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 > speed and stability - 9.1 vs 9.2

speed and stability - 9.1 vs 9.2
Thread Tools
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2002, 05:26 PM
 
I have a question - I am thinking about moving up to 9.2 from 9.1 My question is what is yhour expirience with 9.2 vs. 9.1 faster? more stable ? I'm running 400 Pismo. 9.1 is ok, but maybe 9.2 will be a better choice. Note: I am not running os X on my HD so compatability is not an issue for me. Any suggestions would be appriciated.
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2002, 06:51 PM
 
I had a bad experience with 9.2 on my Cube. It was nice and fast at first, but slowed down over time. (a few weeks) Apps would hang for 30 or 40 secs at launch, and so would files when opening. Gradually took longer and longer to boot, too. 3.5 minutes at the end, before I reverted to 9.1, which still boots in just a tad over 2 mins, and always has. All attempts to repair and or optimize (rebuild desktop, zap pram, TechTool, Disk Warrior, etc. etc.) had only temporary results at best.

Other people seem to think it's fine, and some machines wont boot anything older-- mainly the Qucksilver G4's, but you probably won't see any benefits at all on a Pismo.

The only strengths of 9.2 are some enhancements to help it run as Classic under OS X.

Just my experience, your milage may vary.

CV

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2002, 07:07 PM
 
Stay with 9.1.

9.2 is designed for OSX, not for stand-alone use.

9.2 is shit. Not only that, but NEVER use major system updaters on OS9.

9.0 to 9.04 is fine (minor system update), for eg; but avoid those like 9.04 to 9.1 or whatever.

Get the fiull CD install if you really must try it.

You've been warned.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2002, 01:03 AM
 
I have had excellent success with 9.2.2. It is more stable than 9.1 in my experience, but I cannot detect any difference in speed.

As for 9.2 being built to run only as classic in OS X, that a crock of bull. Apple loads it on their new systems as a default OS, so clearly Cipher doesn't know what he's talking about. If it were designed only to run as classic then why is it a default OS, hmm?

My suggestion is, if you're not having any problems with 9.1, then don't bother updating. There isn't enough of a difference to warrant the risk of introducing instability to your system. Even though 9.2.2 is very stable for me, that doesn't mean it will be on your system, with your constellation of extensions and peripherals.

However, if OS 9.1 is unstable on your system, then I'd go ahead and update it to 9.2.2. Save a copy of your old system folder in case you want to go back.

Powermac G4, 400 MHz "Sawtooth".
Radeon
576 MB RAM
OS X, 10.1.2, 9.2.2
[FONT="book antiqua"]"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.[/FONT]
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2002, 02:12 PM
 
I agree with Overclocked. I upgraded through Apple, and have enjoyed 9.2.2 ever since it came out with no problems. I also disagree that one should "never" use system updaters in OS 9. When I asked for alternatives to updating through Apple in a separate post, I was told to "pirate" the update. Clearly, this is unacceptable for most people.
Improvements I have found in 9.2.2 are: that command/option/esc actually works, previously, it would always freeze up on me, also when I shut down, I would sometimes crash, as I run three TechTool system checks and Norton file saver on shut down. Since upgrading to 9.2.2, shutdown has worked flawlessly. I have also noticed quicker start up, and a smoother running system with fewer crashes.
Just my two cents, for what it's worth.
Who are the Brain Police?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2002, 05:05 PM
 
i'm also running 9.2.2, but not X, on a pismo 400, and for me, it's fast & stable, maybe my most stable experience with mac os.
all my apps run fine.
there's usually little bug fixes, tweaks in an update, so i'd go for it.
"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)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2002, 03:26 AM
 
Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>I have had excellent success with 9.2.2. It is more stable than 9.1 in my experience, but I cannot detect any difference in speed.

As for 9.2 being built to run only as classic in OS X, that a crock of bull. Apple loads it on their new systems as a default OS, so clearly Cipher doesn't know what he's talking about. If it were designed only to run as classic then why is it a default OS, hmm?

