Why OS9 ?

The decision of OS should really take into consideration the the computer hardware, apps, and other third-party devices and drivers available.

One may choose to use an older OS as part of a combined package including the OS, hardware, and apps perhaps when a substantial investment has been made in that overall system, and it continues to perform the intended task for busines/personal/leisure/etc.

There may be little incentive to invest in all the upgrades especially if the needed functionality, or some adequate alternative, is no longer even available in some cases. Compatibility remains a big issue with any older OS, but if you have a stand-alone system, and other newer computers to deal with the modern internet, then an older OS 9 machine may continue to be a useful part of a home/business/educational computer collection.

Trying to run OS X on an older computer that isn't really equipped well enough might be one reason to revert back to OS 9 for a particular machine that runs OS 9 better and more responsively than it can run OS X with the older limited CPU, RAM, storage, etc...

TEG,

just like others have said, it probably just comes down to software requirements first and hardware performance second.

I'm consistently in OSX (Panther) now all the time, I have to reboot maybe once every two months (I don't HAVE to, but it may solve a file locking issue). For me, I've found OSX replacements for nearly all my OS9 (and OS8 and others back to System 6.0.8) software. But for a few select pieces, I haven't (Caesar III, Photoshop 5.5), so when I need to I reboot in OS9 and get to work (or play).
Others might have more OS9 software than OSX replacements, so they spend more time in OS9.
Some have no desire or need for OSX, all their OS9 software still does what they need it to do, just as fast as it did 7 years ago.
It took me about 2 years of OS9 and OSX, nearly all the time in OS9, before I took the step of rebooting into OSX and staying there. 2 years of extended daily use, learning the OSX apps available and trying them if I could.

Talking of Software Requirements, will Don finally migrate to OSX when Diablo III is released ? Coming soon.

Hi all!

Another thing I'd like to throw in is, Mac OS X has never had the selection of
educational software that the Classic Mac OS has...
It's really quite sad. Leaving kids behind on the Mac platform is ridiculous! There used to be *tons and tons* of educational software for
Mac OS 9 and below. What the heck happened?
Most of the Mac OS X educational software is so shallow it'll bring you to tears
practically! What the heck!? This is Mac OS X! Put some effort into it for crying out loud! Kids need to learn, not zone out on RPGs!

Though fortunately there's some quality educational stuff on the web. But, it's not as good and in depth as a true quality program!




Also, a great productivity suite of software for Mac OS 9 can be had at a fraction of
the cost of newer Mac OS X software.

People have to remember here about the Classic OS; It's been since 1984 that the Mac debuted. And having years of use getting to know all the advancements in the original Mac OS is not easy to just throw aside.
The real Finder in Mac OS 9 is just as fast as the dock if not more convenient to
add to it. Once you get your Applications all set, you'll hardly have to tinker with the extensions manager.

Upgrading is bottom dollar.
Peripherals are practically a steal.
Software is more abundant than ever. (And found often for free or a small price!)
Getting to know Mac OS 9 is like getting to know your best friend.
It's so easy, so fun, so customizable it makes Mac OS X look stubborn and rude (sorry)
Why Mac OS X doesn't have more Mac OS 9 features is beyond me.
But booting into Mac OS 9 is always a treat.
Sure, there's some problems you'll run into. But if you backup your data you've got it made in the shade.
I'm glad Apple included Classic environment to fuel my hunger for nostalgia.

Who knows if I'll ever let go of it. (probably not too soon, if ever)

Cheers,
L+

Message was edited by: Learning+

There used to be tons and tons of educational software for Mac OS 9 and below. What the heck happened?

There still is for Mac OS X. What are you missing?

See my FAQ*:

http://www.macmaps.com/macosxnative.html

has several software search engines you can use to find good software.

Apparently the search engines you have been using have not given you good enough results, or results which you don't understand. Remember, many older software developers folded. So looking for that software under older software developers is going to be hard. It is time to start searching for new ones.

