People switching back to OS 9?

xype · December 21, 2001 5:18AM

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23483.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23483.html</a>;

I knew the OS X interface isn't the big thing, but are there really people switching back to OS 9? I didn't even switch to OS X yet..

Usability comes before eyecandy imho

kelib · December 21, 2001 6:05AM

I haven't [Yet] but am seriously considering to do so. I'm having endless font problems (I'm in a non English country) and it's certeinly not crash free

ybot · December 21, 2001 7:00AM

I seem to be one of the lucky ones. Everything I hated about OS 9 is gone in X, performace is MUCH more stable. I used to have system freezes literally every day (probably due to the 75+ programs I needed to have installed) but in X I've never frozen once. And I've only ever had one kernel panic when I tried the uninstall feature of the Dave 2.5 installer.

For the first 2-3 months of X (back when performance sucked and there was no DVD player) I found myself pining for 9, but now that I have Office v.X, a faster-than-9's DVD player, tolerable finder performance and rock-solid stability, I'll be in X from now on, 100% of the time.

But I can understand some people going back to 9, if you do anything with professional software (Photoshop, Flash, etc.) Classic is not acceptable. I would boot into 9 to use Photoshop and wouldn't even bother running it in classic, too slow and cumbersome.

-Y

gordy · December 21, 2001 7:59AM

I'd never switch back to that gray, antiquated OS. Classic works in a pinch, but I no longer need to startup in OS 9. When Photoshop moves, I won't even need Classic.

revs · December 21, 2001 8:11AM

Never. Mac OS 9 is such a piece of crap compared to 10. If I had to go back to 9 then i'd have to reinstall Linux or some unix variant. Must have the Unix terminal for half the stuff I do on my computer...

imacfp · December 21, 2001 9:12AM

Well there is no reason why home users should not switch to OS X. Personally I wold hate to switch back to OS 9, but I guess without carbon graphics applications some people have no choice.

marcuk · December 21, 2001 9:55AM

I ran OSX.1 for a few weeks after its release, but now i only use OS9, and have no OSX on my system.

I value performance and features better than eyecandy, I don't have many crashes, and my work is mostly one or two apps at a time. I don't really care about transparency, shadows or the dock or OSX's filing systems, and there is very lame performance in some aspects of OSX.

I'd expect I'd switch back about 10.5 when I have a Ghz g4/g5 and all my apps support OSX properly, pretty much all "Carbon" OSX apps are poor and rushed in my experience, Id hope after the initial carbonized versions, developers write cocoa apps that properly take advantage of OSX, and don't take a huge performance hit over their OS9 counterparts.

francisg3 · December 21, 2001 11:43AM

I used OS 10 for about 2 weeks, but switched back to OS9, and I'm quite happy.

OS X has one HUGE disadvantage: It is slow. I'd guess about 85-90% as fast as OS9, and I'm running a G4 450, with 512M of RAM.

Also, I find OS 9 quite stable. Matter of fact, it hasn't crashed in about six weeks. Maybe it's because I'm a geek, and keep minimal extensions, but OS 9 is much more refined.

sinewave · December 21, 2001 12:05PM

I'll never go back to 9.. they couldn't pay me enough.

xype · December 21, 2001 12:16PM

Interesting - because as I've seen it here (in some 4-5 advertising and design agencies) people really like the idea of OS X but a lot of them think it's still not "ready" engouh for a real switch. If Apple goes OS X by default next year, don't they risk putting a bad image on OS X in the sense that many Mac users will stay with a "proven solution" and actually switching to OS X later than they could?

marcuk · December 21, 2001 12:17PM

The question is wether you make your money from a mac or are a home user?. Many of you loathing OS9 probably don't do serious work on your mac that would make a difference in your wallet. I loved OSX for general run of the mill stuff like browsing, email, word processing etc messing around with stuff, Its very good at that and looks nice and function great, but the real problem is lack of leading apps or leading apps that have had a bad carbonisation... And the Dock

which doesn't help at all with full screen apps.

evo · December 21, 2001 1:00PM

I tinker around with OS X whenever a new update comes out (mainly just to see if it's any faster), but I use OS 9 as my main OS because it doesn't run dog slow like OS X.

I only have 128MB RAM, that could be the problem, but I think it's the G3/233 (Beige PowerMac). Apple said the original iMac was the target machine for OS X... well... it's not. I'd say OS X feels about 60%-70% the speed of OS 9. Everything is sluggish. Selecting text, opening apps, dragging files, browsing disks... using OS X is like trying to dig through a hole full of thick mud. Whenever I have 2 or more apps open, my HD crunches so loud, I think it's going to break.

If it wasn't for the speed issue, I'd probably use it as my main OS. However, Aqua still feels unpolished to me, and it would be nice to have a button on the dock that would hide every open window and show the desktop (a-la A-Dock and the Windows Taskbar).

The GUI between Carbon apps and Cocoa ones feels so inconsistent. Cocoa is fine, but I hate to see stuff like unantialiased text, non-live window resizing, and many Platinum GUI parts sitting on the annoying white/grey pinstripes.

