[CharlesS]

Do you miss OS 9, with its quirks and strange little things that it did? Well, have I got the thing for you!

OS9Experience

With this little app, you'll feel like you're using OS 9 again in no time! Have fun...

[Wevah]

Haha. (Un?)fortunately, no, I don't miss OS 9.

[OreoCookie]

Nope, I don't miss it.

[Toyin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Do you miss OS 9, with its quirks and strange little things that it did? Well, have I got the thing for you!

OS9Experience

With this little app, you'll feel like you're using OS 9 again in no time! Have fun...

LOL nice app.

To answer the question. No

[analogika]

I miss system 6, sometimes, and occasionally wax nostalgic for the excitement of switching to 7.1.

But 8 and Mac OS 9 - no. Not in the slightest.

And I'm reminded of why every time I sit at a client's machine which still has OS 9 on it.

[Kevin]

We have a solid OS 9 machine at work still. I run Diskwarrior on it once a week.

Hardly ever crashes. It's running on a 800mhz G4 with 512m of RAM.

[Randman]

Nope, don't miss it. Don't even use Classic less I need Quark for something these days.

[Maflynn]

In some ways yeah, but its more nostalgic reasons. I have a mac classic and a mac color class waiting for system 6 and 7 respectivly. I'm at the tail end of home renovations and once they're done I'm going to set those babies up.

[bowwowman]

O S w h o..... ?

dont need it
dont want it
deleted it
long time ago
dead
buried
RIP
good riddance

[tomrock]

It was cool in it's day but no, I don't miss it at all. OS X really is a great system.

[tooki]

While I love OS X's stability, there are many behaviors in OS 9 that were just better thought out. So yes, I do miss it sometimes!

tooki

[msuper69]

Yes. I miss moving the mouse and having a total lock up.

NOT!

[wulf]

No I don't miss it, and that cute app has reminded me just how much.

[Horsepoo!!!]

mAxximo will love this app!

[Agent69]

I liked the classic OS, but its lack of preemptive multitasking and memory protection made it a liability for Apple. Mac OS X is not perfect either, but it is the best OS for me.

[fisherKing]

that app is perfect...happily ran it for 15 minutes, happily deleted it!

in a year or 2, the osx version will be totally fun(ny).


os9, while light on it's feet, was also light in the head.
only thing i miss (& not that much); resedit.

[mAxximo]

LOL, the geek aristocracy making fun of the Mac in their constant intent to re-write history...oh dear. Name of the application should better be “How Unix geeks would like Us to remember the Mac”.

No, nice joke but so far from the real OS 9 experience so many of us really had it's not even funny.

That application would have been really good if it could let me open and edit files created by my girlfriend without having to *constantly* deal with permissions and passwords, for example. That would be a true Mac experience. Or if it made the system recognise Quicktime files created on a Mac with no file extensions, like it recently happened to me. I had to add the extensions with Automator, losing my time, my patience and my productivity. Certainly not an “OS9 Experience”.

[kcmac]

no absolutely not.

[ryaxnb]

I do not miss it but I get nostalgic for it, if that makes sense. I think OS X is better in most ways, but I also think that sometimes going back to cute little OS 9 is fun. Unfortunately I have no OS 9 machine right now. Just a Mac mini.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

That application would have been really good if it could let me open and edit files created by my girlfriend without having to *constantly* deal with permissions and passwords, for example.

That works fine on a single-user system like OS 9 was. You're comparing apples and oranges, and I've told you this before.

[CharlesS]

For a little extra amusement, try clicking on a certain greyed-out button when it appears!

[cla]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

That application would have been really good if it could let me open and edit files created by my girlfriend without having to *constantly* deal with permissions and passwords, for example. That would be a true Mac experience. Or if it made the system recognise Quicktime files created on a Mac with no file extensions, like it recently happened to me. I had to add the extensions with Automator, losing my time, my patience and my productivity. Certainly not an “OS9 Experience”.

as usual

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

That application would have been really good if it could let me open and edit files created by my girlfriend without having to *constantly* deal with permissions and passwords, for example. That would be a true Mac experience.

