MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Classic Macs and Mac OS (http://forums.macnn.com/classic-macs-and-mac-os/)
-   -   "Mac OS 9 is dead." (http://forums.macnn.com/64/classic-macs-and-mac-os/133561/mac-os-9-is-dead/)

 
seanyepez Nov 25, 2002 08:16 PM
"Mac OS 9 is dead."
A good friend of mine and the former techincal lead of Mac OS 9 at Apple, Keith Stattenfield, gave a presentation at MacHack regarding the state of affairs with Mac OS 9. I think he drives home the point that 9 is dead.

It's a shame, but that's progress for you... :cry:

homepage.mac.com/stattenf/FutureOfMacOS9/
 
eddiecatflap Nov 30, 2002 04:50 AM
..what a crock of $hit.

..i use 9 99% of the time

..for WORK

..outlook express - no , don't work in x.

..my net connection - flaky - thats when it does connect.

...speed - what's that

Coming back to 9 is so refreshing.

It's what a REAL os looks like.

I've given up on x - permanently , i used it today for the first time in 6 months..now i realise why i don't bother.

Notice how x is progressivley looking more and more like 9?

Why they couldn't leave the os as it was and just beef up the guts is beyond me.

I feel very let down by the whole thing. ;(
 
absmiths Dec 2, 2002 03:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..what a crock of $hit.

..i use 9 99% of the time

..for WORK

..outlook express - no , don't work in x.

..my net connection - flaky - thats when it does connect.

...speed - what's that

Coming back to 9 is so refreshing.

It's what a REAL os looks like.

I've given up on x - permanently , i used it today for the first time in 6 months..now i realise why i don't bother.

Notice how x is progressivley looking more and more like 9?

Why they couldn't leave the os as it was and just beef up the guts is beyond me.

I feel very let down by the whole thing. ;(
That's a pretty ignorant reply.
I use X 100% of the time.
Network perfect - DSL modem -> Airport -> Software Base Station + three virtual networks == no problem.
I use Mail - perfect.

The idea that Apple should roll back 3 years worth of work so you can use a lame email client is laughable.

OS 9 could not be 'beefed up' in the same sense that a classic VW Bug could not be 'beefed up' to make a 2003 Mercedes without rebuilding the thing. Apple skipped a step, and is rebuilding on a new platform - which is the only direction they can go. As one who actually utilizes most of the new features of OS X, I find 9 intolerable, except for my wife to do finances on.

Apple must move on - that means OS 9 is dead.
 
euphras Dec 3, 2002 02:21 PM
I think it will be like in the windows world: co-existence of both OS9 and OS X for some years. I know many departments where still Windows 95 machines are running. And yes OS 9 is fast......but i love to play around with OS X, ping and connect to servers, get signal when connect to beamers instantaneously, etc. in a windows environment (the normal env. for me, sadly spoken).

Pat
 
CheesePuff Dec 4, 2002 10:09 PM
I have an 800 MHz Power Mac G4 which now you can pick up for $1,099 or so, and runs OS X 10.2 just as fast as OS 9 in most cases.

It has *so* many more features than OS 9 it's just not worth it to look at that horrible ugly crashing interface anymore.

Use Mail... it imports from Outlook Express.
 
Blackadder Dec 5, 2002 12:04 PM
Not yet!
OS 9 will not die out until the older machines do, and that will be some time yet.

Sometime ago, Apple made a statement that Classic would run faster than OS 9 as it was running on top of the UNIX core. While technically this could be true, it isn't, at least not yet.

If Apple develops Classic to the point that there is no need to go back to OS 9, that is the day it will die.
 
spiznet Dec 20, 2002 11:03 AM
classic is crippled after 10.2, though, etc
Isn't the new memory limit 128MB for classic apps, though? This is why people can't go back there to run Quark, Director or other major apps.

Why doesn't Apple beef up the Classic support, with memory and stability. It seems like a backwards step, but it would go a long way to smoothing out the OS9->OSX transition.

Eventually, one could hope that all Mac users, all the applications, OS idiosyncrasies and fast enough hardware will coexist happily in an "pure" OSX, but that could be 3-5 years (standard computer ROI lifecycle).

I haven't seen such a software/hardware railroad scheme since Windows 3 forced all the DOS users to buy new machines in 1992-3.

Unfortunately, OSX is not THAT MUCH better than OS9 or Windows XP to cause the kind of wholesale hardware upgrades that would be needed to get this transition to occur any time soon.

Does Apple really want to throw away all the iMac converts that saved their company 3-5 years ago? G3's are not speedy on OSX. These people all have to now spend another $2K to run the only supported OS.

