I work in a graphic design firm that still insists on using OS 9. I personally think thats a little crazy, considering it is 2006. My coworker always talks about how "system 10 is terrible, less intuitive, and partitions things wrong". I never know what to say to her, but i surely disagree. Anyone else know any diehard os9 users? And, anyone have any good technical arguments i could throw at her showing how X is better than 9?
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.
OS X vs. OS 9
- Thread starter Scenicroadways
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Scenicroadways said:
I'd ask her what she's basing this on. Has she used OS X? If she based her observations on 10.0 (beta) and/or 10.1, then she was correct. But since we're now at 10.4 (with 10.5 around the corner), OS X has come a LONG way.
Terrible, how?
It may be "less intuitive" because it's different than OS 9, which was the same as OS 8, System 7, System 6, etc. But once someone uses it for a little while, it becomes "intuitive". Hell, even Switchers figure it out coming from Windows.
Partitions things wrong? I suspect she doesn't know what a "partition" is. A logical separation of a volume (typically a hard drive) is a partition. A partition in OS X is ultimately the same as in OS 9. If she means that a user's data is stored differently, yes, that is correct. OS X is built on a multi-user standpoint, in that it can cope with multiple users very easily. As opposed to OS 9 which is really built with a single user in mind. So in OS X, user X logs in, and all of user X's data, preferences, mail, whatever is stored in /Users/userx/. User Y logs in.. guess where User Y's data is? Correct, /Users/usery/. Can user X see User Y's data? Not unless it's specifically set up for them to do so.
I can't even imagine someplace STILL insisting on using OS 9 as a primary OS. It's a completely deprecated operating system and everyday your computers get older and more obsolete. I feel your pain and would encourage your bosses to have a consultant come in and show them what they're missing.
I think ultimately you might want to look at the Mac 101 website for an idea of what is in OS X.
Good luck, and keep us up to date on the fight! I'm more than happy to help your arguments if you come back with specifics!
That's complete baloney. I can remember working in a graphic design firm using Mac OS 9. It crashed 2-3 times a day and we were constantly fighting extension conflicts. Thinking back on it, I'm amazed I ever got any work done.
Scenicroadways said:
Your coworker is going by word of mouth from her bosses, and she probably uses a Windows computer at her house.
wordmunger said:
I'm amazed that a graphic design firm can be successful today using computers and an OS that have been out of circulation for at least 5 years.
It's not that hard. If you've got the tools you need to do your work there really is little reason to upgrade. My girlfriend had to be given for free a copy of her design tools on OSX before she'd upgrade out of using OS9 via classic. Some people just don't see a reason to upgrade.Le Big Mac said:
The funny thing is, I still have an OS 9 box I use strictly for backups, I couldn't get Retrospect to see both portions of the ATL via SCSI (because Adaptec SCSI cards and OS X suck ass). Everytime I get on there to check the logs or do whatnot. It pains me.
My mom still has a TiBook with OS 9 and she has all sorts of problems with this and that. I can't even help her most of the time because I've forgotten so much of it support-wise.
My mom still has a TiBook with OS 9 and she has all sorts of problems with this and that. I can't even help her most of the time because I've forgotten so much of it support-wise.
It's certainly possible to be running OS9 successfully in a production environment, just as it was 6 years ago when that was your only option.
That said, I have NEVER managed to run a fully stable OS9 install when doing any sort of heavy lifting over a period of time. I'm not saying OS9 can't run stably, and in light-duty work it's usually fine, but it invariably crashes periodically after a day or two of heavy use in most environments I've seen it used in.
The ability to open a dozen apps at once and not even consider that the OS might go down was worth the price of admission even to 10.0, if you can believe that, for me.
As for this user, really, just raw performance would seem to be worth it. By sticking with a machine that boots in 9, and 9's limitations, you're missing:
1) The entire line of G5s--MAJOR speed increase (I'm ignoring Intels, since no CS3 yet).
2) Proper use of dual processors--another speed boost, particularly during multitasking.
3) Drastically better RAM allocation.
4) The ability to make effective use of several gigs of RAM--you're limited to 2GB (or is it 1.5?) in 9.
5) Huge improvements in multithreading. Small speed hit in some single-trhead operations, big productivity boost everywhere else.
...Oh, and how about being able to continue working while the OS is processing something big? Not going to be doing that in 9.