No, it wouldn't, because it would open your system to security holes and issues which are decidedly un-Mac-like. Just because you're too naive to recognize the value of security doesn't mean you shouldn't have it. The simple fact that you would remove it proves you to be unqualified to make that decision.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by cla

as usual

Completely freaking inaccurate, as usual. That's like saying, "Windows allows me to browse my files, but Mac OS 9 won't just because I deleted the System Folder!" If you have a single-user setup in OS 9 and a multiuser setup in OS X, you cannot compare the ease of use of sharing between users since one doesn't have any users to share between.

And neither OS X nor OS 9 will recognize a file with no extension or type codes. OS X will recognize a file with either. OS 9 will only recognize a file with a type code. OS X is more usable in this respect. I don't see how you can dispute this.

[production_coordinator]

When I first switched over to OS X... I did miss some of the OS 9 stuff, but that was back in the 10.1 days when OS 9 actually had some features OS X didn't have. Those days are long gone.

Since 10.2 on... I haven't looked back. And when 10.3 came out, I removed classic.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

LOL, the geek aristocracy making fun of the Mac in their constant intent to re-write history...oh dear. Name of the application should better be “How Unix geeks would like Us to remember the Mac”.

mAxximo, do you remember the days when Mac magazines would tout the biggest feature of new updates as "getting rid of many Type 11 crashes" or "Type 2 crashes" and such? If you don't then I don't see how you have any right to claim to know Mac history. Do you want me to pull out articles?

[jay3ld]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Since 10.2 on... I haven't looked back. And when 10.3 came out, I removed classic.

same... i dont have classic on any computers. all the good apps are now made for os x so its really no use to me.

os 9 and 8 really to me needed some work...

[cla]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, it wouldn't, because it would open your system to security holes

Actually, that would be quite Mac-like in a traditional sense... =)

Surely everyone recognizes the value of security. Still, it's something you have to mess with. If Apple's task is to provide an "easier alternative", they've failed miserably. In fact, administering security is a Windows rip-off, and a poor one at that. I don't think many people understand the concept of file owners, users and groups without a small lecture.
Nothing innovative there.

As for the user interface, analyzing a "Get Info" window for any file and folder:
It's easier to choose "You can No Access" (nice Apple) than giving other access.
Surely there are occasions, but really, how often do you need to remove your access permissions on a file?
And how should (for instance) maxximo go about in trying to give (for instance) his girlfriend access to his documents? He either has to grant everybody access, or choose the correct user group in the most obscure group list (could it be "certusers"? Or "dialer"? Or how about "uucp"?).
What's the difference between checking the "Locked" checkbox and removing write permissions? Why does one of them change the icon? Is it more important than the other?

I do understand the value and necessity of security. I also understand the reason why my Desktop isn't the root folder of my file system. Still I think that's plain bad interface design.

I miss OS 9. Mostly because I recognise spatiality as the most important piece of meta data there is.

[CharlesS]

Guys, guys, guys! This thread isn't supposed to be a serious discussion about OS 9. It's supposed to be a lighthearted thread about a funny little prank app.

Has anyone tried clicking the Resume button yet? I altered the image to make it not appear greyed, to make it seem more desirable...

[cla]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Completely freaking inaccurate, as usual.

So understanding why you need to refuel your car makes that good, healing, interesting and something really worth clinging on to?

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And neither OS X nor OS 9 will recognize a file with no extension or type codes.

True. And the approach in OS 9 was to keep this transparent. The implementation failed. Not the idea.

Forcing a user to change the name of a file is bad. Bad bad bad.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by cla

I miss OS 9. Mostly because I recognise spatiality as the most important piece of meta data there is.

So what you're actually saying is, "I miss the OS 9 Finder"?

[cla]

Originally Posted by Millennium

mAxximo, do you remember the days when Mac magazines would tout the biggest feature of new updates as "getting rid of many Type 11 crashes" or "Type 2 crashes" and such?

