Shameless Plug - My Mac OS 7 Web Site

[dpaanlka]

While that may be fine for you, I'm just trying to show people that there are options to consider other than the newest fattest version of the Mac OS possible.

While 8.6 may not contain as much 68k code, the entire thing is so much more bloated than 7.6.1, takes up way more ram and hard drive space, and most importantly (for today), doesnt really do anything a whole lot better.

7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for.

 

[RacerX]

While that may be fine for you, I'm just trying to show people that there are options to consider other than the newest fattest version of the Mac OS possible.

While 8.6 may not contain as much 68k code, the entire thing is so much more bloated than 7.6.1, takes up way more ram and hard drive space, and most importantly (for today), doesnt really do anything a whole lot better.

7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for.

Well, with comments like "newest fattest version of the Mac OS possible", "so much more bloated than 7.6.1", "doesnt really do anything a whole lot better" and (my favorite) "7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for", it sure sounds like you want to really put this to the test.

Do you really want me to give a brutally honest comparison of Mac OS 7.6.1 compared to Mac OS 8.6?

I was trying to be nice by letting you have your preference... but if you really want to have Mac OS 7.6.1 compared to Mac OS 8.6... specially at tasks anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for, I'm more than game.

So, are we going there? Or would you like to rethink the disparaging comments about Mac OS 8.6?

 

[dpaanlka]

Are you trying to tell me that if you put an average person in front two identical 601 Macs, one running Mac OS 7.6.1 and the other one running Mac OS 8.6... that that person would say the 8.6 one is faster?

No, I don't feel like going through the bother of testing that further. I've already passed that point... nobody's forcing you to use anything other than what you wish.

And no, I do not care to rethink my observations of 8.6 vs 7.6.

 

[RacerX]

And no, I do not care to rethink my observations of 8.6 vs 7.6.

Then let us begin... because that was the condition.

What would a user of a Pre-G3 Mac need from an operating system in 2006?​

I own a few of these systems and used them regularly, so lets look at what I might need from them...

Disk space.

One requirement is the ability to use larger disks (compared to disks from around 1995-97). Any disk larger than 4 GB (really, anything larger than 2 GB) should be formated using HFS+.

Supported in Mac OS 7.6.1: No
Supported in Mac OS 8.6: Yes​

The ability to run Carbon applications.

Many of the last versions of classic Mac OS apps were written using the Carbon libraries. Versions of the Mac OS that don't support Carbon aren't able to run these applications. The latest version of CarbonLib (version 1.6 for Mac OS 8.6 to 9.2.2) is needed for many of the last classic apps made.

Supported in Mac OS 7.6.1: No
Supported in Mac OS 8.6: Yes​

Relatively up-to-date browsers.

Not majorly important, but would be nice. I know that there are versions of Netscape (7.0.2 and Communicator 4.8), IE (5.1.7), Opera (6.0.3) and Mozilla (1.3.1) that all run nicely in Mac OS 8.6. These are all 21st century browsers (though obviously not the newest available), but something that a person of 2006 could live with.

Supported in Mac OS 7.6.1: No
Supported in Mac OS 8.6: Yes​

Relatively recent office software.

AppleWorks 6.2.8 (the classic version of 6.2.9, the latest release) runs nicely on Mac OS 8.6 (should also work nicely in Mac OS 8.1). Same with Microsoft Office 2001, which can run in Mac OS 8.1 but it is recommended that you have at least MaC OS 8.5.

Supported in Mac OS 7.6.1: No
Supported in Mac OS 8.6: Yes​

PDF documents.

While Adobe Reader 7 and Acrobat 7 are the most current versions, having some abilities in this area would be nice. I currently use Acrobat 5 on both my Mac OS X and Mac OS 8.6 systems. And there is a version of Acrobat Reader 5 for Mac OS 8.6. The newest version for Mac OS 7.6.1 is 4.0.5.

Supported in Mac OS 7.6.1: No (version 5)
Supported in Mac OS 8.6: Yes​

Memory management.

Any Mac with a 68020 (with PMMU installed) or later has the ability to address more than 8 MB of RAM and use virtual memory if they are running System 7 or later. While virtual memory is a nice feature, one issue that people noticed when it was first implemented in System 7 was that there was a performance cost associated with using it. One way around this issue was to use Connectix's RAMDoubler which gave the benefits of virtual memory without quite the performance hit. With the release of Mac OS 8, Apple redesigned the virtual memory in the system which solved the performance problems of System 7. It was this improvement that lead to the decline of RAMDoubler's use among Mac users. The other benefits of RAMDoubler just didn't justify the cost of the product for most people anymore after Mac OS 8.

