Classic or X?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Yeah, they were kinda like spring-loaded folders in the Dock. (Okay, okay, so not until Leopard...)
  • Reply 22 of 32
    I Voted OS X, but there is one feature I Miss from OS 9 and before. That was how quick the shut downs were. I know, yes i shut my machine down regularly.



    Oh and while I'm at it the ability to turn virtual memory off. I miss that.





    But that's it.
  • Reply 23 of 32
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Virtual memory is an important compotent of protected memory, so in this case I don't mind not being able to turn it off.
  • Reply 24 of 32
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Ah, memories.....



    On the up side, simple file structure, teh snappy, much more customizable, and, I dunno, more of a sense of ownership, like a small town to OS X's big city. Gotta give props to the (real) Apple menu.



    Down side, manual memory allotment (remember that bullshit?), grindingly slow "multi-tasking", the beloved extension conflicts, app crashes brought down the whole system, system crashes brought down the whole system, crashes in general (all hail the bomb!) and the arcania of "the chooser" and the seemingly random collection of functionality stashed there.



    Switched years ago and never looked back. Always shocked at how, sorta, quaint the system 9 interface looks when I see a screen shot. Really like having lived in Manhattan for a number of years and going back to the "city" you grew up in and realizing that it's sorta a hick town. Still, your heart still has a lot of love for the old place.....
  • Reply 25 of 32
    trtamtrtam Posts: 111member
    I use Mac OS X everyday, but I still like to start-up in Mac OS 9 every once in a while. My favorite feature was the quirky bomb message they'd give you with the non-functioning Restart button on it.
  • Reply 26 of 32
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    remember when we used to click on menu buttons once and immediately the menu would come up? when snappiness didn't require 2 million gigahertzes and even then didn't work? Computing used to be so simple, and now we live on the assumption that everyone wants to do everything and be able to do anything; thus a word processing program takes more than 5 seconds to load.



    I really wish they wouldn't have abandoned their roots with the transition to OS X, but what's done is done I suppose. I do love going back to a < 200mhz mac and having it feel faster than the latest iMac though.
  • Reply 27 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox


    Down side, manual memory allotment (remember that bullshit?), grindingly slow "multi-tasking", the beloved extension conflicts, app crashes brought down the whole system, system crashes brought down the whole system, crashes in general (all hail the bomb!) and the arcania of "the chooser" and the seemingly random collection of functionality stashed there.



    The "Chooser"! I had totally forgotten about that until you mentioned it! Thanks for the trip down memory lane. I too will always have a soft spot in my heart for OS8 (despite all it's flaws). I remember upgrading my LC475 (with 20 MB of RAM and the add-on SCSI CD drive...wow that was a long time ago) from 7.5 and thinking to myself how amazing the new "look" of the OS was. The Apple logo in OS8 just looked so "real" compared with 7. Man, those were the days.
  • Reply 28 of 32
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,324moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by progmac


    remember when we used to click on menu buttons once and immediately the menu would come up? when snappiness didn't require 2 million gigahertzes and even then didn't work? Computing used to be so simple, and now we live on the assumption that everyone wants to do everything and be able to do anything; thus a word processing program takes more than 5 seconds to load.



    I really wish they wouldn't have abandoned their roots with the transition to OS X, but what's done is done I suppose. I do love going back to a < 200mhz mac and having it feel faster than the latest iMac though.



    I agree to an extent. I like that they just went a totally new direction. OS X can be sluggsih though. When I launch Pages, Safari or Word in OS X, it always takes about 5 seconds to load. But if I launch Word or IE under Parallels, they appear as soon as I click.



    I've read that Linux is more responsive than OS X too. I love the system but it still needs some work. It can't be the interface when it comes to program loading. There must be something going on with loading mach-o libraries. Maya and Photoshop take forever to open.
  • Reply 29 of 32
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    os x for work, home and others...

    solaris and freebsd when i get bored.

    os 9 ... why bother? when i feel retro, why not go all the way to 7.6.x?
  • Reply 30 of 32
    mrtotesmrtotes Posts: 760member
    I couldn't let go of OS 9 until I bought Panther for my TiBook. Ceetah, Puma and Jaguar didn't cut it. Once I'd used Expose and all the other great features of Pather then I was hooked and never look back (unless someone needs some OS 9 advice).
  • Reply 31 of 32
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    OS 9 was hand-optimized for RISC / PPC. It's against the rules, nowadays, but it made the finder far faster than OS X.



    I can manage files faster using my dual 800 G4 in OS 9 than my quad 2600 Mac Pro even 3 years after I've used OS 9.
  • Reply 32 of 32
    igrantigrant Posts: 180member
    I hated OS 8, I became a Windows user for 5 years because of it. Then once I got sick of Windows, I started looking for alternatives and I started messing with different distrobution of Linux like Debian, Slax, Slackware, Fedora, Red Hat, DSL, etc. Well long story short, freshman year in college I got my first look at OS X and I was instantly hooked but it would take another year and half for me to switch. Now I live and breath OS X.
Sign In or Register to comment.