My suggestion is, if you're not having any problems with 9.1, then don't bother updating. There isn't enough of a difference to warrant the risk of introducing instability to your system. Even though 9.2.2 is very stable for me, that doesn't mean it will be on your system, with your constellation of extensions and peripherals.

However, if OS 9.1 is unstable on your system, then I'd go ahead and update it to 9.2.2. Save a copy of your old system folder in case you want to go back.

Powermac G4, 400 MHz "Sawtooth".
Radeon
576 MB RAM
OS X, 10.1.2, 9.2.2</STRONG>
Well being the self-proclaimed superior that Overclockedhomosapien must be, it's quite amusing that he is just plain wrong, and possibly incapable of comprehending written English.

Why do they default 9.22 with new machines?

1. For OSX compatibility. I say keep a 9.22 around for Classic.
2. Because they don't install 9.1 then update to 9.22 on new machines, do they? No, they FULL install 9.22, which I have said is FINE.

I suggest you brush up on your literature skills (incase you merely couldn't read my post correctly ), and think twice before you throw another comment like that at me. Fool.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2002, 07:14 AM
 
I do tech support and see up to 90 machines in my working week. My clients are mostly happy so I know something about what I do.

There is some truth and a lot misinformation in what cipher13 says.

Basically, it boils down to this:

If you have an older machine (eg, Pismo) with 9.1 installed and everything's hunky dory, you don't really need to upgrade as you won't get much benefit if you're booting into 9. Certainly no performance benefit, just later FireWire drivers, etc.

If you have a newer machine such as a dual-USB ("smooth white") iBook with a rewritable drive, then you SHOULD upgrade as the authoring support is somewhat improved in 9.2. Machines dating from mid-2001 benefit from 9.2 the most.

If you put 9.2 on an older machine then you may experience minor problems such as your optical drive "polling" at random intervals. This is caused by the various authoring support extensions and can be remedied by turning these extensions off.

9.2 is optimized for use with Mac OS X and is recommended for the Classic mode, preferably an install with a minimal feature set. You can have a twin install without too much trouble if you still spend the majority of your time in 9. (About 70% of Mac'ers do currently, but it's slowly decreasing.)

Cipher13's claim that System Updaters are risky is probably well-intentioned but quite confused:

- If you, say, installed a virgin Mac OS 9, ran an updater to 9.0.4, then ran an updater to 9.1, ran an updater to 9.2, then finally ran an updater to 9.2.2... the end result would be identical to installing 9.2.2 out of the box. Apple spend a lot of QA hours ensuring this.

- Cipher13 may be speaking from his experience installing updates over a jumbled set of 3rd party extensions, with some system ones disabled, some overwritten by poorly written installers (anyone had their QuickTime downgraded by a game?). In this case, he is absolutely correct in saying that you'll have a better success rate installing a clean System. Just wrong about the part that ".1" installers are "sh*t" etc, etc.

Finally, don't believe everything you see on forums like this. Many people, like Cipher13, are quite knowledgeable but also extremely opinionated, and they may give poor advice simply to prove a point or serve up an insult.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2002, 07:29 AM
 
"Theoretically" doesn't work in the computer world.

When I update a system, I clean install it, then update it sequentially...

I've had bad experiences - and these aren't idiosyncratic. They exhibit themselves on many machines I use.

There's no misinformation in what I say. Major updaters are all bad, for *SOME* reason. I'm not trying to explain it...

Minor? Fine.

As for 9.2... if your machine came with it, use it.

If your machine is older than a Sawtooth ( =&lt; Yikes!) don't go near it; and if you must, use a full-install CD; though I would strongly recommend AVOIDING 9.2 unless your hardware came with it.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2002, 10:16 AM
 
On my Wallstreet, 9.2 was buggy. I dropped back to 9.1 and have been happy ever since. Upgrade only if you're using 10 or if your CPU is one specifically mentioned in the 9.2 technotes as containing a bug fix (newer CPU's only).