Sheesh, just the raw speed increase alone would make it a no-brainer if "time is money". Add in stability improvements, vastly broader application selection, NEW applications available that simply don't exist under OS9, and a plethora of neat new OS-integrated tools, and it's just foolish. Oh, and then there's the much better screen rendering in OSX, for a more WISIWYG experience.
That said, I have NEVER managed to run a fully stable OS9 install when doing any sort of heavy lifting over a period of time. I'm not saying OS9 can't run stably, and in light-duty work it's usually fine, but it invariably crashes periodically after a day or two of heavy use in most environments I've seen it used in.
The ability to open a dozen apps at once and not even consider that the OS might go down was worth the price of admission even to 10.0, if you can believe that, for me.
As for this user, really, just raw performance would seem to be worth it. By sticking with a machine that boots in 9, and 9's limitations, you're missing:
1) The entire line of G5s--MAJOR speed increase (I'm ignoring Intels, since no CS3 yet).
2) Proper use of dual processors--another speed boost, particularly during multitasking.
3) Drastically better RAM allocation.
4) The ability to make effective use of several gigs of RAM--you're limited to 2GB (or is it 1.5?) in 9.
5) Huge improvements in multithreading. Small speed hit in some single-trhead operations, big productivity boost everywhere else.
...Oh, and how about being able to continue working while the OS is processing something big? Not going to be doing that in 9.
Sheesh, just the raw speed increase alone would make it a no-brainer if "time is money". Add in stability improvements, vastly broader application selection, NEW applications available that simply don't exist under OS9, and a plethora of neat new OS-integrated tools, and it's just foolish. Oh, and then there's the much better screen rendering in OSX, for a more WISIWYG experience.
OS X is, technically speaking, much more advanced than OS 9 was; it has better security features, more isolation between running programs and between programs and the OS, and more advanced multitasking and resource management. Featurewise, there's no comparison.
The UI in OS X is definitely a challenge, coming from OS 9. In many ways it's less consistent, and imposes arbitrary decisions on the user. The current Finder is painfully flawed in this way. However, it adds a number of power-user tools like Expose and Spotlight that can enhance productivity.
It really boils down to this: your colleague doesn't want to change her ingrained habits. This is natural, but if she carries it too far, it can make things difficult for her. Beyond a certain point, you expend more effort trying to avoid changing than you would if you just gave up and got with the times.
Or she could just retire.
The UI in OS X is definitely a challenge, coming from OS 9. In many ways it's less consistent, and imposes arbitrary decisions on the user. The current Finder is painfully flawed in this way. However, it adds a number of power-user tools like Expose and Spotlight that can enhance productivity.
It really boils down to this: your colleague doesn't want to change her ingrained habits. This is natural, but if she carries it too far, it can make things difficult for her. Beyond a certain point, you expend more effort trying to avoid changing than you would if you just gave up and got with the times.
Or she could just retire.
She may have had some valid concerns back in 2001, but it sure sounds like she hasn't kept up with what's been going on with OS X.
It's kind of hard to imagine how launching a program's get info window in order to make a wild guess as to how much memory that program is going to need could be described as more "intuitive," but maybe that's just me.
It's kind of hard to imagine how launching a program's get info window in order to make a wild guess as to how much memory that program is going to need could be described as more "intuitive," but maybe that's just me.
I have two G4s on dual boot OSX, OS9.
I honestly prefer OS9.
Far more straight forwards, more customisable, etc.
I also use old Media100 hardware and software.
The difference is, I can have a professional video editing suite with component, svideo, composite or firewire inputs and outputs, and an external Monitor for video footage. I currently bought a 2nd hand Mac with all this for £250. A modern Media100 system for OSX would cost in the region of £3000-4000. ( About £2000 for a new Mac, and £2000 for Media100 HDe ). Even if I didn't want the new HD Kona Card, and just bought the tune up to upgrade my legacy M100i & P6000 to the OSX edition, it'd cost me £300 for just a new license key, when I can get a whole new editing suite for under £250 (another G4 kitted out with what I need).
So yes, I am successfully using two G4 Macs, with OS9 for professional purposes. The only difference is, I can dual boot anytime I want into OSX, and use Cleaner, InDesign, Photoshop, etc [ although I also have Photoshop, After Effects and Boris FX on OS9 also ] as both my G4s are dual boot machines, and can run both OSs.
So in a way I have the best of both OS systems. But I can certainly understand how OS9 can still be useful. For me, it's a cheap and cheerful option, and I find it much more stable than my Windows98SE machine, although I still use Windows for all my web browsing and website creation stuff.