Supported in Mac OS 7.6.1: No
Supported in Mac OS 8.6: Yes​

Well, that is a good start.

Are you trying to tell me that if you put an average person in front two identical 601 Macs, one running Mac OS 7.6.1 and the other one running Mac OS 8.6... that that person would say the 8.6 one is faster?

Lets not limit this to just the PowerPC 601... which was a pretty fast chip, lets look at the slowest of the PowerPC processors used by Apple... the PowerPC 603/603e at 100 MHz or less without additional cache. These systems are slower than the slowest PowerPC 601 system Apple made (the Power Macintosh 6100/60).

The answer is Yes.

I'm sure your next question would be something to the effect... what if they had SpeedDoubler installed?

Then we are back to what systems are we talking about. The small size of the internal cache and (for some systems) the lack of any secondary cache impedes emulation of 680x0 code on 603/603e based systems.

The answer is Yes again.

What about for 604/604e/604ev based systems? Well, Apple introduced improved emulation software with the release of the first PCI based Macs. But these systems were already quite fast to begin with and the less emulation of system code (even with improved emulation) provided a performance boost.

See the thing is Apple went out of their way to make Mac OS 8.5 the operating system for PowerPC Macs. As they said back then It's like getting a new Mac for $99.

But lets address some of the issues that actually make 8.5/8.6 faster.

First is QuickDraw. The first time that QuickDraw was PowerPC native was with the release of Mac OS 8.5. If the rendering engine of 7.6.1 is being emulated, then that is going to slow screen redraws. The same is true of text and font management starting in 8.5.

How about networking? Not only was 8.5 better than any version of System 7, it was a vast improvement over Mac OS 8.1. Infact I've setup Mac OS 8.5.1 systems as small file servers for clients... without any additional software (like AppleShare IP) because the network transfer rates were that good (AppleShare IP comes more into play when you have network traffic to deal with).

What about other system tasks... file management for example. Mac OS 8.5 reads and writes files many times faster than 7.6.1 (and is also faster than 8.1 at these tasks too).

When it comes right down to it, the only advantage of Mac OS 7.6.1 is the lower RAM requirement. That advantage becomes debatable at about 16 MB of RAM, and 7.6.1 loses any advantage when you get up to 24 or 32 MB of RAM.

My PowerBook Duo 2300c (PowerPC 603e at 100 MHz, 56 MB of RAM) runs great using Mac OS 8.6. And I can do a lot more with it at 8.6 than I ever could with it crippled at 7.6.1... that's for sure.


I'm sure you must have some examples of how 7.6.1 is better than 8.6... right?

I look forward to seeing these points (think of it as research for your site ).

 

[tjwett]

while we're getting all nostalgic, another awesome OS to run on those old Macs is BeOS. you can download it for free. talk about a lean, mean OS! great site, btw.

 

[dpaanlka]

Most of your points are either addressed on my site (that I now don't even think you've read), or do not fall into the category of "basic computer useage." Who said anything about servers?

Mac OS 8.6 takes longer to boot, is less responsive, takes up way more hard drive space, and uses way more ram. All of these are big strikes against 8.6 on old Macs.

Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.8, and Opera 5 all run fine under Mac OS 7. Microsoft Office 98 opens Microsoft Office 2001 files perfectly (and runs much much faster). 68k emulation is sped up with Speed Doubler 8 (to the point that it is not even noticeable), as is file copying and network transfers. I've yet to come across a PDF document that doesn't want to open in Acrobat 4. I've also still yet to run into any carbon App that i've wanted to run on my 2300c. Obviously if you're using Carbon Apps, Mac OS 7 wouldn't be for you. Nor if you have a 30gb hard drive.

You basically spent a good amount of your time trying to prove to me that 8.6 is a newer OS with more features than 7.6. NO KIDDING. I'm still here to tell you that Mac OS 7 is a snappier, useable alternative to 8.6 that should'nt be absolutely out of consideration for the average user. I KNOW that Mac OS 8.6 can do more. That was never a question. But I (and I'm sure others) find Mac OS 8.6 extremely unpleasant to use on old hardware, especially whe all I'm doing is relatively light computer tasks.