9.2 is only "faster" when booted as Classic under MacOS X.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rotterdam,Holland.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2002, 09:23 AM
 
I updated my Imac 400dv with 320 mb ram from 9.0 to 9.4 to 9.1 to 9.2.2 and NEVER had any problems with the upgrades or the OS.
9.2 feels a little faster (wishful thinking?) and is just as stable as 9.1.
I do keep my systemmap as clean as possible,without to many extensions and run disc dr every month,but the upgrades never gave me problems.
The only full install I ever did was 9.0 on the new machine,no re installs after that.Never a problem with major updates.
MOSTLY HARMLESS

http://www.macfreak.nl
     
<scarab>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2002, 09:52 AM
 
Not to pick on you Cipher, but let's recap what you said earlier:

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>Stay with 9.1.

9.2 is designed for OSX, not for stand-alone use.

9.2 is shit. Not only that, but NEVER use major system updaters on OS9.
</STRONG>
     
<Macalong>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 01:07 AM
 
For Buzz Lightbeer

You said above: 9.2 is optimized for use with Mac OS X and is recommended for the Classic mode, preferably an install with a minimal feature set. You can have a twin install without too much trouble if you still spend the majority of your time in 9. (About 70% of Mac'ers do currently, but it's slowly decreasing.)

I think this was in referance to machines after mid 2001.

Q. For latest G4 Towers and/or latest powerbooks (yet to buy); If I will be only in classic with no use for X at all - would I benefit from a 9.1 install (after wiping the drive) from a full retail 9.1 & X Set (this not being from the 9.2.2 & X OS that will come with these computers). And, just using the 9.1 install disk as a stand alone, only OS. Or, would you still go with the 9.2.2 only w/o the X?..

Any other thoughts will be appreciated. I'm going to try to make my purchase before the non-9 booters.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 01:29 AM
 
For Buzz Lightbeer

You said above: 9.2 is optimized for use with Mac OS X and is recommended for the Classic mode, preferably an install with a minimal feature set. You can have a twin install without too much trouble if you still spend the majorityof your time in 9. (About 70% of Mac'ers do currently, but it's slowly decreasing.)

I think this was in referance to machines after mid 2001.

Q. For latest G4 Towers and/or latest powerbooks (yet to buy); If I will be only in classic with no use for X at all - would I benefit from a 9.1 install (after wiping the drive) from a full retail 9.1 & X Set (this not being from the 9.2.2 & X OS that will come with these computers). And, just using the 9.1 install disk as a stand alone, only OS. Or, would you still go with the 9.2.2 only w/o the X?..

Any other thoughts will be appreciated. I'm going to try to make my purchase before the non-9 booters.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 08:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Macalong:
<STRONG>For Buzz Lightbeer

You said above: 9.2 is optimized for use with Mac OS X and is recommended for the Classic mode, preferably an install with a minimal feature set. You can have a twin install without too much trouble if you still spend the majorityof your time in 9. (About 70% of Mac'ers do currently, but it's slowly decreasing.)

I think this was in referance to machines after mid 2001.

Q. For latest G4 Towers and/or latest powerbooks (yet to buy); If I will be only in classic with no use for X at all - would I benefit from a 9.1 install (after wiping the drive) from a full retail 9.1 & X Set (this not being from the 9.2.2 & X OS that will come with these computers). And, just using the 9.1 install disk as a stand alone, only OS. Or, would you still go with the 9.2.2 only w/o the X?..

Any other thoughts will be appreciated. I'm going to try to make my purchase before the non-9 booters. </STRONG>
If it *came* with 9.2, use 9.2.

If it didn't, don't.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 09:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>Stay with 9.1.

9.2 is designed for OSX, not for stand-alone use.

9.2 is shit. Not only that, but NEVER use major system updaters on OS9.

9.0 to 9.04 is fine (minor system update), for eg; but avoid those like 9.04 to 9.1 or whatever.

Get the fiull CD install if you really must try it.

You've been warned.</STRONG>
Ahh Cipher, so general you are

The full install CD of 9.2 is a wonder, fast, stable, and did I mention stable? I had my G4 up for weeks with no problems.

However, do not download the 9.1-9.2 update. Software updates off of Apple.com are chopped down to make them downloadable. Same goes for the 9.1 download and the 9.2 download.

