Wow, I *love* the mouth-drop-open bit. That's cool.
Um, so anyway. I'm sure you've seen bunches of threads elsewhere, by now...
I think some OS functions may be snappier in Classic, (launching apps, opening files, etc) and my experience is that Classic *is* pretty speedy, but...
I don't see any way that any
application running in Classic can, in general, be faster than the same application running in a raw boot of OS 9. Here's why: Classic is a process, just like any other in OS X, and as such it must share the processor with every other process. So in OS 9, the "Classic environment" can use every available processor cycle, since it's the only thing running on the processor. In OS X, Classic must compete for CPU time with everything else running on the machine. So it gets fewer cycles, and so its cooperatively threaded applications also get fewer cycles. It just doesn't make sense.
It's probable that Apple has given Classic a very high scheduling priority, so that it will get the lion's share of CPU time if it needs it. But I maintain that any app whose performance bottlenecks are in the CPU (that is, any app that does any real work
) cannot possibly perform better in Classic than in a raw boot of OS9.
An educated guess, not a statement of fact, of course.
Top
