[Brit Ben]

When do you guys and gals think it will be possible to have only OSX installed, and no classic ?

I'm contemplating 10.1 as is, no classic, in view of the fact that nearly all of my apps will then be native carbon / cocoa....

Office X, Ie, Eudora, etc
A few missinig macromedia apps on the way....

Just a thought, and something to look forward to perhaps.

Cheers,
Ben.

[robotmarkVIII]

Originally posted by Brit Ben:
<STRONG>When do you guys and gals think it will be possible to have only OSX installed, and no classic ?

I'm contemplating 10.1 as is, no classic, in view of the fact that nearly all of my apps will then be native carbon / cocoa....

Office X, Ie, Eudora, etc
A few missinig macromedia apps on the way....

Just a thought, and something to look forward to perhaps.

Cheers,
Ben.</STRONG>

Go for it! OS X doesn't need classic, and if OS 9 is installed in the same partition as os x, it puts weird crap at the root level of the HD. What I've done is given OS X its own partition, UFS (tho HFS is just as good) and bitchslapped classic to a tiny little 500 meg partition. That way, i can wipe out classic later on as OS X gets faster, and more apps are ported.
Speaking of 10.1, can someone post the contents of the OpenGL info app from a 10.1 build, on an old machine? Mine has the HardwareAccelerated field set to 'no' (imac 333)

edit: Come to think of it, maybe that was a little flamebaitish. OS 9 is great for what it was designed to do, and I still use it for its speed and UI niceness. However, shiney things and preemptive multitasking win out in the end. As does emacs. So, OS 9 people, I luv you too! *hUUUUgs*

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: robotmarkVIII ]

[naepstn]

As far as I know, the only downside to having Classic installed, BUT NOT RUNNING, is that it's taking up some hard drive space. Given how large and relatively inexpensive HDs are now, that's not all that big of a problem. As far as I'm concerned, I think that I'll have it installed for many years still, just in case I receive a file from someone that I need to open in a really old program or whatever. I can't wait to not have to turn on Classic all the time, but I'm in no hurry to get it off my hard drive.

[robotmarkVIII makes a good point though, and I thought I should crarify that I use Classic from its own partition, so that it can't really muck around with OSX]

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: naepstn ]

[Brit Ben]

Originally posted by robotmarkVIII:
<STRONG>

UFS (tho HFS is just as good) </STRONG>

Which spawns an interesting question / religious war....

In an OSX only environment, which filesystem would you chose to use ?

Bear in mind that it's on a PB, and so the thing can be dropped into firewire target mode for another machine etc etc.

Also, what about those wretched apps that need to see if you have a previous version (classic) of XYZ installed before they'll install the OSX version. - Norton AntiVirus springs to mind.

Ta,
Ben.

HFS without a second thought. UFS is really horrible, not only is it 30 times slower, but I do more than half my work in the Terminal, and with UFS, if you don't do it via the finder, "resource forks" won't be created, and then your files won't show up in Finder. I can use all the CLI utlities, and then browse the filesystem with Finder with HFS, whereas with UFS, I can do one, or the other. I prefer both.

Originally posted by Brit Ben:
<STRONG>

Which spawns an interesting question / religious war....

In an OSX only environment, which filesystem would you chose to use ?

Bear in mind that it's on a PB, and so the thing can be dropped into firewire target mode for another machine etc etc.

Also, what about those wretched apps that need to see if you have a previous version (classic) of XYZ installed before they'll install the OSX version. - Norton AntiVirus springs to mind.

Ta,
Ben.</STRONG>

[AIOg3guy]

I'm no expert on file systems, but I observed the following:

When installing OSX 10.0 on a AIO/g3 with ATA/66 7200rm UFS drive vs the same drive formatted in HFS, the 10.0 install on HFS was roughly 50% more responsive.

It seems that currently UFS is only available for compatibility reasons. However, the newer builds might be much better (I haven't tried UFS again since my first bad experience.

-AIOg3guy

[bmedina]

I haven't had Classic installed (out of laziness) since I reformatted a few months ago to put in my new drive. Of course, since it's summer I haven't really been doing any real work on the machine, just browsing, email, writing web pages, etc.

"resource forks" won't be created

Resource forks have been deprecated in OS X. They aren't created by any OS X compliant apps anymore; that's what bundles are for.

[Cotton]

i ran 10.0.1/10.0.2 for a couple of months without any OS9.x install at all, and it did run better, and without all the stupid file association problems (ie classic starting up all the time). i've had to reinstall 9 again for Office, but when officeX comes out, i'll be using nothing but 10.1. it's gonna be cool. cool like pistachios.

Cotton

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Cotton ]

[zorn]

I did not install classic on my OS X Server box for obvious reasons and the GUI and system in all feels way more responsive. As for client I will be forced to live with classic for a while (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc.)

And there are other apps that are X-ed but still are not as responsive as thier classic counterparts, ie: BBEdit, Fetch 4

Oh well, I have yet to get a seed (student developer) so can't comment on 10.1

~ Mike

[Brit Ben]

Well, good to know that it is at least a possibility.

I'll probably do that when 10.1 proper hits the streets, assuming that microsoft follow through with Office X fairly soon afterwards.

Macromedia, would you guys PLEASE pull your fingers out and give me a way to author flash projectors optmized for OS X ????

Ben.

[robotmarkVIII]

Originally posted by zorn:
<STRONG>I did not install classic on my OS X Server box for obvious reasons and the GUI and system in all feels way more responsive. As for client I will be forced to live with classic for a while (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc.)

And there are other apps that are X-ed but still are not as responsive as thier classic counterparts, ie: BBEdit, Fetch 4

Oh well, I have yet to get a seed (student developer) so can't comment on 10.1

~ Mike</STRONG>

I wouldn't think there would be _any_ performance difference by having classic installed but not running. The OS X system at boot doesn't do anything with OS 9 files, and AFAIK, files sitting and spinning on a hard drive don't do anything performance wise. There may be fragmentation issues with having all that stuff installed, but I doubt that would contribute to any major changes in system speed.

That said, I don't plan on installing classic once I'm sure 10.1 is at least 70% as responsive os 9.1. When it is, I'll be a very happy camper.

[robotmarkVIII]

I have been using UFS for quite a while now, and I don't notice any major performance differences between it and HFS+. If you're doing a new install, I'd recommend using HFS+ anyway as it may be more compatible with some carbon apps. You might like UFS if you like case sensitivity.