Like what did you think, I did this entire site completely unaware that OS 7 couldn't run carbon apps and had a heavy use of 68k emulation??? Give me a break already! All the cheesy smilies in the world doesn't make you a genius.

 

[Mechcozmo]

Is that font downloadable? The one off your dev cd? and nice site, it's awesome to look at.

It is installed by default in OS X.

 

[RacerX]

Most of your points are either addressed on my site (that I now don't even think you've read), or do not fall into the category of "basic computer useage." Who said anything about servers?

Well, I actually have read your site. Plus a couple others (your 3400 and Duo pages too).

See, the problem is that you said:

"7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for."​

While fast networking may be nice for servers, it also comes in handy with... oh, say web browsing.

I think that falls under a task anyone still using one of these systems today would benefit from.

And how about the ability to use USB and Firewire? Why, you've even advocate using Mac OS 9.2.2 on a PowerBook 3400c. But didn't you say that 7.6.1 is the sweet spot for a system like that?

Mac OS 8.6 takes longer to boot, is less responsive, takes up way more hard drive space, and uses way more ram. All of these are big strikes against 8.6 on old Macs.

It may take longer to boot... but you'll need to reboot far less often in 8.6. It may take up more hard drive space, but it lets you use larger hard drives. It uses more RAM... but RAM for most of these systems is cheap these days and with adequate amounts of RAM it is more responsive than 7.6.1.

Those may have been strikes against running 8.5/8.6 back in 1999... but in 2006, 8.6 and inexpensive hardware (memory and drives) make it the better choice.

Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.8, and Opera 5 all run fine under Mac OS 7. Microsoft Office 98 opens Microsoft Office 2001 files perfectly (and runs much much faster).

But how does it handle most Office documents from these days? I have a number of clients still using Office 98 and they are running into formating errors that Office 2001 users aren't.

The same type of thing impedes the use of those browsers... many pages don't render correctly in those, but do in the browsers that can be run under 8.6.

I can even watch MPEG4 videos in 8.6 thanks to QuickTime 6.0. I even have iTunes (1.0) on many of my 8.6 systems.

68k emulation is sped up with Speed Doubler 8 (to the point that it is not even noticeable), as is file copying and network transfers.

On fast processors with additional cache... the emulation is improved. But on slower processors, it is still more burden on them than running 8.6.

And copy times and transfer rates don't match the performance of 8.5/8.6... that was noted by many reviewers back in 1999. Even AppleShare IP 5 on 7.6.1 can't match transfer rates on the retail version of 8.5 (low traffic).

I've yet to come across a PDF document that doesn't want to open in Acrobat 4.

I must use PDFs more extensively than you. I have Acrobat 4.0 installed on my Quadra 950 (601 @ 66 MHz) and there are PDFs it can't handle.

[quoteI've also still yet to run into any carbon App that i've wanted to run on my 2300c. Obviously if you're using Carbon Apps, Mac OS 7 wouldn't be for you. Nor if you have a 30gb hard drive.[/quote]But you said...

"7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for."​

Carbon apps are things that fall into the category of whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for... so this looks like back pedaling to me.

And why take it up to 30 GB drives? With a 9 GB drive using HFS, the smallest allocation block is about 144k. With HFS+ the largest an allocation block is going to ever (on any drive) get is 4k. On a 2 GB drive the blocks are going to be about 32k and on a 4 GB drive they'll be about 64k.

On a 30 GB drive you are looking at around 480k per block.

We sure didn't need to get up to 30 GB drives to start seeing the benefits of HFS+. And the short comings of System 7.

You basically spent a good amount of your time trying to prove to me that 8.6 is a newer OS with more features than 7.6. NO KIDDING.

I hardly spent any time on this (was actually a little worried you might actually have an argument for what you said). See, you were using terms like newest fattest version and so much more bloated, and you have yet to back those statements up... and here you are even conceding (sadly) to my points.

My only problem with you and your statement was that you felt the need to bring down another OS to try to boaster the one you are advocating. There was never any need for that, but you went down that path.

I'm still here to tell you that Mac OS 7 is a snappier, useable alternative to 8.6 that should'nt be absolutely out of consideration for the average user.

I never said it was. Infact, I would defend that statement in some cases.

But I could also defend that statement without bringing down Mac OS 8 or 9... and that is where we differ here.

I KNOW that Mac OS 8.6 can do more. That was never a question.

Of course not... the question came directly from this statement by you...

