Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Classic Macs and Mac OS > 9.1 and 9.2 difference?

9.1 and 9.2 difference?
Thread Tools
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2002, 12:17 PM
 
Folks,
What's the diff between 9.1 and 9.2? I've combed Apple's site and dogged if I can find it. I've got the downloads and system requirements, etc. but nothing about what's new in each upgrade.

And now for something completely different...
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Fe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2002, 11:26 AM
 
Originally posted by justthefacts:
Folks,
What's the diff between 9.1 and 9.2? I've combed Apple's site and dogged if I can find it. I've got the downloads and system requirements, etc. but nothing about what's new in each upgrade.
9.2 has a mysterious pause before startup. It has a revised KeyCaps app. that is hard to read. It has new OS X-friendly Appearances like a plain white background (?). It also includes some OS X-friendly extensions. I don't think Apple ever released a full "what's new" list.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2002, 01:39 PM
 
not aware of a "mysterious pause befor startup"...is appletalk on? file sharing?

meanwhile, from my own experience:
some fixes, some minor changes in some of the control panels.

for me, 9.2.2 is the best classic os ever (started at 7.1...!)

but your mileage may vary...
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2002, 07:54 PM
 
I've always thought of 9.2 to be geared more towards being the best for Classic mode in OS X. From what I've read from diehard 9'ers, they seem to prefer versions less than 9.2.

I've also noticed that silly pause at startup. Kinda annoying.


Brad
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orange County, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2002, 03:37 PM
 
Hmmm...I thought the pause at startup was a conspiracy to give it the same look as X 10.0 and 10.1 with that beachball in the corner.

9.2 is nothing more than a classic compatibility release.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2002, 01:50 PM
 
I agree with fisherKing. I've only been in since 8.6, but 9.2.2 is the best on my DV400.
Who are the Brain Police?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2002, 05:01 PM
 
9.1 is the best, unless you solely want to use it for Classic (if 9.1 was FULL INSTALLED from a CD, not UPDATED).

9.2.2 is tolerable if it was FULL INSTALLED from a CD, not UPDATED).

If you have 9.0.x and updates, DO NOT upgrade. Stay with 9.0.4 (update to there), and STAY there.

Do not use web updates on OS9.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2002, 10:03 PM
 
9.2.2 will freeze unless used as Classic.

(for me, at least)
World of Warcraft (Whisperwind - Alliance) <The Eternal Spiral>
Go Dogcows!
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2002, 05:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Jansar:
9.2.2 will freeze unless used as Classic.

(for me, at least)
Well, that is sort of true.. I had 9.2.2 and Jaguar installed on the same volume, and was constantly freezing when running OS9.

I reformatted, and installed 9.2.2 on one partition, and Jaguar on the other. I only installed the absolutely necessary extensions to OS9, and have not had a freeze since, where I was having a freeze every ten minutes before.

I believe that they do not play well together when on the same boot volume, or that some extensions, whatever they may be, do not work well with 9.2.2, which I have found to be 100% stable when left in a near native configuration.

DrSpk
iChat/AOL: DJTcl
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2002, 06:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
9.1 is the best, unless you solely want to use it for Classic (if 9.1 was FULL INSTALLED from a CD, not UPDATED).

If you have 9.0.x and updates, DO NOT upgrade. Stay with 9.0.4 (update to there), and STAY there.

Do not use web updates on OS9.
Why? Not even 9.1 update CDs?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2002, 08:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Langdon:


Why? Not even 9.1 update CDs?
How big is the updater on the CD?

And nah, I wouldn't trust it.

I may change my mind, depending on the size. Not too likely though.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2002, 10:49 AM
 
9.04 is excellent, very stable.
9.2.1 is good too, adds a few things like the window menu in the finder and smart drag and drop. alot of updates don't run in 9.04 i think.
9.2.2 i never had good experience with and shun it.
i look in your general direction
     
CIA
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2002, 02:52 PM
 
My machine is on 24/7, running all sorts of different apps, and 9.2.2 has run like a champ for me. No OSX installed though.... (Beige G3)
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rotterdam,Holland.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2002, 06:31 AM
 
Originally posted by CIA:
My machine is on 24/7, running all sorts of different apps, and 9.2.2 has run like a champ for me. No OSX installed though.... (Beige G3)
Same for me.
No problems at all,best Apple OS I used so far.
MOSTLY HARMLESS

http://www.macfreak.nl
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cambridge, Chicago, Jerusalem (school/home/heart)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2002, 12:31 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
9.1 is the best, unless you solely want to use it for Classic (if 9.1 was FULL INSTALLED from a CD, not UPDATED).

