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 > Best OS9?

Best OS9?
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2001, 07:47 PM
 
I've been using OSX.1 100% since I got it. Truth is, I spend more time in Classic using my Classic-only apps and still prefer OS9 to X.1 so I'm going back to OS9.

I have a Pismo 500 1 gig of ram and 9.0.4->9.2.1 upgrades

Which OS9 should I install/upgrade to after I back up my stuff and reformat my PowerBook?

I mainly use:
Dreamweaver
Fireworks
Photoshop
BBEdit
Print (to my Epson Photo 870 - not supported in X)
Quicken
IE (until you find me another browser that is as standards compliant and fast and not in perpetual beta)

I don't care for the OSX UI's candy like buttons and loud yet gorgeous picture-like interface, which gets old fast and when you're doing real work, you dont' really notice anyway.

I do however, like how 1 app in Classic mode doesn't bring down the whole OS or other apps running in classic mode.

TIA
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2001, 08:18 PM
 
9.2.1 is the fastest "classic" Mac OS. I've found that it's more stable on my Powermac G4 agp as well.

Do you have a 10.1 update that you're interested in getting rid of? Seriously, let me know if you are, I'm in need of the x.1 update and I have no way to get it, and it would give you a chance to help out a destitute Mac user. I'll pay for shipping...you could even burn me a copy of it if you like. eevans@umich.edu

Thanks
[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]
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pullman, WA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 02:59 AM
 
I've seen nothing wrong with 9.2.1. Why not go with the latest?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 07:29 AM
 
9.21 = horrible. Its designed for OSX "Classic", not for normal use.

9.04 and 9.1 (full CD install) are the best; 9.1 (downloaded updater) is horrible also...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 09:53 AM
 
9.2 has solved all my problems and crashes that I had in 9.04 and 9.1.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 10:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>9.21 = horrible. Its designed for OSX "Classic", not for normal use.

9.04 and 9.1 (full CD install) are the best; 9.1 (downloaded updater) is horrible also...</STRONG>
Hmm I beg to differ, the 9.2.1 update may suck but the pre-installed version on my G4 is the best non-OSX Os I've ever used. Rock solid and fast as hell.

Besides that 9.0.4 and 9.1 retail (keyword is retail) are the best if yours is not pre-installed with 9.2.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bruges, Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 02:19 PM
 
I still use 9.1, I like it a lot and since everything is working smoothly I'm not gonna change to 9.2 untill I need to. however the update is on my desktop and each time I see it I want to try the stuff.
so 9.1 rocks (yes, I downloaded it (the Dutch version)), I don't really know about 9.2.1.
-c
-c
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 02:41 PM
 
9.2 is much slower for me on my Pismo than 9.1 was. Get a 9.1 install CD and boot that baby!
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.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 05:27 PM
 
9.2.1 hands down the best of 9
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2001, 06:42 PM
 
9.2.1 is, for me, stable & fast. (but truthfully, not visibly more-so than 9.1...)
a LOT better than 9.0.4 tho...

running a pismo with similar apps.

cipher13...what is it about 9.2.1 (etc) that you despise so?
(just asking)
"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
Oct 10, 2001, 10:37 PM
 
macvillage - which 9.21?

Sek - I don't doubt that. Now I gotta get my hands on a copy of the full version...

Originally posted by fisherKing:
<STRONG>9.2.1 is, for me, stable & fast. (but truthfully, not visibly more-so than 9.1...)
a LOT better than 9.0.4 tho...

running a pismo with similar apps.

cipher13...what is it about 9.2.1 (etc) that you despise so?
(just asking)</STRONG>
It majorly sucks (the update).
Crashes frequently; noticeably slower; and the icing on the cake, it CHEWED MY HARD DRIVE. ARGH.

It completely screwed it... luckily DiskWarrior rocks so hard.

So, here it is:

Full retail OS9.04, 9.1 and probably 9.21 are nice - DL updaters are major suckage.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2001, 10:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>macvillage - which 9.21?

Sek - I don't doubt that. Now I gotta get my hands on a copy of the full version...



It majorly sucks (the update).
Crashes frequently; noticeably slower; and the icing on the cake, it CHEWED MY HARD DRIVE. ARGH.

It completely screwed it... luckily DiskWarrior rocks so hard.

