable at the best of times. I remember setting up a local Hotline server on my home network just for the sake of faster file transfers because connecting over AppleTalk / File Sharing was just downright slow and would bug out if you tried doing anything else. At least with Hotline, I could keep on working while larger transfers processed in the background and it was simple to resume if a transfer failed.

3. Better App Switching
I always had my application menu torn off into the little floating window, but that was a bit of a weak solution compared to something like the OS X dock or a Windows taskbar.

4. A Task Manager
Process overview / CPU usage and background tasks. Hardware monitoring in general would have been nice. But that went against the philosophy of the Mac - the user shouldn't need to consider the hardware, which should just get out of the way and allow you to work productively.

This all comes from years of OS X and Linux use, so if I hadn't have gone down that path, I probably wouldn't really need or want these things.

Some aspects of OS 9 were really great though. The economic use of screen real estate (even more so with System 7) allowed smaller screens (even 640x480 res) to display quite a decent amount of information. Widgets were tight and every pixel counted.

I loved the classic Finder and it's one-to-one "Spatial" approach where a file was a file and a folder could only ever be represented by one window. Anyone interested in the classic spatial UI/UX, I would recommend you read this wonderful Ars Technica article by John Siracusa (2003).

The Finder was a great place for customization, allowing an average user to go deep into the rabbit's hole with custom icons and file / window positioning, which was all stored in that invisible and rather fragile Resource fork.

I always like the idea of the tabbed windows and would be happy to see this feature return to macOS at some stage.



(@TSE great thread topic!)

 

[Amethyst1]

Mac OS X DP2 did just that!

Thinking about it, how much of an update was DP2 compared to Server 1.0 (Rhapsody 5.3)? It did have a newer Mach kernel version IIRC, but the UI was pretty much the same wasn't it?

Some aspects of OS 9 were really great though. The economic use of screen real estate (even more so with System 7) allowed smaller screens (even 640x480 res) to display quite a decent amount of information. Widgets were tight and every pixel counted.

This was presumably due to compact Macs only having a 512×342 default res. There I go thinking 640×480 is tiny.
[automerge]1585646846[/automerge]

[...] OS 9 actually does have multitasking already. It's just not preemptive multitasking like you're used to. It uses what is called cooperative multitasking. [...] It encourages you to focus more on one thing due to how cooperative multitasking operates.

...and unfortunately also allows one rogue application to bring the system to its knees. No thanks. The main reason I switched to Windows NT on my PC back in the mid-1990s was that it had preemptive multitasking.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

I particularly love (not) when OS9 uses .tiff or .jpeg for file extensions. That's pretty much worthless cross platform because Windows ignores four character extensions. Now, not only do you have a misnamed file you actually have to go fix it.

Apple going it's own way when it came to file extensions. Thanks but no thanks.

Ah, yes. That's the best. /s

Mac OS X DP2 did just that!

Post Your "About This Mac" Screenshots (PowerPC)!

My Mac Mini G4

forums.macrumors.com

Thinking about how Mac OS 9 could have grown into a more solid contender...

1. A command line interface.
AppleScript is cool, but doing something simple like a `cat *.txt > combined.txt` was just not easy in the old OS. I know A/UX existed, but I was never able to make it useful for me.

2. Improved Network File sharing
File sharing was slow and unstable at the best of times. I remember setting up a local Hotline server on my home network just for the sake of faster file transfers because connecting over AppleTalk / File Sharing was just downright slow and would bug out if you tried doing anything else. At least with Hotline, I could keep on working while larger transfers processed in the background and it was simple to resume if a transfer failed.

3. Better App Switching
I always had my application menu torn off into the little floating window, but that was a bit of a weak solution compared to something like the OS X dock or a Windows taskbar.

4. A Task Manager
Process overview / CPU usage and background tasks. Hardware monitoring in general would have been nice. But that went against the philosophy of the Mac - the user shouldn't need to consider the hardware, which should just get out of the way and allow you to work productively.

This all comes from years of OS X and Linux use, so if I hadn't have gone down that path, I probably wouldn't really need or want these things.

Some aspects of OS 9 were really great though. The economic use of screen real estate (even more so with System 7) allowed smaller screens (even 640x480 res) to display quite a decent amount of information. Widgets were tight and every pixel counted.

I loved the classic Finder and it's one-to-one "Spatial" approach where a file was a file and a folder could only ever be represented by one window. Anyone interested in the classic spatial UI/UX, I would recommend you read this wonderful Ars Technica article by John Siracusa (2003).

The Finder was a great place for customization, allowing an average user to go deep into the rabbit's hole with custom icons and file / window positioning, which was all stored in that invisible and rather fragile Resource fork.

I always like the idea of the tabbed windows and would be happy to see this feature return to macOS at some stage.



(@TSE great thread topic!)

Hmmm... I wonder how hard it would be to take DP2 and place it on top of a modern version of the Mac OS kernel?

...and unfortunately also allows one rogue application to bring the system to its knees. No thanks. The main reason I switched to Windows NT on my PC back in the mid-1990s was that it had preemptive multitasking.

I love OS 9, but you can't take a screenshot while video is playing xD

 

[eyoungren]

The Finder was a great place for customization, allowing an average user to go deep into the rabbit's hole with custom icons and file / window positioning, which was all stored in that invisible and rather fragile Resource fork.

