[Tyre MacAdmin]

Of the apps you guys use for OS X and OS 9 and or Classic, do you still find OS 9 to run apps quicker, faster, etc?

[Detrius]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
<strong>Of the apps you guys use for OS X and OS 9 and or Classic, do you still find OS 9 to run apps quicker, faster, etc?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">I think a big question would be: does anyone still use OS 9?

Anyway, I think you will find that in general, your applications will run faster under OS 9 as there is not the over head of a good multitasking operating system (i.e. in OS 9, your program gets to hog the CPU).

There is, however, a major exception... if you have a dual processor machine, you can expect virtually everything to be faster in OS X. I love my OS X.

[Hobbes]

And to a large degree, the speed of a Carbon app depends on its coding. Most of the crappy Carbon apps, that gave Carbon a bad name initially, were ones that were quick & dirty ports.

If an app is ported properly, it runs very nicely.

[Developer]

I think a CFM binary is faster in OS 9 than in OS X and a CFM binary in OS X is faster than a Mach-O binary, but don�t ask my for the technical reasons please.

Since both OS�es require different optimization strategies, the speed would probibly more depend for which OS an application is optimized for. In increasingly numbers that�ll be OS X.