"7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for."​

But I (and I'm sure others) find Mac OS 8.6 extremely unpleasant to use on old hardware, especially whe all I'm doing is relatively light computer tasks.

Lite computer tasks on systems where upgrading the memory and/or hard drive is either difficult or impractical, I would agree. But we were looking at 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006... that is a broad set of systems.

Like what did you think, I did this entire site completely unaware that OS 7 couldn't run carbon apps and had a heavy use of 68k emulation??? Give me a break already! All the cheesy smilies in the world doesn't make you a genius.

You don't have to be a genius to know this stuff... a little reading can do wonders.



But being a genius sure can help when putting people like you in there place when they step out of line. <---note cheesy smilies--->


On a side note... I'm sort of disappointed that you didn't put more effort into this. It would have been more fun. Though I'm not surprised, I knew that you knew you really didn't have a case to back up your earlier statements.

Maybe this way you'll think twice about making statements like those in the future. You're still young, you've got plenty of learning ahead.

 

[sushi]

Here I am to shamelessly plug my Mac OS 7 website, System 7 Today, which I believe may already be the best resource for using Mac OS 7 today...

Have most available updates there, plus stuff you might never have thought of, like Internet Explorer 5 for Mac OS 7, Orinoco Wireless drivers, etc...

Forums too! (finally one dedicated to Mac OS 7)

Tell me what you think!

Very nice site! User friendly. Can easily navigate/DL stuff.

Long life System 7!

 

[dpaanlka]

On a side note... I'm sort of disappointed that you didn't put more effort into this. It would have been more fun. Though I'm not surprised, I knew that you knew you really didn't have a case to back up your earlier statements.

So far you're the only person that seems to have a serious problem with my site. The reason I don't respond is because I don't care enough about this subject to waste time typing long responses. I know from my personal experiences which OS makes my 2300c, 1400c, 3400c, 8100, 6100, 6500, and 8600 have the snappiest feel. Judging by the emails and private messages I get, as well as the responses on several forums, I'm guessing there are plenty of people out there that like what they see. You seem intent on ruining the good fun.

I am sitting in front of a Duo 2300c with identical specs to yours. I cannot possibly see how you can claim that Mac OS 8.6 is even close to responsive on this machine. But if you feel that it is, that is fine. From experience I simply cannot agree with you, no matter what facts you throw at me. Just the thought of running 8.6 on this thing again makes me shudder.

Also, if you look at my 3400c page that you "read" it clearly says on the first page that I switched back to Mac OS 7 because 8.6 and 9 were too slow for me. There is even a screen shot.

 

[dpaanlka]

Very nice site! User friendly. Can easily navigate/DL stuff.

Long life System 7!

Thank you! The response to this site has been pretty impressive to me.

 

[dpaanlka]

It is installed by default in OS X.

Hmm I didn't know that. I just got it off an old CD. Where is it located on OS X?

 

[RacerX]

So far you're the only person that seems to have a serious problem with my site.

Odd... where did I have a problem with your site?

My problem started when you felt the need to trash another OS in order to boast the one you were advocating. I had a problem with that... not your site.

So, the problem is you, not your work.

The reason I don't respond is because I don't care enough about this subject to waste time typing long responses. I know from my personal experiences which OS makes my 2300c, 1400c, 3400c, 8100, 6100, 6500, and 8600 have the snappiest feel. Judging by the emails and private messages I get, as well as the responses on several forums, I'm guessing there are plenty of people out there that like what they see. You seem intent on ruining the good fun.

I have run versions of 7, 8 and 9 on all those systems and I have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't. And I've been using this platform for the last 20 years, so I've had a chance to watch all of this stuff evolve.

I imagine that you've spent most of the last 20 years... evolving?

Sorry, I'll stick with my years of personal experiences with the platform over your relatively recent interest in it. And I have no issue with you or anyone else preferring 7 over 8 or 9... I do have a problem if you try to bring down 8 or 9 to try and show how great 7 is (specially when you can't even back up those statements).

Besides, it is always fun until someone goes too far...I was enjoying the thread until you went too far. I gave you the opportunity to step back, you chose not to take it... so I was honor bound to defend Mac OS 8.6.

You also went too far with the "All the cheesy smilies in the world doesn't make you a genius." statement. I wasn't going to be personal on this... just factual, but you had to go too far again.

You could always apologize, on both accounts, and we can consider this settled. Or (better yet ) you can back up your original statements. Showing that what you said about 8.6 was true would be the best way to put me in my place.

