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
Not such a big deal; I've known production people like that before. And they do it for good reason because their setup works for them and this is what production is about; keeping things running.
Sooner or later though, people like that are forced to upgrade as soon as they buy a new Mac or they get a big external client who works with more contemporary file formats.
Sooner or later though, people like that are forced to upgrade as soon as they buy a new Mac or they get a big external client who works with more contemporary file formats.
You've nailed it BV. I work in semiconductor manufacturing. Much of our equipment runs on MS-DOS, Windows 3.1 and 95, OS/2 and even OpenStep.
Admittedly, this is very different from graphic design, but the sentiment is the same.
Admittedly, this is very different from graphic design, but the sentiment is the same.
DZ/015 said:
Our OSX transition took months of planning and research and 3 days of downtime while installing and setting everything up; software and hardware... and that's only 3 full-time designers with a couple of servers and other peripherals
Some places don't have the time or the expertise to face that challenge and besides, the quality of one's design work is not largely dependent on your OS.
While this individual may be on the trailing edge of the curve, I believe that the large majority of design studios and publishing outfits contrary to the hip image that some feel is necessary to portray are usually not on the bleeding edge of technology for good reason.
We're running Panther with Quark 6.5 and CS; all over 2 years old and it's only in the last 6 months or so that things are starting to feel a little rusty so we plan our upgrades around our production schedule which takes priority, not the other way round.
dpaanlka said:
Technically yes it is, "The All-in-One was specifically designed for the education market."
eMac
Waffles off topic to talk about Stocks and Shares Widgets...
Well, as I said, I love my OS9,
but, as I said, I have it dual boot, with OSX,
and I wanted to setup a user account for my Dad, who currently only uses a PC, and I'd quite like to bring him round to the Apple way, by showing him how much friendlier OSX is to Win98. =P
However, as I set up his user account, one thing I was really dissappointed with, was the discovery that I couldn't get his stocks and shares up on the dashboard. =P
The default stock widget, with Quote.com plastered all over it, doesn't appear to recognise London Stock Exchange stocks and shares. BAE Systems [ code: BA.L ] wouldn't yeild anything. This was really shocking.
But even more shocking was a browse of various widget sites yeilded no widget that would display UK shares, only American ones.
In the end, I downloaded Yahoo's Widget programme, but was disappointed to find although it's share widget did allow for UK shares, it wouldn't run on Apple's Dashboard, but rather as part of it's own widget programme, which didn't seem as nice as Apples. In addition, even though you could sign in to Yahoo on its widget programme, allowing it to tell you if you had email, none of your stocks and shares you'd setup earlier from your My Yahoo page, would be reflected in the Widget. You'd have to maintain your finance page, and your widget seperately. =P.
Can't wait for Leopard, when you can just cutout the shares from the Yahoo Finance page, and make 'em a widget. =P
Unless of course anyone knows of a London Stock Exchange compatible Shares Widget for Apple's Dashboard in OSX 10.4.7 ?
Well, as I said, I love my OS9,
but, as I said, I have it dual boot, with OSX,
and I wanted to setup a user account for my Dad, who currently only uses a PC, and I'd quite like to bring him round to the Apple way, by showing him how much friendlier OSX is to Win98. =P
However, as I set up his user account, one thing I was really dissappointed with, was the discovery that I couldn't get his stocks and shares up on the dashboard. =P
The default stock widget, with Quote.com plastered all over it, doesn't appear to recognise London Stock Exchange stocks and shares. BAE Systems [ code: BA.L ] wouldn't yeild anything. This was really shocking.
But even more shocking was a browse of various widget sites yeilded no widget that would display UK shares, only American ones.
In the end, I downloaded Yahoo's Widget programme, but was disappointed to find although it's share widget did allow for UK shares, it wouldn't run on Apple's Dashboard, but rather as part of it's own widget programme, which didn't seem as nice as Apples. In addition, even though you could sign in to Yahoo on its widget programme, allowing it to tell you if you had email, none of your stocks and shares you'd setup earlier from your My Yahoo page, would be reflected in the Widget. You'd have to maintain your finance page, and your widget seperately. =P.
Can't wait for Leopard, when you can just cutout the shares from the Yahoo Finance page, and make 'em a widget. =P
Unless of course anyone knows of a London Stock Exchange compatible Shares Widget for Apple's Dashboard in OSX 10.4.7 ?
Eh, OS9 still has it's benefits. The best of which is how brainlessly easy it is to create a boot disc on a CD to use it or to run legacy programs. Or being able to actually quit the finder to allow applications to use it's resources, and the fact that OS9's File sharing abilities literally vomit over OSX's. The problem with OS9 is of course that multitasking is recipe for disaster and it has a tendency to crash far more than it should (still better than my windows experiences though) and that extensions are a twiddly pain in the arse.