If you started with just plain 9 then the best OS you can have without getting a full install CD is 9.0.4. I had 9.0.4 on my iMac, then I downloaded the 9.1 update and had nothing but problems (I went back to 9.0.4 a week later). And now with my G4 which came with the full 9.2 its the most stable, non-OSX Mac I ever done used.

So if you can get the CD for 9.2 go for it, its a great system....otherwise stay with the last major OS release you own.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: sek929 ]
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Fe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 04:12 AM
 
Originally posted by tkmd:
<STRONG>I have a question - I am thinking about moving up to 9.2 from 9.1 My question is what is yhour expirience with 9.2 vs. 9.1 faster? more stable ? I'm running 400 Pismo. 9.1 is ok, but maybe 9.2 will be a better choice. Note: I am not running os X on my HD so compatability is not an issue for me. Any suggestions would be appriciated.</STRONG>
I have a 733 Mhz G4 (digital audio) that came with OS 9.1 pre-loaded. I upgraded to 9.2 and experienced slower startups, an iSub performance hit, inability to use any resolution other than 640 x 480 with my Sony monitor (due to screwy Nvidia drivers), and more frequent crashes. Not only that, but 9.2 uses more RAM due to the extra OS X stuff it installs in the system folder. And its version of Key Caps makes the keys nearly illegible. And it adds a bunch of really ugly "Themes" to the Appearance Manager--ones with plain white backgrounds. Needless to say I switched back to 9.1 and have been happy with it ever since.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 08:19 AM
 
Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>

Ahh Cipher, so general you are

The full install CD of 9.2 is a wonder, fast, stable, and did I mention stable? I had my G4 up for weeks with no problems.

However, do not download the 9.1-9.2 update. Software updates off of Apple.com are chopped down to make them downloadable. Same goes for the 9.1 download and the 9.2 download.

If you started with just plain 9 then the best OS you can have without getting a full install CD is 9.0.4. I had 9.0.4 on my iMac, then I downloaded the 9.1 update and had nothing but problems (I went back to 9.0.4 a week later). And now with my G4 which came with the full 9.2 its the most stable, non-OSX Mac I ever done used.

So if you can get the CD for 9.2 go for it, its a great system....otherwise stay with the last major OS release you own.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: sek929 ]</STRONG>
Yes... because:

1. It's the full version
2. Your machine came with it

Of course 9.2.x is best on your machine, as it came with it...
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 09:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Yes... because:

1. It's the full version
2. Your machine came with it

Of course 9.2.x is best on your machine, as it came with it...</STRONG>
Make up your mind Cipher.

Stay with 9.1.

9.2 is designed for OSX, not for stand-alone use.

9.2 is shit.
Why am I being such an ass? Well that's because I can't stand your shitted up comments acting like such a oh-so-pro user.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 12:52 PM
 
Originally posted by scarab:
<STRONG>

Why am I being such an ass? Well that's because I can't stand your shitted up comments acting like such a oh-so-pro user.</STRONG>
You are being an ass for no reason actually. Seeing how most people d9o not have the newest machines with 9.2 he was refferring to how the dowloadable 9.2 upgrade is pure shit (which is correct).

He is an oh-so-pro user, no acting needed.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 08:18 PM
 
Originally posted by scarab:
<STRONG>

Why am I being such an ass? Well that's because I can't stand your shitted up comments acting like such a oh-so-pro user.</STRONG>
I guess it comes nautrally to you
That, or you're jealous.

The reason I never mentioned the FULL version being fine on machines it CAME WITH is because that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this thread because his machine did NOT come with it.

Does that make sense to you? Or should I write it down in big, crayon writing for you?

Perhaps you should articulate your English literary skills so that you can understand and comprehend relevance before opening your hole. Yeah, hmm?

Sek - thanks for the backup

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 03:43 AM
 
Oh sure my English's nasty.

And I definitely am jealous I am not the lamer who says that OS 9.2 itself is shit and meant for OS X compatibility.




