What was everyone's favorite Mac OS?

[ahunter3]

Originally Posted by Mechcozmo

7.6 ran on PowerPC chips, whereas 7.5 ran on 68040 (and earlier) chips.

This statement is false, and doesn't really make any sense either.

System 7.5 would run on 68000 chips, 68020 chips, 68030 chips, 68040 chips, and PowerPC 601, PowerPC 603, and PowerPC 604 chips as well. (Some of the early 603e/603e Macs, even)

System 7.6 (aka MacOS 7.6) would not run on 68000 chips and probably not on 68020 chips either, but ran on at least some Macs that used 68030 chips and all the 68040 Macs could run it. All Macs with PowerPC chips prior to the G3 could run System 7.6, but the G3 Macs required MacOS 8.

There's never been a MacOS version where the new version would not run on the old chip, unless you're counting specific installation-builds (like installing System 7.5 "for this computer only" on a Mac IIci results in a copy of System 7.5 that won't boot on a PowerMac, or the version of OS X 10.4.6 that installs on a MacBook Pro won't boot a PowerBook G4). Every update would run on a few of the older models.

There have been many cases where the prior OS version would not run on the new chip, though. Can't boot a Quadra on System 6, a PowerMac on 7.1, a G5 Mac on 10.2.6, or an Intel Mac on Panther.

 

[dpaanlka]

System 7.5 would run on 68000 chips, 68020 chips, 68030 chips, 68040 chips, and PowerPC 601, PowerPC 603, and PowerPC 604 chips as well. (Some of the early 603e/603e Macs, even)

System 7.6 (aka MacOS 7.6) would not run on 68000 chips and probably not on 68020 chips either, but ran on at least some Macs that used 68030 chips and all the 68040 Macs could run it. All Macs with PowerPC chips prior to the G3 could run System 7.6, but the G3 Macs required MacOS 8.

There's never been a MacOS version where the new version would not run on the old chip, unless you're counting specific installation-builds (like installing System 7.5 "for this computer only" on a Mac IIci results in a copy of System 7.5 that won't boot on a PowerMac, or the version of OS X 10.4.6 that installs on a MacBook Pro won't boot a PowerBook G4). Every update would run on a few of the older models.

There have been many cases where the prior OS version would not run on the new chip, though. Can't boot a Quadra on System 6, a PowerMac on 7.1, a G5 Mac on 10.2.6, or an Intel Mac on Panther.

Exactly... so that persons statement was false.

 

[eXan]

Yeah, hard to believe it's now harder to run OS9 than Windows on Macs.

Not true. It's still easier to run OS9 on majority of Macs (PPC) than Win (intel-only)

 

[dpaanlka]

Not true. It's still easier to run OS9 on majority of Macs (PPC) than Win (intel-only)

In fact, it's still pretty easy on Intel Macs. Just use Sheepshaver.

 

[Mechcozmo]

This statement is false, and doesn't really make any sense either.

Sorry... 7.6 was the first to require a 32-bit clean system and was sold installed on PowerPC Macs, whereas 7.5 came installed on 680x0 Macs.

But you are right, 7.5 ran on PowerPC and 7.6 ran on 680x0 Macs.

 

[zap2]

Tiger, because it was my first OS update. I joined late in Panther's life time(10.3.5 was preinstalled on my iMac, with 10.3.7 being for update a few weeks after i got my iMac)

and Tiger add stuff like dashboard and spotlight and it was just "wow, i can't remember any update were i could tell a difference with features"

Sure from ME to 2000 to XP i saw it get more stable(which was not very hard from ME) and a little eye candy in XP, but my home PC got upgrade with a new OS, when i got new hardware most of the time, so by the time we got a XP PC, my brother had an iMac G4, and i was in love with a new OS. Also my Mac was "my" first computer(in my room, and i'm the only one to use it) so i really started to learn about it

 

[macidiot]

System 7.1 Pro. It was the fastest OS I've ever seen. I saw it boot up on a Quadra 650 in about 10 seconds. Ridiculous.

And where's the checkbox for A/UX???

 

[macidiot]

I can only remember System 7.5.3 being a wonderfully good version of system 7.5.

Although System 7.1 was pretty damn good too.

omg 7.5.3 was awful. Along with 7.5.2 and 7.5.5. Possibly the worst releases Apple ever made.

You have to get to 7.6.1 before the os became even slightly stable again. Even then it had become a mess. The MacOS by that point was creaking under the weight of patches and added functionality, doing stuff it was never meant to do. Because of the failure of Copland, System 7 (which means System8 and 9 too) was around for about 5 years more than it should have been.

 

[Silentwave]

Tiger for sure....

I started on Mac OS either in system 6 or system 7.... my dad had macs for years until his work forced him to use PC. My older sister and I got to use the mac at that point...I don't remember exactly how old it was though.

Then I was using system 7 at my elementary school for two years. programs like UltraKey and the like. That's how I learned how to type, and talk about that being valuable in the future We had educational versions of the consumer all in ones at the time.