Then again, in my house, where there's 5 different people using a computer, OSX's Multiple user orientation is a humongous blessing.
Then again, in my house, where there's 5 different people using a computer, OSX's Multiple user orientation is a humongous blessing.
I'm expecting I'll get roundly hammered for this
I'm STILL waiting for a processor/OSX combination to run as fast as my G4/OS9 does. OSX is neat, and I do like it, but it is a bit clunky.
I remember thinking when OSX came out that I would have preferred some under-the-skin improvements (protected memory, multi-threading) to a wholesale change in the environment. But I guess you can't dictate progress...
I'm STILL waiting for a processor/OSX combination to run as fast as my G4/OS9 does. OSX is neat, and I do like it, but it is a bit clunky.
I remember thinking when OSX came out that I would have preferred some under-the-skin improvements (protected memory, multi-threading) to a wholesale change in the environment. But I guess you can't dictate progress...
You haven't seen fast until you've used OS 7.6.1 with a G4 upgrade card, 512mb of RAM, a 10,000 RPM SCSI hard drive, and a Radeon 7000
That aside, I think Tiger on the Intels feels pretty much like OS 9 on a G4.
That's an eMac
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emac
But to add my two cents to the discussion...OS X is really intuitive to use. I am a former PC user who never really used a Mac since 8th Grade in 1997-1998. I bought my iMac in September.
Granted I am good with computers, but it took me about 2 minutes to get a general understanding and 2 days to get around the OS without a problem.
Wow...
My friend recently "inherited" an old iMac G3 with OS9. It SUCKS. You can not multitask for life. Programs are slow and crash a lot. The whole thing is just not good. Yes, Windows 98/2000 is better then OS9.
I've never used early versions of OS X before, but I recently switched from XP, and OS X is amazing. Tell your co-worker or whatever to go get Intel machines now.
My friend recently "inherited" an old iMac G3 with OS9. It SUCKS. You can not multitask for life. Programs are slow and crash a lot. The whole thing is just not good. Yes, Windows 98/2000 is better then OS9.
I've never used early versions of OS X before, but I recently switched from XP, and OS X is amazing. Tell your co-worker or whatever to go get Intel machines now.
OS 9 runs a lot faster on older hardware than OS X. I remember installing OS X on my 400Mhz iMac DV with 1GB RAM and having to wait a couple minutes just to boot into the desktop. It would surprise some of you that there are MANY design and publishing companies still running OS 9 in 2006.
I also ran Photoshop, Indesign, and Illustrator apps natively on both platforms with the same hardware and it was no contest. OS 9 destroys OS X still to this day. If Adobe hadn't cut off legacy versions with Creative Suite, there would be no reason for anyone in the publishing and design industries to upgrade.
I also ran Photoshop, Indesign, and Illustrator apps natively on both platforms with the same hardware and it was no contest. OS 9 destroys OS X still to this day. If Adobe hadn't cut off legacy versions with Creative Suite, there would be no reason for anyone in the publishing and design industries to upgrade.
Interesting points.
I've got OSX and OS9 running on a G4. I haven't found OSX to be that slow [ I have a Dual 400Mhz Gigabit Ethernet ]...but that said, I do all my professional work on OS9 and just use OSX for web browsing and Quicktime 7, and simple stuff like that. Have never tried rendering from After Effects in OSX, but then I only have the OS9 version of After Effects.
That said, here's a great little animation I found online, giving one view on the contrast between old and new [ the original Mac V.S. an iMac ]:
http://www.margueritesauvage.com/animations/cofppc.mov
![]()
http://www.margueritesauvage.com/animations/cofppc.mov
I've got OSX and OS9 running on a G4. I haven't found OSX to be that slow [ I have a Dual 400Mhz Gigabit Ethernet ]...but that said, I do all my professional work on OS9 and just use OSX for web browsing and Quicktime 7, and simple stuff like that. Have never tried rendering from After Effects in OSX, but then I only have the OS9 version of After Effects.
That said, here's a great little animation I found online, giving one view on the contrast between old and new [ the original Mac V.S. an iMac ]:
http://www.margueritesauvage.com/animations/cofppc.mov
http://www.margueritesauvage.com/animations/cofppc.mov
Totally no way, OS 7, 8, and 9 all never slowed down when multitasking, partly because the front most app consumes the most processing power. Your friend must have a messed up install, or like no RAM.