Yes, it is true that some software for Mac OS 9 never got upgraded to Mac OS X.
But Mac OS X provides much more stability than Mac OS 9, and wider peripheral compatibility, and now better Windows compatibility than 9 ever had.

Perhaps instead of complaining, start asking questions in your own thread of what is available for Mac OS X, if you can't find it in my FAQ.

- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.

Message was edited by: a brody

Like you, I am saddened by the Mac's apparent diminishing status within some sectors of the educational environment. But please remember the vast majority of educational software, in fact just about all of it, came from non-Apple sources. Have you considered writing to some of those software companies - those that are still around - and urging them to get back to what they did well?

p.s. Don't get your hopes up. I did this a few years ago, and received not one response from about a dozen companies.

is there more to this than DK trimming their software lines after (what I remember to be) a particularly bad year. Around about the same time that AOL posted the biggest single year loss ever $51bn, wasn't it ?

There are plenty of ways to disassemble OS 9. Much of the legacy sources were so impenetrable that even internal projects relied heavily upon monkey patching. Every icon that marches along the bottom of your screen at boot time is applying a staggering array of cheap hacks to inject new behavior into ancient code nobody really understands anymore.

Ok, start with the "model" list below.

THEN do a little digging and reading:
199307 Engineering Times - Will High Technology Bring Engineering Disaster? [unverified software applied by unqualified users]
199409 Scientific American - Software's Chronic Crisis, W. Wayt Gibbs [software is being written but not by programmers]
199409 IEEE Spectrum - Judgment's Subtle Presence [replacing the decisions made by people with pre-programmed ignorance]
199703 IEEE Spectrum - Reflections on Complexity, Robert W. Lucky [just because you can does not mean you should]
199707 WIRED - Digital Obesity, Nicholas Negroponte ["personal computers" have never been people friendly]
199802 WIRED - Productivity Paradox [the numbers, folks, where are the numbers to back up the continued spending?]
199707 IEEE Institute - Software Engineering [accreditation of educational programs for "professional" programmers]
199800 Walking on Thin Ice by Peter de Jager [how the Y2K problem was created by the bureaucrats, not the programmers]
200004 US NRC - Digital Instrumenation Research Plan [the emperor has no software quality assurance program]
199907 US NRC- 464th ACRS - Commentary by Dr. Graham Wallis on RETRAN-3D [only "real professors" know what is correct way to "engineer"]
200502 US NRC ACRS Sub-C on THP - Commentary by Dr. Graham Wallis on TRACE [user manuals generally ** - DUH! so do most textbooks]
199907 No High Tech Training - The Financial Times by Rebecca Christie [a partial explanation of the productivity paradox]
200503 How computers make kids dumb - Andrew Orlowski - San Francisco [the title says it all]

COMPLEXITY and "FEATURES" for the pleasure and gratification of the purveyors of bloatware is NOT in the interest of the end users in any way, shape, manner, or form. (The "Engineer" in "Boson Engineer" might be a clue to "walking in my shoes".)

A simpler explanation: Hypercard, CricketGraph, Appleworks. With those three tools, and NO others needed, I was able to outperform, in quantity and quality, many of my peers in the "profession", for the simple reason that I knew what the limits of the tools I was prepared to learn were, and the added "fluffery" of "sound and fury", audio and craphic "effects", DID "signify NOTHING", when it came down to communication of useful information; why else is it called "information technology".

Don't get me wrong, I am well versed in the use of the "standard" business software, and I have found that the first thing I am asked to do for those whose expertise in nowhere as extensive as mine has HAD to become, is to TURN OFF as much of the "features" as is possible without hobbling the "standard" business software. The result being that I quickly demonstrate that, when properly applied, the previous pre-GUI versions of the software is more than adequate for the vast majority of users.

It is simply a matter of OVERALL increased "utility", if it is NOT there, it is NOT THERE!