[edit: and by the way I do happen to know that the updater is shit, but not the full thing... alright fair enough you did mention it at the end.. I apologise :o ]

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: scarab ]
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Amboy Navada, Canadia.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 05:03 PM
 
I'm using 9.0.4 with no big problems. I tried 9.1 and 9.2 (for classic etc), and found little difference. is there any benefit to upgrading &gt;9.0.4 if there are no problems?
[img]broken link[/img]
This insanity brought to you by:
The French CBC, driving antenna users mad since 1937.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 03:21 AM
 
Originally posted by yukon:
<STRONG>I'm using 9.0.4 with no big problems. I tried 9.1 and 9.2 (for classic etc), and found little difference. is there any benefit to upgrading &gt;9.0.4 if there are no problems?</STRONG>
No benefit at all. Stay. Unless you can get the 9.1 full CD. Not 9.2, but 9.1.

Originally posted by scarab:
[QB][/QB]
Meh, accepted.

Oh, and btw... 9.2 *IS* merely for new hardware/X compatibility...
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Madrid, Spain
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 04:09 AM
 
Something Ive noticed. When updgrading my iBook from 9.2.1 (OS pre-installed along with OSX)to 9.2.2, the Apple registration utility stops working and produces a weird error message. Also, when upgraded to 9.2.2, the OS 9.2.1 Install CD does not allow me to add or remove any programs.
Ive gone back to 9.2.1.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 02:50 PM
 
Just from counting the number of posts complaining about new bugs, 9.2.x is a no-no unless your machine actually requires it or you're going to use it for Classic. Overall, 9.1 was probably the best incarnation of OS 9.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2002, 06:45 PM
 
I have a Pismo 400.

It works fine on OS 9.1.
It's crashy on OS 9.2.1.
It's fine on 9.2.2 and X.1.3.
Go figure.
If you're not on OS X stay on 9.1, is my recomendation.
Actual conversation between UCLA and Stanford during a login on early Internet - U: I'm going to type an L! Did you get an L? S: I got one-one-four. L! U:Did you get the O? S: One-one-seven. U: <types G> S: The computer just crashed.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chico, CA and Carlsbad, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2002, 04:51 PM
 
Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>I have had excellent success with 9.2.2. It is more stable than 9.1 in my experience, but I cannot detect any difference in speed</STRONG>
I have had a great experience with OS 9.2.2, but the only problem is that my Voodoo5 5500 PCI is CRAP. I wish I could go back to 9.1, or whatever OS the V5 works in still. I can't play ANY full-screen games without massive video glitches, white backgrounds with unreadable text. Grrrr.
"In Nomine Patris, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti"

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2002, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by [APi]TheMan:
<STRONG>

I have had a great experience with OS 9.2.2, but the only problem is that my Voodoo5 5500 PCI is CRAP. I wish I could go back to 9.1, or whatever OS the V5 works in still. I can't play ANY full-screen games without massive video glitches, white backgrounds with unreadable text. Grrrr.</STRONG>
Get the older OpenGL. The new version sucks. OGL just seems to get worse with Apple...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chico, CA and Carlsbad, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2002, 04:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Get the older OpenGL. The new version sucks. OGL just seems to get worse with Apple...</STRONG>
Will do. I think it's at 1.2.4 right now on OS 9.2.2. I'll search around for something like 1.1.2 maybe? How far should I go back...
"In Nomine Patris, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti"

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NYC*Crooklyn
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2002, 12:31 AM
 
if it ain't broke....don't fix it.

9.2 wasn't meant for much more than OSX compatibility, so if ya ain't running 10, then don't bother with 9.2
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chico, CA and Carlsbad, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2002, 01:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
<STRONG>if it ain't broke....don't fix it.

9.2 wasn't meant for much more than OSX compatibility, so if ya ain't running 10, then don't bother with 9.2</STRONG>
So in other words, Apple Pro Underwear says, "f it ain't broke....don't fix it." haha.
"In Nomine Patris, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti"

     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2002, 11:40 AM
 
I am currently running 9.1 on a 400 imac DV. I just received an iPod and it will not show up in iTunes (2.0.3) so I may have to upgrade to 9.2.
The above comments are concerning because 9.1 has been very stable for me.