So, here it is:

Full retail OS9.04, 9.1 and probably 9.21 are nice - DL updaters are major suckage.</STRONG>
9.2 is the best ! 9.04 always crashed and messed with my programs.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2001, 10:36 AM
 
Umm... cause you weren't running the Cipher Special Edition?

(tangenital reference for those who don't get it...)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2001, 01:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>Umm... cause you weren't running the Cipher Special Edition?

(tangenital reference for those who don't get it...)</STRONG>
Geez, sometimes its really hard to understand what you are talkin about .
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2001, 10:04 PM
 
interesting how we all have different experiences with the same os versions...
obviously the machines, the apps, the extensions, etc have a great effect on things...


9.2.1 (the download)has been faster & more stable for me than any earlier (mac) os...
& i have a fair number of custom extensions, cps, & resedit hacks...

powerbook g3/400 w320mg ram...

no crashes since...well, since a while...
"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)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chico, CA and Carlsbad, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2001, 12:23 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>9.21 = horrible. Its designed for OSX "Classic", not for normal use.

9.04 and 9.1 (full CD install) are the best; 9.1 (downloaded updater) is horrible also...</STRONG>
Yep yep, yo. I run 9.2, just cuz... But it killed my Diablo II install, I get less than 5 FPS 90% of the time on my G3 450 192 RAM...

9.1 is king on a non-osx machine.

On the other hand, I run 9.2 on my Pismo 400 with 192 RAM... I also run MacOS X.1... And I never use Classic environment... I restart into OS9 sometimes, but I never use OS9 apps in OSX.
"In Nomine Patris, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti"

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2001, 12:29 AM
 
Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>

Geez, sometimes its really hard to understand what you are talkin about .</STRONG>
I know

API - install the OLD OpenGL - that'll fix that.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2001, 09:53 AM
 
Originally posted by [APi]TheMan:
<STRONG>

Yep yep, yo. I run 9.2, just cuz... But it killed my Diablo II install, I get less than 5 FPS 90% of the time on my G3 450 192 RAM...

9.1 is king on a non-osx machine.

On the other hand, I run 9.2 on my Pismo 400 with 192 RAM... I also run MacOS X.1... And I never use Classic environment... I restart into OS9 sometimes, but I never use OS9 apps in OSX. </STRONG>
I had problems with OpenGl too. Installing a previous OpenGL will solve the problem.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2001, 04:47 PM
 
I used the download version of 9.2.1, and never had a problem... fast, stable... exactly what I want... yet others still have problems.... go figure.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
<free lunch TLTL>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2001, 04:02 PM
 
9.2.1! stable, fast (with firmware upgrades) and cleanest OS 9.

If you don't have a full install CD, IMHO, the only proper way to install 9.2.1 via upgrades, is to burn a 9.0.4 install CD with the 9.1 and 9.2.1 updates on it.
This way you can boot from the CD, install 9.0.4, update to 9.1 and then 9.2.1 without ever running the fresh install and changing things in the process. I found this method works as well as a full install and does not require rebooting after applying an update.

For your 9.2.1 install CD, make a (read/write) disk image of the 9.0.4 install CD with DiskCopy. Mount the image, throw out a folder with useless stuff (such as CD Extras), make sure you empty the trash, drop in the two update SMIs, and burn the image as mac volume with Toast (make a bootable CD!).

HTH,
Dre
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2001, 05:12 PM
 
Originally posted by &lt;free lunch TLTL&gt;:
<STRONG>9.2.1! stable, fast (with firmware upgrades) and cleanest OS 9.

If you don't have a full install CD, IMHO, the only proper way to install 9.2.1 via upgrades, is to burn a 9.0.4 install CD with the 9.1 and 9.2.1 updates on it.
This way you can boot from the CD, install 9.0.4, update to 9.1 and then 9.2.1 without ever running the fresh install and changing things in the process. I found this method works as well as a full install and does not require rebooting after applying an update.

For your 9.2.1 install CD, make a (read/write) disk image of the 9.0.4 install CD with DiskCopy. Mount the image, throw out a folder with useless stuff (such as CD Extras), make sure you empty the trash, drop in the two update SMIs, and burn the image as mac volume with Toast (make a bootable CD!).