I don't think anyone defending OS 9 over X can be refering to stability, memory management, networking, security or multi-tasking. (Even if multi-tasking has introduced one or two usability issues, although subject to bad implementation.)

OS 9 really sucked underneath.

[cla]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So what you're actually saying is, "I miss the OS 9 Finder"?

Yes. My bad =/
Sorry Chuckit...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by cla

So understanding why you need to refuel your car makes that good, healing, interesting and something really worth clinging on to?

What does this have to do with the fact that mAxximo created a multiuser setup but expected it to behave exactly like a single-user setup? I assume you're being metaphorical or something, but I really don't see what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by cla

True. And the approach in OS 9 was to keep this transparent. The implementation failed. Not the idea.

Forcing a user to change the name of a file is bad. Bad bad bad.

The user is not forced to change the name of the file any more than he was in OS 9. If you want to search out obscure third-party utilities to change the type code (which is itself a much more arcane identifier than file extensions) like you did in OS 9, you are free to do so. The fact that you can use a well-known and easily accessible method of identifying files like extensions is a convenience. It doesn't limit you in any way. It is at least no worse than OS 9, so saying you prefer OS 9 because of this is just weird.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The user is not forced to change the name of the file any more than he was in OS 9. If you want to search out obscure third-party utilities to change the type code (which is itself a much more arcane identifier than file extensions) like you did in OS 9, you are free to do so. The fact that you can use a well-known and easily accessible method of identifying files like extensions is a convenience. It doesn't limit you in any way. It is at least no worse than OS 9, so saying you prefer OS 9 because of this is just weird.

The fact is, extensions have no place in a modern GUI. They're an awful hack which should have been ditched the moment superior methods (and even OS9's typecodes are superior to extensions) were introduced. Unfortunately, they seem to have won out, in yet another case of cheap-over-good.

However, you don't need obscure third-party utilities. Just use the Get Info window, and say to open the documents in QuickTime. By holding down Option when choosing Get Info, you can even do it on all the docs at once.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The fact is, extensions have no place in a modern GUI. They're an awful hack which should have been ditched the moment superior methods (and even OS9's typecodes are superior to extensions) were introduced. Unfortunately, they seem to have won out, in yet another case of cheap-over-good.

I agree that extensions suck, but eh. Unfortunately, they are the de facto standard for the Internet. Maybe someday we'll get where BeOS was 10 years ago and just use MIME types. Until then, we're left with kludgy-but-standard file extensions or arcane type codes.

Originally Posted by Millennium

However, you don't need obscure third-party utilities. Just use the Get Info window, and say to open the documents in QuickTime. By holding down Option when choosing Get Info, you can even do it on all the docs at once.

I was just saying that was how it was done in OS 9, and if people prefer it that way, they have the option of doing so.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The fact is, extensions have no place in a modern GUI. They're an awful hack which should have been ditched the moment superior methods (and even OS9's typecodes are superior to extensions) were introduced. Unfortunately, they seem to have won out, in yet another case of cheap-over-good.

However, you don't need obscure third-party utilities. Just use the Get Info window, and say to open the documents in QuickTime. By holding down Option when choosing Get Info, you can even do it on all the docs at once.

True, but in our modern world, we can't live without file extensions. Unfortunately, I'm not sarcastic, unless Microsoft and the whole internet gets rid of them first … 

If you share files with non-Macs, they are mandatory. However, OS X offers to hide them, so I don't really see any harm done.

[brink]

It restarted my computer. Very cute. Thanks a lot.

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by Millennium

mAxximo, do you remember the days when Mac magazines would tout the biggest feature of new updates as "getting rid of many Type 11 crashes" or "Type 2 crashes" and such? If you don't then I don't see how you have any right to claim to know Mac history. Do you want me to pull out articles?

Heh, CharlesS' app didn't work (I had it running for > 30mins and it did precisely bugger all) but that one question brought many memories flooding back. I'd forgotten those claims and how much they actually meant....or didn't as the case may be!