I always like the idea of the tabbed windows and would be happy to see this feature return to macOS at some stage.

I mourned the death of Kaleidoscope and all the work done by Arlo Rose and I had totally forgotten about tabbed windows (as popups). One feature OS X has yet to bring back.

 

[Amethyst1]

Hmmm... I wonder how hard it would be to take DP2 and place it on top of a modern version of the Mac OS kernel?

Here's Rhapsody 5.1 running on top of the Darwin 0.1 kernel on x86:

https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2017/04/22/darwin-0-1-rhapsody-dr-2-booted/

Speaking of DP2, it can be run in QEMU (on x86 hosts). I wonder if it's possible to virtualise it on a PPC host.
[automerge]1585683234[/automerge]

This was presumably due to compact Macs only having a 512×342 default res. There I go thinking 640×480 is tiny.

It's just now occurred to me that 512×342 has a 3:2 aspect ratio. So the TiBook wasn't the first Mac to feature it after all.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Here's Rhapsody 5.1 running on top of the Darwin 0.1 kernel on x86: [https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2017/04/22/darwin-0-1-rhapsody-dr-2-booted/]

Speaking of DP2, it can be run in QEMU (on x86 hosts). I wonder if it's possible to virtualise it on a PPC host.

I'll have to take a look at that! I'll have to test QEMU with DP2 when I get time. What's a good PPC QEMU frontend?

 

[salamanderjuice]

Ah, yes. That's the best. /s

Hmmm... I wonder how hard it would be to take DP2 and place it on top of a modern version of the Mac OS kernel?

I love OS 9, but you can't take a screenshot while video is playing xD

Putting DP2 on top of a modern Mac OS kernel would be hard. None of the code for it is publically available.

I'd also argue A/UX is a better Unix/Classic OS mix. Rhapsody and DP2 are Classic themed NeXTSTEPs. It's very clear looking at the file browser for example. There is a single emulator named Shoebill you can use to play around with A/UX.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Putting DP2 on top of a modern Mac OS kernel would be hard. None of the code for it is publically available.

I'd also argue A/UX is a better Unix/Classic OS mix. Rhapsody and DP2 are Classic themed NeXTSTEPs. It's very clear looking at the file browser for example. There is a single emulator named Shoebill you can use to play around with A/UX.

It would be fun to try tho :3

I still need to try out A/UX

 

[amagichnich]

Not only a command line interface, but a system rebuilt as a GUI for the command line, as is the case with BSD based systems. Preemptive Multi Tasking. Based on PIDs. A task manager as a GUI for that. Process memory isolation. As I realise now - I don’t like OS9 except for the GUI

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Not only a command line interface, but a system rebuilt as a GUI for the command line, as is the case with BSD based systems. Preemptive Multi Tasking. Based on PIDs. A task manager as a GUI for that. Process memory isolation. As I realise now - I don’t like OS9 except for the GUI

I love OS 9, but that's because I have never lost work when it's crashed

The GUI and the ease of use are its two greatest assets IMO

 

[Amethyst1]

Not only a command line interface, but a system rebuilt as a GUI for the command line, as is the case with BSD based systems. Preemptive Multi Tasking. Based on PIDs. A task manager as a GUI for that. Process memory isolation. As I realise now - I don’t like OS9 except for the GUI

Sounds like Rhapsody is your cup of tea then! 🤣

 

[eyoungren]

I love OS 9, but that's because I have never lost work when it's crashed

The GUI and the ease of use are its two greatest assets IMO

Again, I would guess that ease of use is in how you use it.

A stock install of OS9 is problematic to a designer because fonts work very differently under OS9 then they do under OS X. That's one of the reasons for the creation of Truetype fonts.

So, now you've got what are called 'the jaggies' in QuarkXPress or InDesign. Meaning, all your fonts are jagged and bitmapped looking. 'cause: stock OS9.

Hey there's an app for that! Adobe makes it. ATM (Adobe Type Manager). Press the button to smooth fonts. Great!

Now you want to activate fonts outside of the main fonts folder - because keeping them in the main fonts folder means they are active and each active font eats a small amount of ram. Like most designers you have thousands of fonts. Having them all active eats lots of ram for no benefit because you don't use all those fonts at once. This is impractical. Well, Adobe makes ATM Deluxe. Great, you can now tell ATM Deluxe which fonts to activate and where they are.

But, oh, guess what? ATM Deluxe doesn't do automatic font activation. Even worse, the next time you activate a font of the same name as a previous one, guess what it does? It activates the previous one, not the one you told it to activate. Now you have problems.

Enter Suitcase, which changed everything in font management. You don't need ATM Deluxe anymore. Yaay! Oh wait! Suitcase is great, but you know what? You still need ATM to smooth fonts because Suitcase doesn't do that.

Welcome to OS9 font management - where OS9 is NOT easy to use!

PS. I abhore ATM Deluxe. There was a time where we sent our files to the printer and we had no end of font problems from that printer. It's because they used ATM Deluxe to activate fonts and EVERY time they activated the fonts WE sent him, ATM activated previously activated fonts in their system and not OURS. Biggest piece of garbage software I've ever had the displeasure to use.