Which will it be... I like a good technical debate, so I hope you (attempt to) defend your statements.

I am sitting in front of a Duo 2300c with identical specs to yours. I cannot possibly see how you can claim that Mac OS 8.6 is even close to responsive on this machine. But if you feel that it is, that is fine. From experience I simply cannot agree with you, no matter what facts you throw at me. Just the thought of running 8.6 on this thing again makes me shudder.

I've never asked you to agree... just not to attack other systems just to promote the one you are interested in at the moment.

Remember I said:

"So, are we going there? Or would you like to rethink the disparaging comments about Mac OS 8.6?"​

You could have ended this before it got this far by taking back those statements... which you still have yet to support, and in some cases have even backed away from.

Also, if you look at my 3400c page that you "read" it clearly says on the first page that I switched back to Mac OS 7 because 8.6 and 9 were too slow for me. There is even a screen shot.

I haven't looked at the site in quite some time (2003 or 2004 as I recall, maybe early 2005 for the Duo site). And you just aren't important enough to take that much time.

Besides that, why would I need to memorize your work... the only one that should actually be familiar with it is you.

Again... lets go back to what started this, shall we?

"While that may be fine for you, I'm just trying to show people that there are options to consider other than the newest fattest version of the Mac OS possible.

While 8.6 may not contain as much 68k code, the entire thing is so much more bloated than 7.6.1, takes up way more ram and hard drive space, and most importantly (for today), doesnt really do anything a whole lot better.

7.6.1 still runs and feels much quicker than 8.6 ever would/could when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for."​

and the parts of that post I took exception with...

"newest fattest version"
"much more bloated"
"doesnt really do anything a whole lot better"
"when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for"​

Of course you backed down on the "doesnt really do anything a whole lot better" comment (because you knew it wasn't true to begin with).

So, lets work on those reading comprehension skills while you are at school... because you'll not find a single negative comment by me about your site anywhere... which I imagine is why you didn't quote me as saying anything against your site to back up your statement.

I hope you exercise better research skills in your school work than you are showing here. From what I've seen of your sites, you have the ability... it just hasn't been your strong suit in this series of posts for you.



So, while your opinions on this are nice... I hope you'll have something more technically incline in future responses. Maybe you can show where I was wrong... that would be a good starting point. <---another cheesy smilie

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Nice site layout.

Let's not get this thread wastelanded, eh? I think you're both right anyway - OS 8.x is more feature-filled but slows some older hardware. System 7 is faster on some older hardware but just doesn't offer all the useful features that 8.x does. Dumb story to illustrate this:

I have a PowerMac 6100/66 (66MHz 601) and a Quadra 610 (25MHz 68040). I've tried 7.6, 8.1, 8.5, (maybe 8.6 too but I can't remember) and 9.0.4 on the PowerMac, and it seems happiest with 8.1/8.5. With 9.0.4 basic tasks and apps ran slower than my Quadra running 7.1! 7.6 was not bad speedwise but seemed the least stable.

It's hard to say whether one OS version is better than another without discussing specific hardware. One OS might have better features but if the OS is a bad fit for the hardware involved performance will suffer. Some machines (like my 6100) can run a large varity of Mac operating systems but they still have a definite "sweet spot" where the OS and hardware work best together. 7.6-8.5 work well on the 6100 but 9.0.4 is crap despite the extra features ( I know that 9.1 is supposed to be better but I don't have an install disc for that version and for some reason you can't run the updater on a 6100).

By the same token I can't see running 7.6 on a 603 or 604 machine - those machines were designed for 8.x IIRC.

For the Quadra line of Macs, System 7.1 is awesome. Very fast and very stable. I have that on my Quadra 610, and 7.5.5 on my IIci and old PowerBooks (160, 170, 180c)

 

[dpaanlka]

Are you going to type an essay in response to every post I make?

"Doing more" and "doing it better" aren't the same thing in my opinion. Mac OS 8.6 does more and has more features, but takes forever to boot and is overall less responsive on those old machines. I still stand by that statement. This is getting boring though. It's a shame there isn't a yawn smilie.

P.S. you should really stop bragging about age / experience. That sort of thing isn't impressive in an online forum format. Anybody can say anything. I'm 68 and was an engineer at IBM for 37 years. See how easy that was.

 

[MacRohde]

Wow that brings back memories. What a great site. Thanks for that slice of nostalgic heaven.