HTH,
Dre</STRONG>
Did that. Burned a 9.1 disc with the 9.21 updater - its just the updater; its simply horrible. Avoid OS updates at all cost. Go for the full installers only. Makes sense really... you can't trim an OS.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2001, 12:44 PM
 
Guess I'm lucky! Never had problems with OS updates before.
9.2.1 has been as stable as 9.1 for me. Can't see any difference in speed though.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2001, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>
its just the updater; its simply horrible. Avoid OS updates at all cost. Go for the full installers only. Makes sense really... you can't trim an OS.</STRONG>
OK can i ask why it is the case that updaters suck?

Should i dump my retail version of 9.0.4 and get a new retail 9.1 instead of using the updaters? I ask since i assume that all they will only have 9.2.1 at the campus store once they run out of 9.1s. And i don't see too many more updates for the classic OS.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2001, 05:20 PM
 
I always update and everything works fine for me. 9.2 has solved all my problems.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2001, 07:53 AM
 
9.1!!!

get 9.1

I updated mine from a download and I love it!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2001, 01:46 PM
 
If you don't have problems with the OS, then dont upgrade. But for me, I had problems but upgrading to 9.2 fixed my problems. There isn't really a big difference between these versions anyways.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2001, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Did that. Burned a 9.1 disc with the 9.21 updater - its just the updater; its simply horrible. Avoid OS updates at all cost. Go for the full installers only. Makes sense really... you can't trim an OS.</STRONG>
Well, you can... just include the files that were changed, not the entire OS, which most files were unchanged.

(for many files, the script changed the VERS resource to say 9.2.1), so it's not really an updated file.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2001, 02:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
<STRONG>

OK can i ask why it is the case that updaters suck?

Should i dump my retail version of 9.0.4 and get a new retail 9.1 instead of using the updaters? I ask since i assume that all they will only have 9.2.1 at the campus store once they run out of 9.1s. And i don't see too many more updates for the classic OS.</STRONG>
Retail 9.04 rocks completely. As does retail 9.1. I assume 9.21 is the same.

Anything retail... if you can get the retail 9.21 go for it. Personally, I paid for OS9, so I just downloaded a full image of 9.1... no harm. Apple shouldn't have sucky updaters if they don't want us to do that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2001, 02:46 AM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
<STRONG>

Well, you can... just include the files that were changed, not the entire OS, which most files were unchanged.

(for many files, the script changed the VERS resource to say 9.2.1), so it's not really an updated file.</STRONG>
That is an extremely iffy thing to do; it makes too many assumptions that components are present and unaltered; expected versions; and so forth.

The updaters suck. Even if my reasoning isn't right the fact remains.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2001, 08:37 AM
 
9.0.4 is as solid as a rock on my imac, from all i've read in these forums when 9.1 came out, i wouldnt even think about updating to it. 9.2, i havent heard anything about .....
"The only time that man gets to actually leave a physical mark upon this earth is in death, and even then, it is only a gravestone proclaiming his demise"
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2001, 11:18 PM
 
Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>

Hmm I beg to differ, the 9.2.1 update may suck but the pre-installed version on my G4 is the best non-OSX Os I've ever used. Rock solid and fast as hell.

Besides that 9.0.4 and 9.1 retail (keyword is retail) are the best if yours is not pre-installed with 9.2.</STRONG>
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2001, 01:08 AM
 
Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>

Hmm I beg to differ, the 9.2.1 update may suck but the pre-installed version on my G4 is the best non-OSX Os I've ever used. Rock solid and fast as hell.

Besides that 9.0.4 and 9.1 retail (keyword is retail) are the best if yours is not pre-installed with 9.2.</STRONG>
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2001, 08:43 PM
 
9.2.1 without a doubt. Fast, stable, and includes the fastest Open GL drivers.

G4 400 AGP, Radeon, 4.28 firmware.[/LIST]
[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]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2001, 07:55 AM
 
Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>9.2.1 without a doubt. Fast, stable, and includes the fastest Open GL drivers.

G4 400 AGP, Radeon, 4.28 firmware.[/LIST]</STRONG>
Every person I have talked to has said that the OpenGL with 9.21 rendered games virtually unplayable (pun unintended)... it's awful.