Actually, I use OS9 for video post production, OSX for Print jobs, and Windows98 for web jobs (and also some print stuff).
OSX is still useful for stuff like Flip4Mac, but I do find myself trying to do things I can do easily in OS9, that I just can't in OSX, or at least haven't figured out how to yet. Like create a desktop shortcut for switching startup disk. I've got one in OS9, but the best I can do in OSX is a Systems Preferences shortcut, I still have to click on Startup Disk when it opens...
Also, on OS9 I have all my programs/apps in a pop-up folder, and also in a submenu of the main Apple icon, ala Win98's Startbar, but in OSX, I've just got a very, very crowded Dock, and it doesn't look as tidy. =P
Other than that, Safari is much better than OS9's iCab. ^_^. Heehee.
I still like both OSs though.
My point in writing was to say people can still use and love OS9. ^_^ It can still have its uses.
But it depends what you do - some things may now work perfectly well in OSX to justify an upgrade. That said, it's probably best to wait for UB versions of your professional apps and then get a Mac Pro if you're really gonna upgrade....
As for your boss...she's probably just biased. ^_^, fell in love with one system, and doesn't want to change.
P.S. Oh, also, I miss the little program switcher you get in the top right corner in OS9...now instead I have to look for little black arrows underneath icons on OSX, and it's just not as easy as the pop up menu in the top right of OS9 that lets you switch to any running program, hide or unhide, show all, etc. But I'm sure I'll adjust with time...
I honestly prefer OS9.
Far more straight forwards, more customisable, etc.
I also use old Media100 hardware and software.
The difference is, I can have a professional video editing suite with component, svideo, composite or firewire inputs and outputs, and an external Monitor for video footage. I currently bought a 2nd hand Mac with all this for £250. A modern Media100 system for OSX would cost in the region of £3000-4000. ( About £2000 for a new Mac, and £2000 for Media100 HDe ). Even if I didn't want the new HD Kona Card, and just bought the tune up to upgrade my legacy M100i & P6000 to the OSX edition, it'd cost me £300 for just a new license key, when I can get a whole new editing suite for under £250 (another G4 kitted out with what I need).
So yes, I am successfully using two G4 Macs, with OS9 for professional purposes. The only difference is, I can dual boot anytime I want into OSX, and use Cleaner, InDesign, Photoshop, etc [ although I also have Photoshop, After Effects and Boris FX on OS9 also ] as both my G4s are dual boot machines, and can run both OSs.
So in a way I have the best of both OS systems. But I can certainly understand how OS9 can still be useful. For me, it's a cheap and cheerful option, and I find it much more stable than my Windows98SE machine, although I still use Windows for all my web browsing and website creation stuff.
Actually, I use OS9 for video post production, OSX for Print jobs, and Windows98 for web jobs (and also some print stuff).
OSX is still useful for stuff like Flip4Mac, but I do find myself trying to do things I can do easily in OS9, that I just can't in OSX, or at least haven't figured out how to yet. Like create a desktop shortcut for switching startup disk. I've got one in OS9, but the best I can do in OSX is a Systems Preferences shortcut, I still have to click on Startup Disk when it opens...
Also, on OS9 I have all my programs/apps in a pop-up folder, and also in a submenu of the main Apple icon, ala Win98's Startbar, but in OSX, I've just got a very, very crowded Dock, and it doesn't look as tidy. =P
Other than that, Safari is much better than OS9's iCab. ^_^. Heehee.
I still like both OSs though.
My point in writing was to say people can still use and love OS9. ^_^ It can still have its uses.
But it depends what you do - some things may now work perfectly well in OSX to justify an upgrade. That said, it's probably best to wait for UB versions of your professional apps and then get a Mac Pro if you're really gonna upgrade....
As for your boss...she's probably just biased. ^_^, fell in love with one system, and doesn't want to change.
P.S. Oh, also, I miss the little program switcher you get in the top right corner in OS9...now instead I have to look for little black arrows underneath icons on OSX, and it's just not as easy as the pop up menu in the top right of OS9 that lets you switch to any running program, hide or unhide, show all, etc. But I'm sure I'll adjust with time...
OS 9..yuk! I was fine for its time but OS X is years ahead of it....not to mention the massive lack of support for OS9.....and the hardware to run it is at a stand still.
OS X has been the future for years. OS 9 was officially laid to rest back in 2002, move on. If OS 9 is making you money, and you have no problem with it, then whatever.