There was a thread a while back of people launching all the programs they could, and everyone posted screen shots of it. People were commenting how fast the systems remained, even the classic ones.
I even posted a screen shot of 7.6.1 running something like 38 apps without hardly a hiccup, much less the total slow down you would see in Windows 98.
Thank you! Not only does it explain the 5200s, but also why our Performa 6300 sucked so bad (we ended up returning it). I knew there was a story behind the 5200s being so bad, but I never bothered to research it- too bad my school didn't ask why it was getting bargain-basement prices on hundreds of Power Macs
.They were pretty good at not slowing down, but I can remember many a time where a crash in just one program (cough, Internet Explorer!, cough) would freeze my entire computer. To be fair, however, most of my those freezes occurred in OS 8, not 9.
1. Preemptive multitasking: more effective management of processes. if you crash one progem you don't crash the whole system.
2. Protected Memory: protects the privacy of info from other processes. keeps malicious programs from writing into another process' data.
3. Multithreading: the os executes different parts of a program(threads) simultaneously, thus finishing more tasks in less time.
4. symmetric Multiprocessing: using multiple CPU's to complete individual processes simultaneously.
OS features:
1. Spotlight: system-wide search, even search into contents of files.
2. Dashboard: widgets providing differeent functions.
3. Expose: lets you see and navigate to any window instantly.
4. Core Image: Using Video Card's GPU to render graphics in the OS and in apps.
I'm also a designer and a photographer as well. My personal views on os 9 v. os x:
1. OS x has a much better UI.
2. a lot of apps are losing os 9 support.
3. colorsync works much better in os x.
4. support for more memory (i have 5GB in my system)
5. no aperture for os 9.
6. Quark crashes too much in os 9. (i use inDesign now)
7. Photoshop is much faster on new systems using OSX with more memory.
~just my 2 cents...
I'd have to agree. In terms of what they really do, there's not that much difference between Illustrator 9/Photoshop 7 and Adobe Creative Suite, except that CS is OSX native.
One thing about OS9 that totally ruled: Adobe Type Manager. I've got Extensis Suitcase, and compared to ATM, it sucks.
EDIT: and you know what? I never really had any problems with extension conflicts. OS9 always ran exceptionally well for me, though that may be because I'm not one to have a ton of applications and/or gimmicks installed on my machine(s). I've always just installed only what I'm going to use.
No...
Dude, you're still wrong. Creative and argumentative, but still wrong.
Technically yes it is, "The All-in-One was specifically designed for the education market."
eMac
Dude, you're still wrong. Creative and argumentative, but still wrong.
I work at an advertising agency and just this year (Jan.) we finally made the leap to OS X (10.4.7). For me the it was not a big deal, I have been running 10.2.8 for about a year at home. But the my older co-workers found it to be a big deal. How do I do this or that, what about my emails, my files, my printer, on and on. As the only person in the agency that understands how to setup Macs, the network and printers, the process kept me busy with hand holding these individuals. That said, I find OS X far superior to OS 9, my computers aren't as 'snappy' as OS 9, but never crash. The ability to run Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark at the still time is worth the upgrade. This is the major reason I like it. It used to be maddening to have a huge Photoshop file open (500 MB or larger), a Quark project and Illustrator files open at the same time, one was going to crash or lockup the system. Our printers all work fine EPSON Stylus Pro 5000, EPSON Stylus Pro 7000, HP 5000N and HP 6P. Of course we lost the ability to use our JAZ drives (Adaptec card not supported by OS X) no big deal old technology and the media wasn't accepted by our pre-press houses.
Besides that, I like the choices available for browsers, the ability to view the internet as it should be, the email is far superior. The ability to see PCs on the network and share files. The interface is nicer, the little things like Control-click>open with... is nice. copying files is faster, especially over the network. The list goes on for me, but for old people set in their ways it is a challenge. People resist change naturally, but once they see the light, they never go back. I should say this though, our President of the company still refuses to use OS X. But he will be retiring soon and his machine will be in OS X when he finally leaves. We still can boot into OS 9, I set them up with that way, one HD for OS 9 and the other with OS X.
Besides that, I like the choices available for browsers, the ability to view the internet as it should be, the email is far superior. The ability to see PCs on the network and share files. The interface is nicer, the little things like Control-click>open with... is nice. copying files is faster, especially over the network. The list goes on for me, but for old people set in their ways it is a challenge. People resist change naturally, but once they see the light, they never go back. I should say this though, our President of the company still refuses to use OS X. But he will be retiring soon and his machine will be in OS X when he finally leaves. We still can boot into OS 9, I set them up with that way, one HD for OS 9 and the other with OS X.