Calculate how many total Macs there are, and you get Apple's market share. Then calculate how many G4s there are out there to figure out a maximum for the OSX market share...

Its better for Apple to support OS9 as much as they can as long as it lasts, They have nothing to lose by doing that, and everything to lose by not...
 
ApeInTheShell Dec 22, 2002 12:21 AM
PowerPC G3 wasn't exactly that fast in Mac OS 9 either. It was only until Apple started with Mac OS X 10.0 that we saw 9.1 which made things in 9 land pleasant.

It doesn't even loose the iMac crowd because there are better e-mail, chat, and web browsers out now than there were in Mac OS 9. Even word processing in Appleworks and Word is decent.
Music is gathered into itunes, photo's go to iPhoto, you can sync your pda, ipod and celluar phone..etc


Apple has made everything into a package instead of the mess it was in Mac OS 9.
They threw in some many features that even pro users will want to use it.

Classic compatibility does need to continue but not to a point where it should be Apple's main focus. It'll be
an application like quicktime which comes with the system and is improved each time like now except you can't restart into it. Now tell me that isn't smooth?

So in response Mac OS 9 will be dead very soon. But just like the old operating systems it will be supported by the users. It's a personal resistance to upgrade to a new operating system.
 
spiznet Dec 23, 2002 11:03 AM
Agreed
I'm just saying, they do not need to cripple OS9 with the memory ceiling, they should actually be supporting it, because it is a bridge to the future.

Its going to take time to have everything people need in OSX. Plus many games and other apps that are useful and fun will never be port'ed...

If they can run SuperNintendo and C64 in emulation, its possible to run a 100% OS9 emulation, too.




Apple has made everything into a package instead of the mess it was in Mac OS 9.
They threw in some many features that even pro users will want to use it.

Classic compatibility does need to continue but not to a point where it should be Apple's main focus. It'll be
an application like quicktime which comes with the system and is improved each time like now except you can't restart into it. Now tell me that isn't smooth?

So in response Mac OS 9 will be dead very soon. But just like the old operating systems it will be supported by the users. It's a personal resistance to upgrade to a new operating system.
 
lumberjak Jan 13, 2003 09:41 AM
That's funny.....
Their best apps run in OS 9 and since they can't get them to work right in X, you still have to use OS 9. Nice how they try to convey that their software developers are the ones behind when It's Apple who comes out with unreliable and untested products for the public.
 
ngrundy Jan 19, 2003 08:11 AM
and so rest OS9, bury it people and don't just bury it 6" under bury it at least 12"+ under solid rebarb concrete.

While saying that I can fully understand that some companies that are taking their sweet :censor: time writing a OSX version if their software.

I personaly can't understand how people can be steadfast for os9, an os that a single applicaion can bring to its knees. Sure it may be Snappy(tm) but I think I'd rather have an OS that stays up and running than one that has a snappy(tm) reboot and crash cycle.

call the iMac a saver for apple but realise that OSX is apealing to an entirely new audience, a highly technicaly orientated group that have a love for the unix side of OSX and the inherent power that it provides.

developing two completely different operating systems for a company is counter productive, OSX is the future OS9 will live on in those 300mhz beige g3's that people just don't want to get rid of and the classic environment.

What i've wrote most of the 'old generation' (those who have come up through the classic OS linage) will scream out and call me a whole bunch of bad words and how i don't understand macs and other stuff.

I saw the same rubbish in the windows arena when win3.1 was replaced with win95, about how win3.1 was more snappy(tm) and worked better. now we see the same thing with win98 to win2k about how win2k isn't compatable blah blah.

the mac community saw the same rubbish when apple switched from the 68k processor to the ppc processor. people decryed the change and that ppc was so much slower, when all the code was up and running native on ppc and optomised for the new hardware wow, blam the ppc was a faster cpu.

prehaps, just, mabye, with the most tiny slither of logic prehaps we are in the same sort of transition stages here?

anyway i've probably said enough to have myself punched multiple times but I think it had to be said.
 
Eriamjh Jan 19, 2003 11:26 AM
OS9 isn't dead.

It's not longer being updated or supported.

Some might say obsolete.

It's only dead to people who have moved on to OSX and don't have any lagging OS9 apps holding them back.
 
suprz's ghost Jan 31, 2003 07:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ngrundy:
[.

I personaly can't understand how people can be steadfast for os9, an os that a single applicaion can bring to its knees. Sure it may be Snappy(tm) but I think I'd rather have an OS that stays up and running than one that has a snappy(tm) reboot and crash cycle.