And then we got the iMac G3....bondi blue... right when they came out. Oh were those fun and beautiful. OS 8 naturally. I loved it....more ultrakey, and moved on to excel, ppt, and word...among others. It was a joy to use compared to my Windows 95 computer at home.

Eventually they got one or two of the indigos when some of the imacs needed replacing or we needed more computers....the principal had a powerbook, the computer teacher had a PowerMac G4 Graphite if memory serves, though I think there were a few upgrades over the years. By the time of my last year there, we had upgraded to OS 9 if memory serves but I didn't get a chance to really get to know it at the time, sadly.
So, from the olden days my favorite was OS 8.

And then came OS X....
I've always been intrigued by the latest family of Mac OS, and soon enough I wanted it badly. I even had a mac skin and dock for my windows computer. Trying out Tiger a few times had me very excited. So when my HP gave me an excuse, I dropped it like a hot potato and ran to OS X 10.4 Tiger on my MPB.

And i'm very glad I did. Looking at and having used occasionally the older OS X iterations I'm sure I like Tiger the best aesthetically and in terms of usability.

And I can't wait for leopard!

 

[bousozoku]

System 7.1 Pro. It was the fastest OS I've ever seen. I saw it boot up on a Quadra 650 in about 10 seconds. Ridiculous.

And where's the checkbox for A/UX???

You never saw BeOS. It had incredible speed and responsiveness to user input. It's the opposite of Mac OS X in almost every way. However, by the time it grew up, it might have ended up being a lot less responsive.

 

[Soulstorm]

Despite my age, I remember myself using Macs from system 7.1. those were the days...

My favorite system is Tiger. Because it has spotlight in it, and because it has great support for programmers. It is flexible and faster than the old OS X's

 

[dpaanlka]

You have to get to 7.6.1 before the os became even slightly stable again. Even then it had become a mess.

*snip*

My website (in sig) is hosted on 7.6.1 - has been running for over a month straight with fairly heavy load for an 8100 - that's a testament to Mac OS 7.6.1's stability.

Two very differeing opinions there, although I would wager a guess that I'm the one who has the most recent and clear memory of what I'm speaking.

Nevertheless, you have to keep in mind what the alternative was. It wasn't Mac OS 7.6.1 vs Windows XP.

It was Mac OS 7.6.1 vs Windows 95.

 

[bousozoku]

*snip*



Two very differeing opinions there, although I would wager a guess that I'm the one who has the most recent and clear memory of what I'm speaking.

Nevertheless, you have to keep in mind what the alternative was. It wasn't Mac OS 7.6.1 vs Windows XP.

It was Mac OS 7.6.1 vs Windows 95.

I'm sure you are the one who would remember better what you've been saying.

7.6.1 was the best of 7.x on PowerPC but it wasn't exactly that great. In my experience, it wasn't until 8.6 that I would say Mac OS was actually stable on PowerPC equipment and that stability was blown with 9.x in the search for more speed.

I'm sure that 7.6.1 was much better at running a single application that it was at running a mix of applications. Errors 10 and 11 come to mind as frequent visitors with a lot of restarts per day, though fewer than with 7.5.5 or (gah!) 7.5.3.

 

[Dunepilot]

You never saw BeOS. It had incredible speed and responsiveness to user input. It's the opposite of Mac OS X in almost every way. However, by the time it grew up, it might have ended up being a lot less responsive.

BeOS was quality. Shame the introduction of the G3 somehow broke Mac compatibility.

People forget now that, had there not been a NEXT acquisition, our current OS (which might or might not be called X) would probably be BeOS-based. That is, if Apple hadn't gone under altogether without Jobs at the helm.

 

[bousozoku]

BeOS was quality. Shame the introduction of the G3 somehow broke Mac compatibility.

People forget now that, had there not been a NEXT acquisition, our current OS (which might or might not be called X) would probably be BeOS-based. That is, if Apple hadn't gone under altogether without Jobs at the helm.

It wasn't so much the G3 as the lack of documentation since Steve Jobs and company turned off the free access to the firmware information while they were terminating the clone licensing. Version 5 of BeOS was just around the corner and it would have been brilliant since there was no longer any doubt how much faster the PowerPC processors were than their x86 counterparts of the time.

 

[adamb100]

Not true. It's still easier to run OS9 on majority of Macs (PPC) than Win (intel-only)

Please tell how.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Please tell how.

All of the Macs pre-MDD G4 towers can boot into Mac OS 9 directly. All the PowerPC Macs after that can only run Mac OS 9 inside the Classic environment. I don't remember exactly where the cutoff point was, but I remember it being somewhere around the release of the MDD (Multiple Drive Doors) PowerMac G4 towers.

 

[dpaanlka]

7.6.1 was the best of 7.x on PowerPC but it wasn't exactly that great. In my experience, it wasn't until 8.6 that I would say Mac OS was actually stable on PowerPC equipment and that stability was blown with 9.x in the search for more speed.