Any suggestions

Thanks
     
spb
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: london
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2002, 02:19 AM
 
9.1 or 9.2 still kicks X's ass..!

GUI vs GOOEY ( 9 vs X )
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Coast
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2002, 04:00 PM
 
I have system folders for 9.1, 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 (no X yet). Both 9.2's broke my Energy Saver so I reverted to 9.1 and use 9.2.x only for occasional testing. I read somewhere that my "sleep problem" might be related to newer Apple CD/DVD software, but don't have any way of downgrading.

iMac DV 400 MHz with 192 MB RAM
     
<CityStars07>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2002, 09:14 AM
 
The bottom line is if your not using OSX (which I dont use) then you should stick with 9.1.
9.2 was made to run correspondingly with OSX, and since all of the new Apples come with some type of CDRW / Superdrive- 9.2 comes with all these extentions for apples internal burners, which could conflict with any external firewire (possibly USB) burners (It did with my Que! Fire CD-RW, I had to disable some extentions and now it works) I don't really like the feel of OS 9.2, It really didn't do anything for me expect take up more RAM. and for like the first week of use, the volume and mute keys on my Pro Keyboard only worked in iTunes. (they now work). OS 9.2 put a whole bunch of ugly themes in the Appearence Control Panel. Also when I wake up from sleep, the desktop is gray for like 2 or 3 seconds until finally the desktop picture appears. I didn;t really notice any Startup delays, probably because i barely turn my machine off.
That's basically my input on the 9.1 vs. 9.2 issue. 9.1 worked flawlessly, and I intend to downgrade immediatly.

iMac DV SE 500
384M RAM
30G HD
OS 9.2.1

-CityStar
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lincoln, NE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2002, 10:04 AM
 
I'm a real stickler about such things as updates. Those guys at Apple made a ton of changes between 9.1 and 9.2.x, but they aren't obvious.

Almost every extension was updated. No difference on the front end, but they were each smaller in size compared to previous versions. This means that startups are faster, except that whatever it does before loading extensions is a bit slower. It ends up being no difference in time to startup.

I noticed that 9.2.x uses a few megs less ram. Always a good thing.

And something was changed to the VM system. I noticed the partition that I had VM set to kept fluctuating in disk space by less than a meg. If I opened more apps, it used more disk space. Again, it used less than a meg. No big deal.

Quickdraw 3D RAVE was updated to 1.7. I was curious about this update because it was a big jump in version numbers compared to everything else. It offers a whopping 10% increase in RAVE performance. Great when you're playing SNES9X. I was using a voodoo 3 for the tests.

OpenGL broke support for 3dfx cards.

My machine is a PowerComputing Powerbase 180 with a G3/240 upgrade in it, so it's unsupported. I went back down to 9.1 after I was stupid with 9.2.2. It appeared my system was unsupported for a reason.

Overall, don't bother with this upgrade if you aren't using MacOS X. You're not missing much. Saving a couple megs of ram isn't worth the time to download and install it, unless you're incredibly bored. Except for that 9.2.2 fiasco (entirely my fault), it was rockhard stable the entire time.

Sten
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Istanbul
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2002, 11:03 AM
 
Just read this entire long thread and i must say Buzz's long post is the closest to being accurate - except for onething:

Dual-USB iBooks upgraded from 9.1-&gt;9.2 will have their ability to operate with the lid closed broken (see the massive threads on this issue at Apple Support forums - whenever the come back up again!). For someone, like myself, that does a lot of work on an external monitor/keyboard this is a significant issue and needs to be factored into the decision to update to 9.2.

As far as real difference between 9.1 and 9.2...

For the 20x time, it's Classic compatibility (and the obvious new hardware updates) folks.