Also, this thread was started in June and suddenly got rebirthed. Is rebirthed a word?
Also, this thread was started in June and suddenly got rebirthed. Is rebirthed a word?
Mammoth said:
Mammoth said:No, eMac. Like this:
There is no G3 eMac, they're all G4s, and being so any eMac should run OS X pretty well so long as they have enough RAM anyway. Perhaps convince your school to buy some cheap RAM? And show your teacher Scribus, the open-source page-layout app that is intended for posters and stuff, unlike Word. You guys will be able to make much better looking things, without paying for Pages, Quark, or InDesign.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but your co-worker is a fool.
1) OS X is a faster operating system than OS 9. That's undeniable. There are benchmarks and real world tests ad nauseum that prove this.
2) It's true that 10.0 and 10.1 had many issues and bugs, as is true of nearly every new operating system. 10.4 and later is inarguably the best OS ever written. It's fast, incredibly stable, and remarkably intuitive. Of course there's a learning curve coming from 9, but that's true of any App or OS switch. It takes a matter of days to get used to it.
3) As for the "necessity" for change, this comes down to productivity. "Need" is a subjective thing. Heck... an Intel 486 could run Photoshop in its day, albeit VERY slowly. But it's certainly not as productive as a newer, faster, more reliable machine.
There are three types of people in the computer world: people who fear change irrationally, people who change for no reason just to have the newest toy, and people who understand when a change is necessary and cost-effective to improve their workflow. Coughing up $4000 for a MacPro right now to run your design apps if you already have a Dual G5 is stupidity, since CS2 runs faster on the G5 anyway. Conversely, staying with your G3 and OS 9 because you're used to it is asinine since you can do twice the work in the same time with an upgraded system and OS. Use your brain... nobody's suggesting your co-worker spend money uncessarily, but to say that there's no reason to upgrade to newer machines and OS X is utter foolishness.
1) OS X is a faster operating system than OS 9. That's undeniable. There are benchmarks and real world tests ad nauseum that prove this.
2) It's true that 10.0 and 10.1 had many issues and bugs, as is true of nearly every new operating system. 10.4 and later is inarguably the best OS ever written. It's fast, incredibly stable, and remarkably intuitive. Of course there's a learning curve coming from 9, but that's true of any App or OS switch. It takes a matter of days to get used to it.
3) As for the "necessity" for change, this comes down to productivity. "Need" is a subjective thing. Heck... an Intel 486 could run Photoshop in its day, albeit VERY slowly. But it's certainly not as productive as a newer, faster, more reliable machine.
There are three types of people in the computer world: people who fear change irrationally, people who change for no reason just to have the newest toy, and people who understand when a change is necessary and cost-effective to improve their workflow. Coughing up $4000 for a MacPro right now to run your design apps if you already have a Dual G5 is stupidity, since CS2 runs faster on the G5 anyway. Conversely, staying with your G3 and OS 9 because you're used to it is asinine since you can do twice the work in the same time with an upgraded system and OS. Use your brain... nobody's suggesting your co-worker spend money uncessarily, but to say that there's no reason to upgrade to newer machines and OS X is utter foolishness.
OS 9 zealots are irritating. Too bad there isn't a meteor that would kill them like their Dinosaur brethren.
EDIT: Frankly, all these wonderful people are holding back OS X, insisting that new versions of OS X maintain the crap that got Apple almost on the chopping block years ago!
Look at Classic! It took a move to Intel for that to be gotten rid of! That should have been trashed AT THE LATEST version 10.3!
EDIT: Frankly, all these wonderful people are holding back OS X, insisting that new versions of OS X maintain the crap that got Apple almost on the chopping block years ago!
Look at Classic! It took a move to Intel for that to be gotten rid of! That should have been trashed AT THE LATEST version 10.3!
That isn't an eMac. That is the Power Macintosh G3 All-in-One, which was mostly available to only education markets. Those things were just monstrous. I only make the distinction because there were plenty of pre-G3 all-in-one units Apple made for schools, and those shouldn't be called eMacs either IMO. The Power Mac 5200s at my school were, on the whole, some of the least reliable computers I have ever used (Windows 95 included!). They froze at the drop of a pin, and made almost every kid in my town a Mac hater. Many people that went to my school still think that's what Macs are like today (System 8.x+At Ease+bad hardware). God bless the Jaguar-running eMacs in our high school photo lab; they at least brought some back to the light side!thebeephaha said:Wrong, there is a eMac G3, had em at my elementary school...
