[raskol]

Oh and while I'm here trying to help you poor OS 9 users out,

SWITCH TO OS X AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

It has been outdated for over 7 years and everyday I thank Steve and NeXT for saving Apple's and my ass.

Screw Quark too by the way. You've been outdated for almost as long. We don't use manual typesetting anymore and now I guess it's time to switch to InDesign? It's too bad that Quark sincie becoming the standard uses every opportunity to screw all it's users. And now they blame Apple for actually updating their OS!!!!!! WTF!

[flip]

OS 9 will be dead, if and when Apple offers only OS X on it�s machines. Until then we are forced to deal with a unholy mix of the two systems. I foresee this eventuality in late 2003 at best. At that time I will abandon OS 9. For all practical purposes, OS X at this time is a work in progress with an unhappy group of beta testers who are willing to pay for the privilege of performing in that capacity.
Hang tough. It could be worse, I suppose.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by raskol:
Oh and while I'm here trying to help you poor OS 9 users out,

SWITCH TO OS X AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

It has been outdated for over 7 years and everyday I thank Steve and NeXT for saving Apple's and my ass.

Screw Quark too by the way. You've been outdated for almost as long. We don't use manual typesetting anymore and now I guess it's time to switch to InDesign? It's too bad that Quark sincie becoming the standard uses every opportunity to screw all it's users. And now they blame Apple for actually updating their OS!!!!!! WTF!

Gee, thanks for the insight.

[pliny]

tell that to the 90% of Macusers who still use os 9.

i will say though that witht he right chip, memory and wiped/new install, X is fast. still not as fast as 9 though. pity really.

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by pliny:
tell that to the 90% of Macusers who still use os 9.

i will say though that witht he right chip, memory and wiped/new install, X is fast. still not as fast as 9 though. pity really.

I bet Windows 3.11 runs fast on an Athlon XP 1900+ too.

[pliny]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


I bet Windows 3.11 runs fast on an Athlon XP 1900+ too.

probably. I wonder if 90% of windows users are still using win 3.11 though.

[raskol]

Exactly. And I am telling that to the 90% of users who still use OS 9. Get with the program and buy OS X so we can move on.

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


I bet Windows 3.11 runs fast on an Athlon XP 1900+ too.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by raskol:
Exactly. And I am telling that to the 90% of users who still use OS 9. Get with the program and buy OS X so we can move on.

Why the HECK must you put the text you are quoting beneath your reply. It is annoynig to read!!

And yes OS 9 is dead. Good riddance. The Mac OS has sucked ever since 7.5.x. The last Good System was System 7.1. Damn good System. Now we have MacOS X 10.2.1 and it is a pretty good system. Far better than anything between 7.5 and 9.2 but it lacks something even System 7.1 had: LABELS!!

APPLE! You know you guys have to implemant labels back into the System!?

[fat mac moron]

Originally posted by voodoo:
The Mac OS has sucked ever since 7.5.x. The last Good System was System 7.1.

Hey! I still use 7.1 on my CC, but I do actually prefer 8.x

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by voodoo:


Why the HECK must you put the text you are quoting beneath your reply. It is annoynig to read!!

And yes OS 9 is dead. Good riddance. The Mac OS has sucked ever since 7.5.x. The last Good System was System 7.1. Damn good System. Now we have MacOS X 10.2.1 and it is a pretty good system. Far better than anything between 7.5 and 9.2 but it lacks something even System 7.1 had: LABELS!!

APPLE! You know you guys have to implemant labels back into the System!?

Comedy gold right there.

[raskol]

Originally posted by voodoo:


Why the HECK must you put the text you are quoting beneath your reply. It is annoynig to read!!

Ok I put it on the top are you happy now Bjork? Geez you Icelanders are picky.

[fat mac moron]

Funny

Originally posted by raskol:


Ok I put it on the top are you happy now Bjork? Geez you Icelanders are picky.

[pete.z]

Imagine how we all would have laught when Microsoft had XP out,but still had to put 98 in the same box,so users could actually use it......

I still feel it's a real stupid move by Apple to give us a OS that isn't finished.