So, the only thing that will make me switch to OS X will be: the purchase of a new Mac, or it feels at least 95% the speed of OS 9 on this machine.

koldolme · December 21, 2001 1:01PM

I'll never go back. OSX rules !!

the rootwitch · December 21, 2001 1:48PM

X is starting to get faster on my iBook, but it's still pretty slow for lots of things. I use it all the time though, because if I restart into OS 9, I have to spend half an hour restarting until I can get back into X.

gfeier · December 21, 2001 2:35PM

[quote]Originally posted by eVo:

<strong>I tinker around with OS X whenever a new update comes out (mainly just to see if it's any faster), but I use OS 9 as my main OS because it doesn't run dog slow like OS X.

I only have 128MB RAM, that could be the problem, but I think it's the G3/233 (Beige PowerMac).</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am working strictly in OS X and Classic these days. I have no performance problems. I also have a dual 800. One thing I have learned in more than 13 years using Macs: Apple's stated minimum system requirements are just that: MINIMUM! They say it will run. It runs. It sucks, but it runs. Nowhere do they say that you will enjoy it. I have never put OS 9 on my 120MHz 8500 for this reason.

I guess it's just Apple's gentle way of telling you it's time for a new Mac. Next month's new machines should all run OS X just fine.

kecksy · December 21, 2001 3:08PM

If you have anything slower than a 500MHz G3 and 256MB of RAM, don't bother with OS X. It's a next generation operating system not meant to run on previous generation hardware, and most of the complaints I hear about OS X's speed come from individuals with older machines. I will not deny that OS X is slower than OS 9 on all but the lastest configurations, but this is the price we must pay for a legacy free OS. It is simply not possible to support both old and new hardware without sacrifising functionality on either side. Apple made the choice to drop legacy support, so it would be free to make its OS as future proof as possible. OS X, after all, is based on the core technology that will drive Macs for the next decade. It would be foolish then, to target that technology towards a three year old machine. I know this makes some of you angry, but atleast try to understand where Apple is coming from. Many of the features that Apple chose to include in OS X are just too demanding for old hardware. I think once the operating system matures and developers begin to harness more of its power, people will finally understand why Apple did what they did. In the mean time, if you are already in love with OS X, that's great. Just understand that many people have to reason to be impressed yet. Be patient and be civil. Change is never easy.

kecksy · December 21, 2001 3:09PM

Double post!

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>

inci · December 21, 2001 3:25PM

even with newer g4s, osx is slow. that's a fact. aqua is unpolished, and it careless about user expereience. as far as speed issue, if apple has just provided options to turn off transparency , shadow , other eye candy stuffs and each new window open didnt eat up 1.5MB of ram im sure there would be far less people on g3 complaining about speed. try shadow killer and u'll see the difference esp for g3 owners.

eman · December 21, 2001 3:30PM

I use OS X all the time and I won't be going back to OS 9.

kestral · December 21, 2001 4:56PM

I'm running on an iBook 500 mhz G3 w/320 RAM. I've been 90% in OS X over the past month, but switched back to 9 today just to do "one quick thing", but I find myself wanting to stay here. OS 9 is obviously much much faster (in fact, OS X is downright slow in comparison, even after turning on window buffer compression and renicing the Windows Manager to give it more priority).

Pros of OS X:

- I'm used to launching multiple applications at once, and while launching apps, I can do other things in another app

- Modern memory management (no more assigning memory to an app)

- OS X has *never* crashed on me

- Love getting my hands into the Unix

- Development tools are nothing short of brilliant

Cons:

- Not fully compatible with my MS Intellimouse, which I am much less productive with all its functions

- Little bits of Finder weirdness that I can't explain but can tell you that the feel can only be described as "unMac-like"

- S-L-O-W, slow enough to the point where it impacts significantly on my productivity

- Lack of Palm support (so I'm using Entourage 2001 in Classic instead of Entourage X)

- Office X is S-L-O-W to the point where it impacts significantly on my productivity

The pro's of OS X are indeed compelling, but the lack of speed on my machine is nothing short of maddening. I've seen X on a Dual 800 G4 and it was great, only problem is, there is no laptop equivalent. I've also see OS X on an 867 mhz single G4 tower and imo that too wasn't responsive enough, so I doubt even a 667 mhz TiBook would be adequate to run OS X to the point where the system responsiveness would be adequate enough for me.

At this point I'm still uncertain, but I am very tempted to go back to OS 9.

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Kestral ]</p>

ghost_user_name · December 21, 2001 7:32PM

I'm going back to 9. Then when I'm ready I'm buying other hardware. Going back in Intel I guess. Linux for me. Apple sucks. Took me 3 years to figure it out.

BTW there was a thread at MacNN that had an Applescript to remove OS X. Anyone have that? I'd search other there but they don't have the threads from the "old" forums, right?

People switching back to OS 9?

Comments