. [/B]

I would rather have a "snappy reboot and crash" OS. i'll bet you that my B&W G3 can crash and reboot and be back working faster than OSX can open an app on some of the OLDER macs:stick:
 
sniffer Feb 2, 2003 02:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by suprz's ghost:
I would rather have a "snappy reboot and crash" OS. i'll bet you that my B&W G3 can crash and reboot and be back working faster than OSX can open an app on some of the OLDER macs:stick:
Hehe! That's the funniest comment so far. ;)

I am currently in OS 9 for the nostalgia side of it. And I have to admit it's so far a pleasant experience. Mozilla is a very good browser in OS 9. Athena IRC doesn't drain the cpu. IE still sucks. OS 9 seems just as stable as the apps you are running on it. Besides my iBook have started to show some age. OS 9 brings back some confidence in my little machine. :thumbsup:

Dead or not. OS 9 is still with us, and I really don't mind it... Much.. Until I get me a faster mac to handle X some day into the future. :p
 
John123 Feb 2, 2003 08:08 AM
I'm in 9 on my Ghz PowerBook. All for two reasons:

(1) Speed -- it's just faster. I don't crash much in 9, and if I were to calculate the time I spend waiting in a week on OS X and compare that to the time I spent waiting in a week on OS 9 + the time I spent rebooting from crashes, 9 wins. Easily. No contest. Perhaps that's because I understand 9 inside-out and am very familiar with how to tweak it to make it behave properly. Like any OS, there's an art to optimal usage.

(2) Smoothed fonts. I hate them. I cannot STAND them. And everyone thinks they are pretty, which boggles my mind.
They don't look smoothed to me. I describe them as appearing like multicolored pixels. I find them extremely annoying and difficult to read, and I'd do anything to make them 9-like again, which is crisp albeit jagged. And the kicker is that haxies that deactivate font smoothing don't seem to do it very well. I'd give my left arm for a little button in the System Pane to turn off font smoothing and use Charcoal for the menubar font and regular old Geneva for my system font. And I'd give my right arm to get rid of the dock altogether and make FruitMenu an obsolete haxie and bring the Apple menu back.

Of course, by this point, I'd have no arms...but I'd have an OS X that I wouldn't mind so much.
 
mathew_m Mar 2, 2003 10:19 PM
I didn't grow up with 9 like a lot of you guys did but when I 'switched' a year and a half ago I immediately took to the os. The apple menu makes sense and the app switcher is far and away better than the dock which always seems to get/be in the way. It's like an ill regular puzzle piece. I'll admit that it looks nice and I'm sure catches people's attention in stores but...even trying to hide it annoys me. Also the pinstripes are so 90's or maybe even 80's. I find it funnier still that often when mac's are shown on tv or movies that 9 is still the os even if it's a ti powerbook. So on that note I don't think 9 will exactly die. Like vinyl it will still have it's fans, will remain hip and within a small group be thought of superior to latest vs. of X.

So enough of the rant...X is what I use 90% of the time. What are the best hacks to get it more 9ish including getting rid of the pinstripes.
 
SpeedRacer Mar 3, 2003 12:57 PM
X is great for a number of reasons already stated, but to say OS 9 is dead is incredibly ignorant. Perhaps this is the reason why this guy is the *former* tech lead at Apple? Or perhaps he's just a product of an Apple X-brainwashing, who knows.

Either way, I find the spiznet's reference to the hundreds of thousands of iMac users out there to be very important. These are the users which saved Apple in it's darkest hour. And the fact is that OS 10 does *not* run well on the these 1st generation machines at all. The video system, the system bus, and the even the HD sizes which shipped on rev A,B,C iMacs is simply inadequate for pushing the amount of pixels and data which OS X requires. Even on 2nd generation iBook/500 machines, OS 10 slows to a crawl when running more than 5 apps or open windows at a time.

X rocks on a G4 with 100mHz bus and 16MB graphics card or better. It's clearly the future of things to come. But there are *many* Mac users out there without such specs. For them, OS 9 is still a very, very important technology. A far, far from "dead".

Speed
 
Dex13 Mar 3, 2003 07:59 PM
Re: "Mac OS 9 is dead."
Quote
Originally posted by seanyepez:
A good friend of mine and the former techincal lead of Mac OS 9 at Apple, Keith Stattenfield, gave a presentation at MacHack regarding the state of affairs with Mac OS 9. I think he drives home the point that 9 is dead.

It's a shame, but that's progress for you... :cry:

homepage.mac.com/stattenf/FutureOfMacOS9/
Sean, why state the obvious?
 