Thanks god some people are willing to pay to cope with all the BS.....let us know when it's finished,maybe we can buy X then too.

[l'ignorante]

I think it's time the market splits in pro / semi / amateurs / . What I do on my iMac, I can do the next 30 years using all the hard and software I have now. Until OS8 I had troubles (speed mainly), but since 9 and a litlle extra RAM I'm as happy as can be.

[ThinkInsane]

Yes, OSX is very nice, I think we all agree. I meant to move this thread to the lounge the other day so all could enjoy it, so I will rectify that now. Buh-bye

[maxelson]

Originally posted by pliny:
tell that to the 90% of Macusers who still use os 9.

i will say though that witht he right chip, memory and wiped/new install, X is fast. still not as fast as 9 though. pity really.

Where can I find documentation on that?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by pete.z:
Imagine how we all would have laught when Microsoft had XP out,but still had to put 98 in the same box,so users could actually use it......

I still feel it's a real stupid move by Apple to give us a OS that isn't finished.

Thanks god some people are willing to pay to cope with all the BS.....let us know when it's finished,maybe we can buy X then too.

What on earth are you talking about? I've ditched 9 the second I installed Jaguar. All my Macs are pure UNIX boxes now. - with YDL LINUX running on my old iMac There's no reason at all (for me) to even think about installing 9. Yesterday I gave away all my old install disks to a friend with an old G3.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by raskol:
Oh and while I'm here trying to help you poor OS 9 users out...

It has been outdated for over 7 years

OS 9 is 7 years old? why does my 8.5 box say 1998 on it then? damn it, i wuz robbed!

[Mars_Attacks]

I'll ditch OS9 as soon someone can get my drum scanner to work in X.

Highly unlikely.

[Sven G]

... Yet another "geeky" The Joy of Tech comic - this time on the "defunct" OS 9 (oh, the Classics)...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by pliny:


probably. I wonder if 90% of windows users are still using win 3.11 though.

Actually for a good 2 years after Win95 release they was. Not to mention there are more Win98/Win NT/Win2k users than XP.

A lot more.

[El Pre$idente]

I have Xounds 1.3, Labels X and Rhapsodized theme installed. OS9 is back!

[Re$iliant68]

Screw that. You know what OSX is? A good reason to buy a new machine. I have a 600mhz 1st gen iMac. It runs GREAT. Its 'snappier' than this 800mhz G4 running OSX. In OS9, I can do everything I need: Play mp3s, create music, create flash animation, video edit, play UT, and more. In order to do that in OSX, I'd have to buy a new machine to run OSX as fast as OS9. I believe that all these 'new' (read BLOATED) Operating systems are nothing more than a ploy for you to purchase a new computer. Screw that. I'll use OS9 until its detrimental to do so. I run OSX occasionally, but I miss the LOGIC that prevails in OS9. I know how to work OS9. I know how to fix it. And there is absolutely ZERO reason for me to ditch it.

- Ca$h

[sek929]

Well if I still had a G3 I would be using OS9 seeing on how slow X.2 feels on my G4 with a ridiculous amount of memory installed.

Stats of old iMac. 333MHZ G3, 160MB RAM, 6 gig (!) HDD, Ati Rage Pro 6 MB (!!!) video card.

Yeah ok, like X would run on that without me tearing out my own eyes in anger. I mean if G4 733, 1024MB RAM, 85 gig HD space, and GeForce 2 MX 32 MB video card runs sluggish now and then how would my old machine fare?

Not everyone has awesome hardware, so 9 is still the best choice for them.

[pliny]

Originally posted by Re$iliant68:
Screw that. You know what OSX is? A good reason to buy a new machine. I have a 600mhz 1st gen iMac. It runs GREAT. Its 'snappier' than this 800mhz G4 running OSX. In OS9, I can do everything I need: Play mp3s, create music, create flash animation, video edit, play UT, and more. In order to do that in OSX, I'd have to buy a new machine to run OSX as fast as OS9. I believe that all these 'new' (read BLOATED) Operating systems are nothing more than a ploy for you to purchase a new computer. Screw that. I'll use OS9 until its detrimental to do so. I run OSX occasionally, but I miss the LOGIC that prevails in OS9. I know how to work OS9. I know how to fix it. And there is absolutely ZERO reason for me to ditch it.