9.2.2 is tolerable if it was FULL INSTALLED from a CD, not UPDATED).

If you have 9.0.x and updates, DO NOT upgrade. Stay with 9.0.4 (update to there), and STAY there.

Do not use web updates on OS9.
Pardon Cipher for he knows not. :o As the senior mac engineer for a VERY large University (over 10,000 Mac users) I will say that the 9.x to 9.2.2 updates work perfectly fine. In fact I have often found them to work *better* for my purposes than hunting down that ever elusive 9.2.2 CD. In terms of drawbacks to running the 9.2.2 CD, there are none. All your settings are kept, keychain works fine and in fact nothing wrong. Of course there are the occational machines which are flakey in the first place and need to be formatted/reinstalled so that would be good to run the 9.2.2 CD, but if all you have is the 9.x CD, you can run the 9.x to 9.2.2 updaters with no problems.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cambridge, Chicago, Jerusalem (school/home/heart)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2002, 12:35 AM
 
Originally posted by CIA:
My machine is on 24/7, running all sorts of different apps, and 9.2.2 has run like a champ for me. No OSX installed though.... (Beige G3)
Same here. My Pismo 400 isn't fast enough or equiped with a good enough video card to run X. 9.2.2 has been running strong and stable for over a year now. At work I have a faster machine which runs 10.2.1, but I still like my 9.2.2 box. 10.2.1 has major samba issues while Netatalk issues don't exist for 9.2.2. It just works!
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Appleville, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2002, 10:01 AM
 
Originally posted by bstone:


Same here. My Pismo 400 isn't fast enough or equiped with a good enough video card to run X. 9.2.2 has been running strong and stable for over a year now.
I was hesitant to install 9.2.x after running 9.1 with no problems on my TiBook 400. Especially after reading some of the horror stories here and on Apple's discussion boards. I've been running 9.2.2 for about a week now and all is well. The speed is unreal, next to X, on my PowerBook. And *knocks on wood* it is VERY stable. I'm going to miss OS9 when it comes time for a new PowerBook.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2002, 04:25 PM
 
Originally posted by bstone:
Pardon Cipher for he knows not. :o
ciph was referring to a bug in the 9.1 updater which can cause the updated system to suddenly turn on your disk's directory most voraciously. while i am among those who fell victim to it, i am still dubious about the bug.
you see, i had been running just fine for about a month after updating to 9.1 with the downloaded updater. then one evening i'm on AIM with ciph and he tells me about this severe bug in the updater that can cause an updated system to randomly destroy disk directories. then he tells me about all of these people he knows who have suffered from the bug, and mentions that actually a couple of them the bug struck just days after he told them about it, and they were lucky they heed his warnings and had backed up before disaster struck. i laughed then.
but then the next day my system absolutely trashed its partition on my hard disk. i mean really trashed. i had to reformat that partition. i later did a clean install of 9.1 from cd which i never had problems with.
we conclude that the 9.1 updater is fine unless cipher has told you it will trash your hard disk, in which case it will. beware! noone who's read this thread is safe.
damn cipher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2002, 05:38 AM
 
bstone;

I don't care how long you've been in the business for; I don't care how many Macs you manage (try managing a high school, as I do, and then you'll understand what it's like to have a system actively working AGAINST you). Flaunting your supposed 10000 Mac users as a reason you're correct is akin to my saying "I have twelve thousand posts so I must know all" - neither is anywhere near the truth.

You are blatently incorrect.

I will state this one last time, and if you would like to remain safe and sane, you will take my advice.

Installing Mac OS 9.1 on top of 9.0.x via a downloaded updater will cause you grief eventually, unless you are running a machine which initially came with it - in which case, you will not need said updater.

The same goes for 9.2.1, and 9.2.2.


This is how to run a system:

*FULL* install 9.1 from a CD for standalone use.

*FULL* install 9.2.2 from a CD for Classic use.

bstone, "if everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on".

I would stake everything I have on this, and the people that know me know that I'm correct. There will always be exceptional cases, but the vast majority lies on *my* side.