Damn Apple for releasing such temperamental updates.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2001, 09:56 AM
 
The OpenGL was horrible. I had to install a previous version to get things working.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Enschede
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2001, 03:50 PM
 
out of the mac os 9 systems, i guess 9.2.1 is solid as a rock, as long as you are not using microsoft products such as msn messenger or IE
iMac G5 2.0 Ghz 20", 2 GB RAM, 400 GB, OS X 10.4.5, iPod with color screen 60 GB
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 02:17 AM
 
I never bothered to get 9.2 since I heard it sucked. Anyone care to enlighten me on what changes were made? Was there anything that wasn't under the hood?

"Sing it again, rookie beyach."
My website
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Enschede
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 03:58 AM
 
i really don't see any changes at all, apart from the irresistably long-loading strange extension that loads at startup, of which the purpose is not clear to me

I now even have a buch of files in my System Folder with titles sugesting they have something to do with Classic.

I do have the impression that my system is somewhat more stable, but it can also be because I threw all the rubbish away (such as transparent menu's and so) =&gt; the only things I am using are A-Dock and Workstrip, two decent things that don't give any probs.
iMac G5 2.0 Ghz 20", 2 GB RAM, 400 GB, OS X 10.4.5, iPod with color screen 60 GB
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2001, 01:14 AM
 
9.2.1. Fastest in every respect (boot time went from 94 sec with 9.1 to 35 with 9.2), and more stable. Had to install a previous opengl tho.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2001, 09:54 AM
 
Originally posted by Fallout:
<STRONG>9.2.1. Fastest in every respect (boot time went from 94 sec with 9.1 to 35 with 9.2), and more stable. Had to install a previous opengl tho.</STRONG>
Me too. Whats up with the 9.2 opengl though? It is messed up beyond belief.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2001, 01:20 AM
 
WHY THESE PROBLEMS?:

as soonas I installed 9.2.1 from a retail disk I keep crashing. I ran Conflict catcher and found about six extensions (soundsprockets, cd, dvd region, mpg4 etc) that all seemed to conflict, I disabled and that seemed to work but now my download manager from Internet.Explorer5 makes it all crash just by opening it up. . . . .

WHAT"S UP?

everything seems faster but definitely buggier, and I don't want to spend the next three days reformatting and reinstalling everything . . .what do I do to stabilize this thing?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2001, 03:43 AM
 
Originally posted by pfflam:
<STRONG>WHY THESE PROBLEMS?:

as soonas I installed 9.2.1 from a retail disk I keep crashing. I ran Conflict catcher and found about six extensions (soundsprockets, cd, dvd region, mpg4 etc) that all seemed to conflict, I disabled and that seemed to work but now my download manager from Internet.Explorer5 makes it all crash just by opening it up. . . . .

WHAT"S UP?

everything seems faster but definitely buggier, and I don't want to spend the next three days reformatting and reinstalling everything . . .what do I do to stabilize this thing?</STRONG>
Dump conflict catcher, for one. Causes many problems.

Dump 9.21 second.

Originally posted by Fallout:
<STRONG>9.2.1. Fastest in every respect (boot time went from 94 sec with 9.1 to 35 with 9.2), and more stable. Had to install a previous opengl tho.</STRONG>
Blah. Maybe that was the extension cleanout.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2001, 09:56 AM
 
My computer was having problems so I installed 9.1. It was so unstable and many programs werent working right. Went back to 9.2 and now my heart rate returned to normal .
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2001, 12:24 PM
 
I like 9.2.1! I bought the 9.1 disk and updated to 9.2.1 through Apple's update site. Everything is working well, no problems.
Who are the Brain Police?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2001, 12:02 AM
 
...had to wipe everything....back to 9.1


well at least it was kind of fun putting it all back together again..
     
<Raman_nopwd>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2001, 11:18 AM
 
Yeah, my g/f got a QPS 24/10/40 CDR and I just got done backing everything up on CD's. Going to reformat my hard drive and try using her iBook CD's (not the 2 software restore - the 9.2.1 and osx cd) to install 9.2.1 and see if it works. If not then i'll use my 9.0.4 that came with my pismo and then the upgrade that came with x.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2001, 12:28 PM
 
My iMac did not like 9.2.1. Things started crashing all over the place. I am on Mac OS 9.1 for the forseeable future.
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.
     
   
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 11:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2