I'm sure that 7.6.1 was much better at running a single application that it was at running a mix of applications. Errors 10 and 11 come to mind as frequent visitors with a lot of restarts per day, though fewer than with 7.5.5 or (gah!) 7.5.3.

Well, my point being that all the classics are unstable compmared to OS X, and that 7.6.1 and 8.6 are about equally as stable. 7.6.1 is nowhere even close to being as unstable as 7.5.x. I know a lot of people on here like to say "no way - ten years ago when I used Mac OS 7.6.1 it was sooo aweful Mac OS 9 is so much better" but hello people I use it every single day on multiple machines and maintain a rather large web site and forum about it. I think I know how stable it is or isn't.

I think the problem is people's memory is blurred by the years, and 7.5.x and 7.6.x simply merge into one uber-System 7. A lot of people (including myself) have tremendously bad experiences with 7.5.x and think "well 7.6 can't possibly be that much better" but it really is.

Another common situation is that most people simply jumped from 7.5.x straight to OS 8, since 7.6 wasn't really around for that long and a lot of people didn't have the internet back then.

Also, 7.5.x is free, wheras 7.6.x isn't. So today, most people running System 7 on their Macs (or at least trying it) do so with 7.5.x.

You never saw BeOS. It had incredible speed and responsiveness to user input. It's the opposite of Mac OS X in almost every way. However, by the time it grew up, it might have ended up being a lot less responsive.

I'd still say OS 7 was/felt faster, but mostly because it has a GUI that is composed of wide ares of white space separated by 1px black lines. I did a simple GUI test of OS 7 vs OS 7 with Mac OS 8's Apperance Manager vs Mac OS 8 itself, and the plain OS 7 beat them all by pretty wide margins. I can't locate it now but RacerX should remember... it's how we first "met"

All of the Macs pre-MDD G4 towers can boot into Mac OS 9 directly. All the PowerPC Macs after that can only run Mac OS 9 inside the Classic environment. I don't remember exactly where the cutoff point was, but I remember it being somewhere around the release of the MDD (Multiple Drive Doors) PowerMac G4 towers.

All G4 towers could boot OS 9.

No G5 tower could.

I believe all titanium PowerBooks could boot OS 9 wheras no aluminums could - I might be wrong though I'm not sure.

 

[macidiot]

All of the Macs pre-MDD G4 towers can boot into Mac OS 9 directly. All the PowerPC Macs after that can only run Mac OS 9 inside the Classic environment. I don't remember exactly where the cutoff point was, but I remember it being somewhere around the release of the MDD (Multiple Drive Doors) PowerMac G4 towers.

The MDD towers were the last to be able to boot from OS9.

And it's not Multiple Drive Doors. MDD stood for mirrored drive doors.

 

[macidiot]

*snip*



Two very differeing opinions there, although I would wager a guess that I'm the one who has the most recent and clear memory of what I'm speaking.

Nevertheless, you have to keep in mind what the alternative was. It wasn't Mac OS 7.6.1 vs Windows XP.

It was Mac OS 7.6.1 vs Windows 95.

True, I'm not running 7.6.1 anywhere right now. But I had it installed on about 400 macs when it was current. And like I said it was a huge improvement over 7.5.5. It was moderately stable. But it was slow and Open Transport was still iffy. And it didn't come close to the stability of 7.1 or even 7.5.

 

[Macmaniac]

For the longest time my family ran 8.6 on our Performa 6300CD, it could surf the web, and play starcraft

In fact thanks to system 8.6 I got online with AOL(shudder) and registered with Macrumors, that was over 5 years ago eek. 8.6 was very stable and for our system at the time ran quite well. God MR loaded slow on an 18k modem, ew

 

[wrldwzrd89]

The MDD towers were the last to be able to boot from OS9.

And it's not Multiple Drive Doors. MDD stood for mirrored drive doors.

D'oh! Thanks, guys. I knew you'd help me where my memory failed me.

 

[dpaanlka]

God MR loaded slow on an 18k modem, ew

Actually, it's probably more because you were using a 6300, based on the motherboard that is widely considered to be the worst design in Apple's entire history.

This is a very intersting read on the subject, explaining just how bad they were, even for 1996. They soured many people's opinions about Macs for years.

 

[RacerX]

The last PowerMac G4s to be Mac OS 9 bootable were the Dual 1.25 GHz systems... the Dual G4 models with Firewire 800 (top of the line for them was the Dual 1.42 GHz systems) were Mac OS X only.

The Dual 1.25 GHz (non-Firewire 800) models were sold for more than a year after their original release (Summer of 2002) to education users who still needed Mac OS 9.

The last PowerBook to be Mac OS 9 bootable was the 1 GHz PowerBook G4... last of the Titanium models.

 

[kalisphoenix]

Wow, looking at the poll there are 4 votes for Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server 1.0... that's amazing!





And no, I didn't vote more than once!

I voted for Tiger. I haven't actually used Rhapsody, although I have OS4.2 and used to have a NeXTStation. If I had OS X Server 1.x, I definitely would've installed it on my PMG3