[fisherKing]

Originally Posted by Geobunny

Heh, CharlesS' app didn't work (I had it running for > 30mins and it did precisely bugger all) but that one question brought many memories flooding back. I'd forgotten those claims and how much they actually meant....or didn't as the case may be!

maybe that's exactly it:
"(I had it running for > 30mins and it did precisely bugger all)"


ah, classic days...

[CharlesS]

Huh, that's odd. Try it again. It should do something very obnoxious in no more than 15 minutes.

[__^^__]

OS9 was very unstable for me. I miss OS8.6.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, it wouldn't, because it would open your system to security holes and issues which are decidedly un-Mac-like. Just because you're too naive to recognize the value of security doesn't mean you shouldn't have it. The simple fact that you would remove it proves you to be unqualified to make that decision.

I'd say that the simple fact that you and Apple can't imagine of a way to overcome this annoying unix limitation doesn't mean it can't be done without messing with security.
It must be fixed in a way that serves both you and me without opening any holes in the system.

In the meantime I'd appreciate a global preference that would let me override at least *some* of those annoying privileges and password prompts.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

mAxximo, do you remember the days when Mac magazines would tout the biggest feature of new updates as "getting rid of many Type 11 crashes" or "Type 2 crashes" and such? If you don't then I don't see how you have any right to claim to know Mac history. Do you want me to pull out articles?

Crashes existed, no doubt. I must have been very lucky though. I barely crashed in OS 9.1 while doing normal stuff. Same with multitasking. Supposedly, OS 9 didn't multitask very well but for me it always worked a lot better than pre-Panther OS X. I used to have the best of both worlds until Adobe abandoned the legacy and I was forced to switch, as well as many other Mac users. It was tough waiting for something acceptable like Tiger....

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by cla

Yes. My bad =/
Sorry Chuckit...

Er...I'm not sure if you're kidding, but there's no need to apologize.

Anyway, I'm really ambivalent about spatial philosophy of the old Finder. I really like it conceptually. It's easy to use and teach people. But at the same time, I work more efficiently with column view in the OS X Finder.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

I'd say that the simple fact that you and Apple can't imagine of a way to overcome this annoying unix limitation doesn't mean it can't be done without messing with security.
It must be fixed in a way that serves both you and me without opening any holes in the system.

It's not a Unix limitation. In fact, permissions have nothing to do with unix. HFS+ supported permissions as do many non-Unix file systems (BeFS, NTFS).

Originally Posted by mAxximo

In the meantime I'd appreciate a global preference that would let me override at least *some* of those annoying privileges and password prompts.

Windows will introduce this with their next major version of Windows, Vista. It greatly improves security. So M$ copies Apple once again … for the benefit of 95 % of the users on this planet.

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Huh, that's odd. Try it again. It should do something very obnoxious in no more than 15 minutes.

Weird, according to "ps auxcww" apparently I didn't have it running at all. Got it this time though - that's awesome and definitely coming to the office with me tomorrow. My whole office uses Macs and I can see that wee app making an appearance in a certain colleagues login items soon....

[CharlesS]

Make sure you grab the one that's currently on my site before you do that. I made it unlock the screen before trying to restart, so that if some app has unsaved data it lets you save or cancel it instead of just sitting there forever waiting for you to respond to a dialog you can't see.

Also, this one has the "Resume" button not grey, so that people might actually try to click it.

[OogaBooga]

I miss Windows 98







...just kidding.

[Detrius]

Hey Charles: There is a serious design flaw in your program. It pretended to lock up my computer, but it only managed to lock up the screen that had the menu bar. I could still switch out of the application to the terminal on my other monitor. Fortunately, I was wise enough to read the Read Me file that came with it.

Anyway, I was just looking at this code in CoreGraphics the other day... There's a function that allows you to take control of all screens, which is probably what you meant to do.

Another piece of advice: If you give the mach thread real-time priority and then dive in to an infinite loop, the computer will look like it has frozen solid for a couple of seconds ( until the mach kernel removes the real-time priority ). Unfortunately, this trick only works on single processor machines, as on dual processor machines, there's another processor to make the rest of the system work. This is a side effect that I found by accident in using the real-time priority for good cause.