A more technical issue is the use of human readable files; with the increased use of insanely complex file formats and compression techniques, the ability to do a "data dump" and examine the raw files is next to impossible (see for reference "The Forbin Project" regarding the "inter-system" language problem).

FLAME ON!

Gosh, I don't know. Something about the fact that it was designed from the ground up to handle multiple concurrent ISAs seems like it might have come in handy during the transition to yet another chipset. Especially with those pesky PPC plugins that force you to run the host application through Rosetta in order to work correctly.

But I think the better question is what advantage did Mach-O have over CFM when a Mach-O loader could easily have been made an integral part of CFM, allowing it to handle all the NeXT cruft they didn't have time to port? Couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that Avie stood to profit--monetarily or psychologically--from his pet project's adoption, could it? How much has the OS improved since his departure again?

Water under the bridge at this point, but statements of preference do not constitute circular reasoning regardless of whether or not you share those preferences.

I'm just going to throw my two cents in, for the sake of OS X, and whatever comes after.
I totally agree that the utility of either system lies in the end users needs.
The question is, what do you use your computer for?
If your me, you use it to edit DV and HDV video, edit/correct large still images, and motion graphics (as well as the usual net, e-mail stuff.) There simply isn't any question to the worth of OS 9 here, there isn't any. Though I think real artists can do a lot with just about any tool, we shouldn't recede into negative value judgements just because things are changing. I bet many OS 9 users came from system 6 and 7 and so on. A good question would be why did you leave them behind?
Of course most of us aren't wealthy dogs with every toy or tool in the world, in which case if OS 9 suits your needs and theres no reason strong enought to justify OS X and likely the new computer to support it, then more power to you all!
I'm not trying to play sides here, as I'm only 22 years old and somewhat anachronistic when it comes to technology. I shoot MF and 35mm Film on camera's that are 40 years old! And I also have a killer vinyl collection. It's just that I see a lot people cling to things when there is little reasoning, which I think is a more underlying issue for us all in America.
Having said that, here's to not forgetting are roots! They will humble us.

Here is my 2 1/2 cents in , I run OS9 for games . I have a Lombard and 333 imac that OS-X forgot to support with open GL but OS9 is fully supported . In OS 9 they also edit DV movies with surprising speed because programs were made to not use as much resources like OS-X . OS9 is faster on them old macs and gives them a life worth working on . On my iBook 500 I also have OS 9 on for games , although the graphics chip is supported with open GL unlike some of my other macs I still like my old games and there isn't an OS-X equivalent for that game ( Driver , Mech Warriors ,... ) . If OS9 had a modern web browser ( icab is good but nothing like Firefox or Safari ) I would not need to boot into OS-X . Also OS 9 didn't take up that much space nor did the programs , you could do a lot with very little .

Hi all, my first post, but couldn't resist adding something here.

I use OS 9.2.2 for music, it is great. Someone mentioned the response of the machine in an earlier post - totally different to OS X. Using Logic 8 on OS X is painfull by comparison, and anyone who uses my machine is reminded of that when they start using it. When using a pro application, one needs the computer to keep up with one's thought process, not be hindered by the lethargy of an operating system.
If anyone is interested, while some of the new features in Logic 8 are great, as a piece of software, it is dreadfull to use when compared to Emagics last release 6.4.3 - partly OS, partly the software.

I have also noticed that many old offline Avid systems still run OS 9, why upgrade? It works a treat!

So there are many toys out there which are not available to me, of course, but there are also some old toys which are no longer available to OS X users, so swings and roundabouts. I would not swap this machine for any other mac...

I am however sure I am in the minority here!

Hi, TEG. Some folks just don't agree with you — it's as simple as that. It takes all kinds.

I use OS 9.2, Panther & Tiger on my Macs. I use OS 9 more than OS X, partly because I have OS 9 apps that I don't have OS X equivalents.

 Cheers, Tom 😉

It's because others some want to run Classic software, because Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) doesn't classic support.