Elz, thanks for the backup - I remember that very conversation
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2002, 01:47 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
I would stake everything I have on this, and the people that know me know that I'm correct. There will always be exceptional cases, but the vast majority lies on *my* side.
now you're just being unrealistic ciph. it is not even close to the "vast majority" of 9.0.x --> 9.1 updates have or will have the aforementioned problems. despite your 12k+ posts [cute little puny post count there, btw ] the vast majority of mac users don't even know who you are, much less have their machines been cursed by your evil magicks
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2002, 10:42 PM
 
Originally posted by elzinat:
now you're just being unrealistic ciph. it is not even close to the "vast majority" of 9.0.x --> 9.1 updates have or will have the aforementioned problems. despite your 12k+ posts [cute little puny post count there, btw ] the vast majority of mac users don't even know who you are, much less have their machines been cursed by your evil magicks
Hahaha.

Oh right - it only afflicts people I warn about it, sorry, forgot

Okay - the vast majority that read this thread.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Here and there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2002, 07:05 AM
 
Alright, I know that this Thread is about the difference between OS 9.1 and OS 9.2 but I don't want to start a new thread, so here goes my question:

What is the difference between OS 8.6, OS 9.0.4 and OS 9.1? So far, I'm running OS 8.6 on my PowerBook 1400c/166 w/ 32MB RAM but was thinking of maybe updating it to OS 9.1. But since I only have 32MB of RAM, 9.1 would be a little too much I guess, so how 'bout 9.0.4? Would that work with 32MB of RAM and would it be faster or better or whatever than 8.6?
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one
pretty and well preserved piece, but to skid across the line broadside,
thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, shouting GERONIMO!"
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Appleville, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2002, 02:05 PM
 
Originally posted by D'Espice:

What is the difference between OS 8.6, OS 9.0.4 and OS 9.1? So far, I'm running OS 8.6 on my PowerBook 1400c/166 w/ 32MB RAM but was thinking of maybe updating it to OS 9.1. But since I only have 32MB of RAM, 9.1 would be a little too much I guess, so how 'bout 9.0.4? Would that work with 32MB of RAM and would it be faster or better or whatever than 8.6?
Take your signature's advice.

Seriously, if you are only running 32MB, stick with 8.6 unless there are apps that require 9 or later. Sometimes you can just get away with have the lastest Carbon Lib.

But since I don't have 20 million posts here, I may not know what I am talking about
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Canada eh?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2002, 07:29 PM
 
I'm running 9.2.1 on an old Biege G3, and its working great. In fact upgrading solved 3rd Party USB issues I was having. This machine has ONLY been updated by web downloads from 8.0 through its various updates, and then 9.0 to 9.2.1. Personally, I find web updates just fine.

I think one of the major deciders about these little upgrades is like what was mentioned before, if it aint broke, dont fix it. I ran successfully on 9.1 for a while untill I had the USB problems and then decided that upgrading to 9.2 might help, it did

Now that I've given my opinion, the other thing I would suggest is never listen to a single person on things like this ....get a feel for what the update has done to the majority of users.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Westchester County, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2002, 11:25 PM
 
OK, I have a 9.0.4 CD and a 9.2.1 CD. I currently run the latter sustem and would like to know if there is a 9.1.x CD available from a reputable source?? 9.2.1 is buggy as hell on my Pismo 500 and I'm going nuts. There are too many extensions that are for use with OS X on 9.2.1 and Conflict Catcher does not identify all of them.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2002, 01:51 PM
 
Get rid of Conflict Catcher and use the Extension Manager control panel to disable extensions you don't need.
Who are the Brain Police?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Westchester County, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2002, 09:52 PM
 
I will. Right after the first of the year when work slows down and I take some of my leftover vacation days. Still looking for a 9.1.x CD. Any Ideas? E-Bay usually just has system disks for I-Macs and such, I'm sure they won't work correctly with my Pismo that's why I keep searching. I don't want to do too many updates on the OS.
Thanks for the tip about CC, It seems pretty flakey at times.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2002, 07:26 AM
 
Hmmm. My wife has been running 9.1 updated from 9.0.4 for over a year or more and she doesn't have freezes or other problems. It's a Sawtooth 400 G4.

So either she has grief she doesn't complain about (I would know if she did) or she doesn't have grief. She uses exactly 1.0 computers at home and primarily plays games (solitaire, Civilization, Sims), surfs, and emails.

What do you say about that, Mr. 12000+ posts?

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2002, 03:52 AM
 
One difference between 9.1 and 9.2 is that 9.2 will only run on OS X capable machines. If your Mac can't run OS X, it can't run OS 9.2.
Vandelay Industries
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2002, 10:18 AM
 
I don't even use any version of Mac OS 9 prior to 9.2.x

I own legit 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 installer CDs

It's too much hassle to support any older version of Mac OS, am concentrating on the migration to Mac OS X.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2