- Ca$h

Testify, brother. I won't buy a new machine just to run a new OS when the one I like to run works. Then again if Apple had faster machines than out now I might look twice, droolingly.

Woz himself said recently that the upgrade curve has slowed alot because people don't feel or see the need to buy when what they can do with a newer machine is the same or not so greater than what they have. I think I agree with him.

[maxelson]

At home:
G3- 333 Beige. 768 MB RAM. Dual HD setup. Jag. Runs more than fine. I even play UT X on it with no issues.
Original iBook 366. 320MB RAM. upgraded Hard Drive - 10GB. Jag. Runs fantastically.
At work: Ti 667 (1GB RAM), MDD 867 (768 MB RAM), G3 B/W 350 (512 MB RAM), iMac Kihei 400MHz (384MB RAM). All Jag. All run great.
Only thing I run 9.x on is a PB2400 (for testing printers).
Wouldn't go back to 9 on a dare.

[andi*pandi]

oooh, this is just begging to be said...

double dare ya!

[deekay1]

let me start this off by saying that i HATE "classic" in os x!

i have been running os x exclusively (i completely deleted the 9 environment) for the last 7 months now and am quite happy with the results.

os 10.1.5 seems to be a lot more stable than os 9.2.x and though i haven't installed jaguar yet, i do not have that many gripes about the speed of the finder any more (i have 640 mb ram installed).

i just wish both macromedia and adobe did a better job of optimizing their apps for os x. freehand 10 really sucks, and it's the app that, next to ps of course, i used the most...

every now and then i fire up the old imac, which has os 9.2.2 installed, and remember the good 'ol days (eventhough i liked os 8.6 better )...

but, yes, os 9 is dead, and os x is slowly but surely growing into a mature and solid os for the future...

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by raskol:
Ok I put it on the top are you happy now Bjork? Geez you Icelanders are picky.

No, it's an internet convention that has been around since the beginning. Why do you think that the Reply button does this automatically?
Besides, when you carry on a conversation in real life, you don't respond to someone before they've spoken, do you?

[Mac Zealot]

I almost never open up classic (except to play reeealy old games).

Truly, windows XP does include it's older OSes in the box the same way OS X USED to included OS 9 in the box.

You can emulate the older OSes in XP in a similar way (note, not exactly the same though).

Anyway, i still don't use classic mac os, never really liked it anyway.

[mitchell_pgh]

My left eye starts to twitch when I read articles such as this one.

"OS 9 is dead - RIP"

Tell that to the millions of OS 9 users that still can't upgrade to OS X because of Quark. "Screw Quark too by the way." Well, if you made all of your money from designing with Quark, and have done so for the past 7 years, you don't just dump it. Quark *** IS *** the standard. InDesign is looking better and better all the time, but please. Quark just works.

I mock your posting ability.

[Krusty]

Fortunately, I don't use Quark. I booted back to 9 the other day for something or other. Darn fast, I must say (um, when it was doing one thing at a time). Despite having a slower interface, its Jaguar all the way for me. F#cking rocks IMO. I will NEVER go back.

[Re$iliant68]

OS9 is fast. I like it. It runs great on my machine. It does everything I could ask for in an OS. Why should I switch?

- Ca$h

[maxelson]

Different tools for different folks. No problem with that.
And I'll add in that, yes, Ca$h IS being good. Very good.
What did you do to get nuked the last time, bud?

[raskol]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
My left eye starts to twitch when I read articles such as this one.

"OS 9 is dead - RIP"

Tell that to the millions of OS 9 users that still can't upgrade to OS X because of Quark. "Screw Quark too by the way." Well, if you made all of your money from designing with Quark, and have done so for the past 7 years, you don't just dump it. Quark *** IS *** the standard. InDesign is looking better and better all the time, but please. Quark just works.

I mock your posting ability.