The 9.0X -&gt; 9.1 update is the major bug fixer.
Just like 8.5-&gt;8.6...
and 8.0-&gt;8.1
and 7.5-&gt;7.6
and 7.0-&gt;7.1

It's Apple tradition to release a major OS upgrade every ~12 mo's and a major ".1" update/bug-fix (.1 or .6) every ~6 mo's. It's been that way for some time. And it's the reason that running the X.1 or X.6 OS versions is generally a safe bet... b/c they are the major bug-fix of the previous version. Quite frankly, in my many years of Mac support i've found OS v8.6 to be the most stable version of classic Mac OS ever. Too bad it won't run on newer hardware...

In any case, along this version numbering scheme, version 9.2 seems a bit of a mutant.


So long as your machine did not ship with 9.2 by default, running 9.1 is not going to hurt a thing.

Speed
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2002, 11:14 AM
 
I have been running 9.2.2 for quite some time, and I love it. It's been the fastest and most stable Mac OS I have used. By far. It hasn't crashed in months.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2002, 08:15 AM
 
Originally posted by yukon:
<STRONG>I'm using 9.0.4 with no big problems. I tried 9.1 and 9.2 (for classic etc), and found little difference. is there any benefit to upgrading &gt;9.0.4 if there are no problems?</STRONG>
Switching between programs is native PPC in 9.1.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Noo Yawk
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2002, 10:54 PM
 
Originally posted by [APi]TheMan:
<STRONG>

I have had a great experience with OS 9.2.2, but the only problem is that my Voodoo5 5500 PCI is CRAP. I wish I could go back to 9.1, or whatever OS the V5 works in still. I can't play ANY full-screen games without massive video glitches, white backgrounds with unreadable text. Grrrr.</STRONG>
All I can say is I'm glad I kept 9.1 on a separate partition. from 9.2 and X . I still have a bunch of tweaking to do to get my 9.2 layer working like my 9.1 and not much incentive to do it since I am in OSX mostly at home.

The rare times at home that i go back to classic it's always 9.1 where most everything works fine. I have to use 9.2 at work (with some custom patches from the IT dept ) but that's probably because they figure that it'll be easier to migrate folk over to OSX as everyone will have a 9.2 layer ready to roll when the time comes.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cambridge, Chicago, Jerusalem (school/home/heart)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2002, 04:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>"Theoretically" doesn't work in the computer world.

When I update a system, I clean install it, then update it sequentially...

I've had bad experiences - and these aren't idiosyncratic. They exhibit themselves on many machines I use.

There's no misinformation in what I say. Major updaters are all bad, for *SOME* reason. I'm not trying to explain it...

Minor? Fine.

As for 9.2... if your machine came with it, use it.

If your machine is older than a Sawtooth ( =&lt; Yikes!) don't go near it; and if you must, use a full-install CD; though I would strongly recommend AVOIDING 9.2 unless your hardware came with it.</STRONG>
Cipher,
False.
I do not know about you but I work supporting over 1,000 Macintosh computers doing everything and anything possible on them. I have seen machines running 9.1 just continuously crash over and over and over and when you update then to 9.2.2 using the software updaters they work like a dream. They often patch problems, update to the newest features and simply everything works better. Error messages go away, stability improves and my job gets much easier.

Brad
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2002, 11:13 PM
 
Originally posted by bstone:
<STRONG>

Cipher,
False.
I do not know about you but I work supporting over 1,000 Macintosh computers doing everything and anything possible on them. I have seen machines running 9.1 just continuously crash over and over and over and when you update then to 9.2.2 using the software updaters they work like a dream. They often patch problems, update to the newest features and simply everything works better. Error messages go away, stability improves and my job gets much easier.

Brad</STRONG>
What kind of machines?

I admin a college which runs over 800 Macs and 200 PC's. At the school I used to attend, I ran their setup, which was over 600 Macs.

Everything ranging from LCIII's to QuickSilvers.

Everything I say is true - I'm not doubting your words, merely saying that we've had different experiences, each as valid as each others.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2002, 10:33 PM
 
9.2 was fine for a while but then it totally screwed up my comp. Went back to 9.1 and now I have little problems.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cambridge, Chicago, Jerusalem (school/home/heart)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2002, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

What kind of machines?