Agent69 Mar 14, 2003 09:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SpeedRacer:

X is great for a number of reasons already stated, but to say OS 9 is dead is incredibly ignorant.
The classic Mac OS is dead in the sense that it is no longer being developed. Of course it will continue to be useful for anyone who continues to use it, as will be DOS, Windows 95/98, BeOS, NewtonOS, and NeXTStep.
 
alex_kac Mar 14, 2003 10:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
X is great for a number of reasons already stated, but to say OS 9 is dead is incredibly ignorant. Perhaps this is the reason why this guy is the *former* tech lead at Apple? Or perhaps he's just a product of an Apple X-brainwashing, who knows.

Either way, I find the spiznet's reference to the hundreds of thousands of iMac users out there to be very important. These are the users which saved Apple in it's darkest hour. And the fact is that OS 10 does *not* run well on the these 1st generation machines at all. The video system, the system bus, and the even the HD sizes which shipped on rev A,B,C iMacs is simply inadequate for pushing the amount of pixels and data which OS X requires. Even on 2nd generation iBook/500 machines, OS 10 slows to a crawl when running more than 5 apps or open windows at a time.

X rocks on a G4 with 100mHz bus and 16MB graphics card or better. It's clearly the future of things to come. But there are *many* Mac users out there without such specs. For them, OS 9 is still a very, very important technology. A far, far from "dead".

Speed
To me, when I say "OS 9 is dead" it means that for current machines, future machines, etc... its dead. Just like some people still run Win95 or even DOS/Win3.1 on old boxen. You don't see THEM complaining about how WinXP runs o n their 233Mhz Pentium MMX with a 66Mhz bus and studly 64MB of RAM.
 
Athens Mar 17, 2003 01:43 PM
im still using 7.6 on some computers :) Im using 8.6 on my main mac since 9 was a pig on it. There isnt much software that is 9 only so It doesent affect me either way. May Classic MacOS RIP
 
SpeedRacer Mar 17, 2003 10:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by alex_kac:
To me, when I say "OS 9 is dead" it means that for current machines, future machines, etc... its dead. Just like some people still run Win95 or even DOS/Win3.1 on old boxen. You don't see THEM complaining about how WinXP runs o n their 233Mhz Pentium MMX with a 66Mhz bus and studly 64MB of RAM.
Perhaps that's b/c WinXP does not have an interface that runs like $#!t on a less than 3 year old hardware? We have 4 year old HP garbage boxes on Win2k that run smoother than our 2-3 year old iMac/iBooks. Seriously, even Apple states that to achieve graphics acceleration in OS 10 you need a minimum of 64MB of graphics memory - a spec which many Mac users currently are not running on their machines.

More importantly, with the elimination of OS 9 booting in newer machines we're talking about one less operating system choice for an already marginalized Apple hardware line. We've already seen the elimination of other forms of *nix OS on the Mac in response to Apple's refusal to deal and now we're seeing the same company refuse to support it's own codebase as well. How much money is Apple really saving by eliminating the handfull of OS 9 driver programmers currently keeping the system working on newer hardware?

The way to promote your OS is not to force your customers to migrate by planned obselescence, but rather eliminate any/all reasons for sticking with OS 9 b/c OS 10 does everything 9 does, except better. Looking at the hardware requirements for Aqua, the horrendous 10-ports of flagship Mac OS applications like MS Office, Internet Explorer, and Dreamweaver/Fireworks, and the continued lower support of scanner/printer drivers under 10 than 9, there's still plenty of design/business/education environments out there where migrating forward to OS 10 is a step back from their continued use of OS 9. In fact, quite frankly there's hardly a single 3rd party application that i've seen ported to 10 which actually runs better under 10 than 9. I believe there was even a thread somewhere on these forums about this which indicated that the overwhelming majority MacNN forum readers were of the opinion that most apps run slower/worse under 10 than 9.

And the repeated arguments that it's a "new OS" and will take "some time" for developers to get their apps running effectively may be a valid position, but only as valid as the degree to which Apple also realizes this and does not eliminate the choice of its customers to stay (presently) in the OS environment most conducive to their application/environment.

OS 10 is clearly the future, but these are the current scenarios (very real and very crucial to Apple's survival) in which OS 9 is far from dead.

Speed
 
Anand Mar 17, 2003 10:50 PM
OS 9 (and the older classics) had there day and kept Apple around when death was at the door. Is OS X better? I believe that for most cases, yes. There are many situations when OS 9 is better. If you never use a microsoft application, OS 9 is great. Really. I was shocked at how stable my old B/W G3 was when I removed all things microsoft. However, we live in a microsoft world and we need the stability of OS X to allow microsoft to continue to make crappy software for the mac. Apple had to kill OS 9 development. It just can't spend the money developing both OS's. But I agree, Apple should have made the transition smoother. They are loosing to many traditional Mac users. Luckly, they are converting enough windows users to stay even.
 
