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 (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2002, 03:10 AM
 
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>

I had a Lombard once upon a time that came with 8.6 and ran beautifully. I got the crazy notion that I had to have 9, did a format, installed 9, and the Lomby never ran the same. Eventually I went back to 8.6 and everything was hunky dory.

Gotta go with Cipher on this one - I've read a ton of his posts and have to agree. Whatever your machine comes with seems to be the best OS to run generally speaking.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2002, 01:53 AM
 
Originally posted by &lt;Fatal Claws&gt;:
<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!</STRONG>
I think you should bite me

I'm glad your idiosynchratic experience was good.

I admin a network with around 800 Macs.

Lemme tell you now, your one experience doesn't count for a whole lot in comparison.

The fact is simple - you run DiskWarrior weekly to catch all the problems the updater causes.

I don't have to run it, ever.

I win. Thanks, old chum.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2002, 08:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

The fact is simple - you run DiskWarrior weekly to catch all the problems the updater causes.

I don't have to run it, ever.
</STRONG>
I've always thought that a winning OS didn't need DiskWarrior, Norton, etc. I'm with Cipher, I don't use those programs either.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2002, 05:02 AM
 
Come on people, let's keep it civil! I think all experiences are useful here. Both can be true!

I help maintain a small group of Macs, which all run 9.0.4. But at home I am running OS 9.2.2 on iMac 600, and am having problems with OpenGL with Return to Castle Wolfie and QIII (won't load OpenGL). Should I go with OpenGL 1.2.1 or go back to OS 9.2 (which the machine shiped with)? Maybe I should de-update to 9.1 or 9.0.4. I always liked 9.0.4. Any ideas?
hypermac
     
<Fatal Claws>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 03:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>The fact is simple - you run DiskWarrior weekly to catch all the problems the updater causes.

I don't have to run it, ever.</STRONG>
Cipher, Cipher, Cipher. Old buddy, old pal, old chum. You couldn't be more wrong. I run DiskWarrior not to fix problems from a f**ked up 9.1 updater, but rather to optimize my directory for maximum performance thus speeding up overall disk performance.

Tisk, tisk, don't be in such a hurry to post next time.

- - - - - -

Beware of the Claws... Fatal Claws that is :-&gt;
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 08:16 PM
 
Originally posted by &lt;Fatal Claws&gt;:
<STRONG>

Cipher, Cipher, Cipher. Old buddy, old pal, old chum. You couldn't be more wrong. I run DiskWarrior not to fix problems from a f**ked up 9.1 updater, but rather to optimize my directory for maximum performance thus speeding up overall disk performance.

Tisk, tisk, don't be in such a hurry to post next time.

- - - - - -

Beware of the Claws... Fatal Claws that is :-&gt;</STRONG>
Tsk tsk, anyone who defrags their disks weekly is an idiot... you just do it because you like to think you know what you're doing... you like to think you're doing something "important" and "special" and "cool"; something "elite", or some nonsense mindtrip like that.

Max performance, speeding up disk performance... after a weeks worth of scratching? Hahaha. You're a funny guy.

Even OSX doesn't tear up drives like that...

Nice try. BZZT. See ya next week.

Hypermac - try using the 9.2 version of OpenGL. Minor updaters, ie. x.y.z where z is variable are usually fine.

9.03 -&gt; 9.04, etc. So 9.22 should be fine... personally I'd just go back to 9.2 though.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2002, 05:27 PM
 
Originally posted by &lt;Fatal Claws&gt;
I run DiskWarrior...to optimize my directory...
Originally posted by Cipher 13
...anyone who defrags their disks weekly...
Using DiskWarrior to optimize the directory is not the same as disk defragmenting. The former takes less than a minute, and can be done daily without time or effort.

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Fredo ]
Who are the Brain Police?
     
<Fatal Claws>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2002, 08:16 PM
 
Thanks for the followup Fredo. Obviously Cipher doesn't know the difference between defraging and optimizing the directory. Yo Cipher, don't just blindly post, it makes you look stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2002, 07:33 AM
 
Originally posted by &lt;Fatal Claws&gt;:
<STRONG>Thanks for the followup Fredo. Obviously Cipher doesn't know the difference between defraging and optimizing the directory. Yo Cipher, don't just blindly post, it makes you look stupid. </STRONG>
I'd be happy to look stupid in the eyes of a fool - to do so would be a compliment.

I'm flattered.

You're not actually thinking for yourself here... please, do define a 'fragmented' disk as opposed to an 'unoptimised' disk, and tell me why a dir structure needs to be optimised so often? You're just regurgitating what you've heard elsewhere, and what you've come to accept...

"Optimising" directories is largely... well, rubbish... it's nothing to do with maintaining a logical order of data on the drive... merely "cleans up" the directory file itself, to an extent where nowadays it has practically no effect... heh.
     
<Fatal Claws>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2002, 01:49 PM
 
Well, why do people rebuild their desktops then? Optimizing the disk directory regularly is the same thing. My applications launch faster. I am happier. It's the same thing as changing the oil in your car on a regular basis. I don't do it because someone told me to. I do it so my car runs better and doesn't develop problems. Many things in life are like that. I think you need to look beyond your closed world of the MacNN BBS Cipher. Instead of trolling this BBS and posting for the sake of inflating your ego, perhaps you need to go out into the sun sometime eh?

Cheers mate...
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2002, 03:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher 13
I'd be happy to look stupid in the eyes of a fool - to do so would be a compliment.
I'm flattered.
So easily? I'm glad then, to be of service.
I don't think, however, that regular (weekly) maintenance using DiskWarrior and other utilities is as foolish as you claim.
Who are the Brain Police?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2002, 11:57 AM
 
Well, then, Fredo, you'd be wrong

Simple eh?

Fatal... hmm... you know you've lost the argument when you have to make it personal...

Sorry 'bout that...

I gaurantee you I have more of a life than you do

Oh, and by the way, one word that will work for both of you: placebo.

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2002, 03:35 PM
 
Who are the Brain Police?
     
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2002, 07:49 PM
 
My opinion on all this:

FRESH full installs of 9.1 and higher (that is, installed from a CD of the final version you're going to, not installed and then updated) all appear to perform well.

9.0.0-9.0.4 are to be avoided. Why? They have a bug that prevents the computer from emptying the "Temporary Items" folder after a crash. The result is anywhere from dozens to hundreds of MB of hard drive space being wasted in an invisible folder. 9.1 fixes this. (A little shareware called AutoPurge will delete the files in 9.0.x.) 9.1+ are also more stable and a bit faster IMHO.

Upshot: as long as you have a full 9.1 or later CD, install that and let it be, it'll be happy enough.

BTW, just a little hint that comes in handy when migrating users: a QuickSilver G4 WILL boot off of a 9.1 disk (as long as the install includes the ROM files). Of course, if it uses an nVIDIA graphics card, and your 9.1 install doesn't include any nVIDIA drivers, then the video will be slow.

tooki
     
 
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 12:18 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