 

[dpaanlka]

Wow that brings back memories. What a great site. Thanks for that slice of nostalgic heaven.

I love that "nostalgic heaven" description. I'll have to figure out a way to work that in there somehow.

 

[aussie_geek]

Wow, that brings back memories...
My very first computer shipped with System 7, a Performa 450 that I bought on credit from the local furniture store. Where do you find software for System 7 these days?

Yep - same here. I bought a Performa 250 (Color Classic) from a furniture store as well. I started it up a few months ago with no problems. It has all of my Uni assignments on it. Everything still runs as fast as the day I got it. Long live the Apple Macintosh

aussie_geek

 

[Mechcozmo]

Hmm I didn't know that. I just got it off an old CD. Where is it located on OS X?

Uh... with the rest of your fonts? Open TextEdit, open the Font Panel, and Garamond ought to be there...

Wow, that brings back memories...
My very first computer shipped with System 7, a Performa 450 that I bought on credit from the local furniture store. Where do you find software for System 7 these days?

Yeah. From this Linkety

 

[Doraemon]

Very cool website.

And yet, I'm really glad not having to still run System 7.

 

[dpaanlka]

Uh... with the rest of your fonts? Open TextEdit, open the Font Panel, and Garamond ought to be there...

Uh... "Garamond" and "Apple Garamond" are not the same.

You will not be able to replicate Apple's old corporate font by simply using Garamond. People would'nt be making such a big deal about the font unless they truly recognized it as the actual official Apple Garamond font - which is difficult to find... but you can with a little googling.

 

[RacerX]

Are you going to type an essay in response to every post I make?

Well, sadly you seem to have problems with english, so I thought that by saying things as clearly as possible you would have a better chance at holding up your end of the conversation.

Alas, there wasn't much for you to actually hold up anyways...

I still stand by that statement. This is getting boring though. It's a shame there isn't a yawn smilie.

Too bad you couldn't stand by your other statements.

P.S. you should really stop bragging about age / experience.

My background is pretty well known... but on the subject of bragging about experience, didn't you say:

"I know from my personal experiences which OS makes my 2300c, 1400c, 3400c, 8100, 6100, 6500, and 8600 have the snappiest feel. Judging by the emails and private messages I get, as well as the responses on several forums, I'm guessing there are plenty of people out there that like what they see."​

Hmmm... maybe you should listen to your own advice.

That sort of thing isn't impressive in an online forum format. Anybody can say anything. I'm 68 and was an engineer at IBM for 37 years. See how easy that was.

See, I have a long history in this community so I can't afford to lie or exaggerate about this type of stuff because it would be far too easy for someone to step forward and call me on it.

If anything, I tend to be reserved rather than boastful... it is safer that way.

I'm guessing that you, in your youth, feel obscure... you have no history, so what is there to tell. I, on the other hand, have a history which many people in the community know and that keeps me very honest.



And the other thing... most of my posts are long and detailed. And there are thousands of these posts in a number of forums. If I started straying from facts, it wouldn't be that hard to quote me saying something different.

If I was just spamming* a forum like you, then I might think I could get away with something like that... of course you were the one that brought it up, so odds are you're most likely the one exaggerating your experiences.

But, feel free to research anything I've said about my experiences and show that I was not factual.



Oh, and while you are at it... you could come up with some facts to support your earlier statements. You know, just to be a little different.



* Note: By spamming I mean the fact that 25 of your 33 post in this forum are shamelessly plugging your sites.

 

[jhu]

that's a nice site, but i'm more inclined to run linux or netbsd on older machines.

 

[dpaanlka]

Oh, and while you are at it... you could come up with some facts to support your earlier statements. You know, just to be a little different.

I can't believe you actually are denying that 7.6 is more responsive overall than 8.6 on a PowerBook Duo class machine. Proving that would be, just, a tremendous waste of my time. Just like you typing those huge, smug responses.

I bet you never even used Mac OS 7 on that Duo, at least (and especially) not with SpeedDoubler 8. Because in all honestly I seriously cannot understand how you can continue to make claims like that. I'm sitting here in front of the exact same Duo as yours, and it is so much faster now with 7.6 than it ever was with 8.6.

 

[7on]

I have an old G3 blue and White on OS9.2
Other than a problem with sleep (caused by my HP ScanJet extension which is sadly the only reason I use the computer) it has been pretty much reliable.