JNG Mar 18, 2003 06:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
Seriously, even Apple states that to achieve graphics acceleration in OS 10 you need a minimum of 64MB of graphics memory - a spec which many Mac users currently are not running on their machines.
It's 32 MB.
 
Colonel Panic Mar 31, 2003 07:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by JNG:
It's 32 MB.
its 16MB. 32MB is "preferred" but 16MB is the minimum spec.
 
suprz's ghost Apr 4, 2003 07:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by suprz's ghost:
I would rather have a "snappy reboot and crash" OS. i'll bet you that my B&W G3 can crash and reboot and be back working faster than OSX can open an app on some of the OLDER macs:stick:

i would like to retract this statement..........i've been using OSX for 3 weeks now, and i can't even stand to go back into OS9, i think it's ugly and unresponsive...what can i say? live and learn!:D
 
Vi0 Apr 6, 2003 01:09 AM
Well, who cares whether something is not being actively developed for by all the Apple developers? I still use 9.2 alot, and it still is faster on any machine that can boot into 9, and is far more configurable than X.

Name a single thing that an average user does in X that 9 cannot do. You can't. 9 does everything that most would want. Its the same as windows users using Windows 98. And that's pretty commonplace, despite what MS wants you to think. Not that X is similar to XP. But X still is a drain on hardware, and until Apple gets hardware that is affordable to run X fast on, 9 still beats X.

I also like the nostaligic feel of the original Mac OS. Who doesn't?
 
Cipher13 Apr 6, 2003 09:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
its 16MB. 32MB is "preferred" but 16MB is the minimum spec.
It's 32.

16 on some cards (ie. the ones Apple bundles).

It doesn't work on my G4's 16 meg card, or the iMacs 16 meg card.
 
Gene Jockey Apr 8, 2003 10:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Vi0:
Name a single thing that an average user does in X that 9 cannot do. You can't.
Um, in X you can download with IE in the background and it doesn't slow to a near halt. You can also put IE in the background without fear that it will crash horribly. Every time I'm back in 9 I live in fear of a lockup from RealPlayer or IE. And it doesn't matter that the fault lies with IE and RealPlayer for being crappy apps, the fact is 95% of the time when they die they bring the whole OS to Open-Apple/Control/Reset mode. And I'd say apps don't get much more "average" than IE and RealPlayer.

Quote
I also like the nostaligic feel of the original Mac OS. Who doesn't?
I love it too. I have BasiliskII installed under debian (because the OS X version has no network support yet) to run OS 8. I have vMac to run System 7, and a PowerBook 180 I have 7.5.5 w/ Word 5.1 & Excel 4 on. I love old Mac OSes. I just spend most of my time on X because it does more for me. Hell, I replaced the boot-up apple for Jaguar with this:

http://sanghena.homeip.net/Images/BootX.png

Believe me, when I get my IIfx running A/UX serving web pages, I'll be posting it here :)

--Josh
 
Cipher13 Apr 9, 2003 05:42 PM
IE never crashes my system... it runs beautifully. When it dies, it does so without bothering the OS.

RealPlayer? Well, running that app is just asking for trouble. ;)

Install Macsbug. It can save you from almost any crash.
 
voodoo Apr 10, 2003 11:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Cipher13:
It's 32.

16 on some cards (ie. the ones Apple bundles).

It doesn't work on my G4's 16 meg card, or the iMacs 16 meg card.
16 MB Radeon or Geforce2. Others won't work with QE. You know that.
 
Mohammed Al-Sabah Apr 14, 2003 04:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by absmiths:
That's a pretty ignorant reply.
I use X 100% of the time.
Network perfect - DSL modem -> Airport -> Software Base Station + three virtual networks == no problem.
I use Mail - perfect.

The idea that Apple should roll back 3 years worth of work so you can use a lame email client is laughable.

OS 9 could not be 'beefed up' in the same sense that a classic VW Bug could not be 'beefed up' to make a 2003 Mercedes without rebuilding the thing. Apple skipped a step, and is rebuilding on a new platform - which is the only direction they can go. As one who actually utilizes most of the new features of OS X, I find 9 intolerable, except for my wife to do finances on.

Apple must move on - that means OS 9 is dead.


yup i totaly agree with you :) they should move on and spend more time on ONE os then try doing 2 things at the same time :)

but hey :( VW bug ? i love that thing :) and got one aswell lol :)
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2