Well twitch away you geeky bitch. Just because you and your favorite app cant step into the "20th Century" much less the 21st doesn't mean the rest of us have to suffer with a the POS that Classic really is. Do you reailize that most people don't do or care about page layout? What they need is a stable OS that can do more than one thing at a time.

You pompous ass. This guy thinks that having a big number under his name means he is cool. What does my posting ability have to do with anything. The only reason you are even reading this thread is because it got moved to the loser lounge in the first place. If you had knowledge other than Quark you might have been helping OS 9 users out.

Mock this.

[raskol]

Just to annoy you anal bastards I did it again! Since the beginning of what? Time? I'm thinking different. Something some you people don't seem to be very good at.

I put the reply after the subject so that you don't have to read it again and again and again in email so that is what I did here. God it's in bold anyway or do some of you OS 9 users not have modern enough web browsers to have bold type! OMG I crack myself up.

Originally posted by ReggieX:

No, it's an internet convention that has been around since the beginning. Why do you think that the Reply button does this automatically?
Besides, when you carry on a conversation in real life, you don't respond to someone before they've spoken, do you?

[scaught]

you should learn to speak nicer to people. calling names and such is poor form.

[maxelson]

"loser lounge"?
Pompous?

[andi*pandi]

<rowr!> <fttt-fttt> <rowr!>

[raskol]

Originally posted by scaught:
you should learn to speak nicer to people. calling names and such is poor form.

Oh but I wanted to be your pal. You big important poster you.

Ok you guys take things to seriously. I'll stop.

[ironknee]

I'll take OS9 over XP anyday!

[mrtaber]

I understand people's frustration in industries that require software that hasn't been upgraded to OS X yet (or, not upgraded adequately).

However, I must admit that OS X has kept me in the Mac camp. OS 9 was just not stable enough for me, even at home. Oh, I found out all the tricks to make OS 9 stable, but I didn't feel that I should have to. My Windows NT and Windows 2000 machines at work were rock solid...very, very rarely did I get a BSOD. On the other hand, the Mac (re)start chime haunted me in my sleep with OS 9.

Not so with OS X. I keep my machine on 24/7, most of my apps up and running, with no crashes (yet), knock wood. I love my Mac running OS X.

Perhaps I was one of the unlucky ones (or ignorant ones--to beat someone unkind from wasting a post on me), but I haven't been back to OS 9, even for Classic, in over 6 months.

Mark

[milhous]

If only OS 9 didn't have the 31 character filename limitation and had modern plumbing....

that said, I can't use OS X entirely anymore. When I'm craving speed and instaneous gratification, I have to switch to 9. For everthing else, there's X.

[raskol]

I know there are some speed problems with OS X but I can live with them because when I need to I can do so many things at one time.

Like I remember having wait minutes at a time for slide scans. God that was horrible. Sure Photoshop was fast on a Mac but what did it matter I never got to use it some days cause all I could do was scan and drink coffee!

And the 31 character filename thing still haunts me. I can't convert images in Graphic Converter in OS X cause it changes all my long filenames to short gobledy-gook. And so does Photoshop 7 when I do HTML pages with it!

[philzilla]

Originally posted by raskol:
I'll stop.

go on then

[raskol]

Originally posted by philzilla:
go on then

nice sig. completely original. snotty twit. oh

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by raskol:


nice sig. completely original. snotty twit. oh

You're a bit of a wanker, aren't you?

I love being able to bypass the swear filter by using Brit slang

[mrmister]

"OS9 is fast. I like it. It runs great on my machine. It does everything I could ask for in an OS. Why should I switch?"

Ca$h: Don't. It's okay...we'll be okay if you don't switch.

Raskol, same there--stick with 9.

[Miniryu]

Originally posted by pete.z:

Thanks god some people are willing to pay to cope with all the BS.....let us know when it's finished,maybe we can buy X then too.

Its funny, I thought the big deal about Jaguar was that OS X was finally finished. I am using it now and I don't have any problems (other than the snappiness of OS 9 that I miss). I am willing to sacrafice this for the added stability.

[Demonhood]

if you can't play nice together, i'm going to stop inviting johnny over for playdates. now pickup your toys, swallow your pride, and for god's sake, get your finger out of your nose.