I admin a college which runs over 800 Macs and 200 PC's. At the school I used to attend, I ran their setup, which was over 600 Macs.

Everything ranging from LCIII's to QuickSilvers.

Everything I say is true - I'm not doubting your words, merely saying that we've had different experiences, each as valid as each others.</STRONG>
I work at the University of Chicago in Chicago, Illinois and am a Mac specialist. As well I am very comfortable on Windows, Red Hat, Mandrake and Yellow Dog 2.2.

I remember one machine which was running 9.1 which was continually freezing and demonstrating "Open Transport" errors. The machine which not keep sustained any TCP/IP connection. The professor who was using the machine was rather upset and I of course wanted to solve the problem. Instead of just rebuiling the machine, reloading his preferences and settings, I mere ran the 9.1-&gt;9.2.1 and then the 9.2.1-&gt;9.2.2 updaters.

It worked like a dream!!! The Open Transport errors went away, freezing stopped and the professor wrote a nice letter to my boss thanking for my help.

Alltogether my computer group supports about 5,000 Macs, the same amount of PCs and about 1,000 Linux/Unix boxes. The 9.1 to 9.2 update on the Macs has made all of our jobs much, much easier. The Software Update control panel has made out lives much easier, as well. Telling us of firmware updates, CarbonLib updates, etc etc.

Apple has got it right when it comes to OS 9. I don't care what anyone says but 9.2.2 isn't just for OS X. It's for everyone.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2002, 07:44 AM
 
Sorry, but I can't disagree more (respectfully, of course).

Let me ask this - the 9.1's that exhibited problems... were they 9.1 by update, or by install?

The 9.1 updater is *horrible* - only the 9.1 CD is any good.

If I can't use the 9.1 full installer, I use 9.04.

EDIT: Typo.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2002, 01:22 AM
 
After updating to 9.2.2 on my iMac DV SE, it became quite unstable. So, I decided to just clean install 9.1.

Cipher's right on one thing, in my experience clean installs are much better than updating. I really don't have any reason to upgrade to 9.2.2 anyway.
In vino veritas.
     
<Fatal Claws>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2002, 04:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Get the older OpenGL. The new version sucks. OGL just seems to get worse with Apple...</STRONG>
This is utter nonsense Cipher. The guy was saying he couldn't use his Voodoo 5 card and while it's true the Voodoo cards have problems with the newer OpenGLs, I have to use OpenGL 1.2.4 to run my PCI Radeon card with the latest ATI drivers. I have this installed in an G3 upgraded 8500. Quake II and III plus Unreal Tournament love this arrangement.

Your trouble is you make "blanket" statements such as "the new version sucks" Please look at the details before just stating what pops into your little closed mind.
     
<Fatal Claws>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2002, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>The 9.1 updater is *horrible* - only the 9.1 CD is any good.[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]</STRONG>
Absolute nonsense posted by Cipher - yet again. Do you even use the Mac OS Cipher?

On 5/28/00 I installed Mac OS 9 on my 8500. I ran like this until June of 2001. Then I installed the 9.0.4 update - no problems.

On 1/14/01 I spent 4 1/2 hours downloading the multi-part 9.1 update. On 1/15/01 I installed it on top of my 9.0.4 System. Upon reboot the 8500 was running faster than ever. And this was when I still had a 233MHz 604e CPU in the Mac. Now with the G3 it's super fast. I do have a complete 9.1 CD, but I have to need to clean reinstall the system. Weekly running of Disk Warrior catches any problems.

Again I ask, do you even use Mac OS? Personally I think you just like to type nonsense in order to boost your own ego by having the most posts of anyone on these bulletin boards. Quantity before quality old chum!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2002, 05:00 PM
 
it seems there are a lot of different experiences out there...obviously affected by hardware differences, applications used, custom extensions, etc...

for me, 9.2.2 has been my best experience. for others, 9.1.
my friend sticks with 8.6.

at this point, we're beating a dead horse here...

try what u want, use what u like!

(just a suggestion... )
"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)
     
 
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 01:40 AM.
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