# Hate to Admit it.  ( X vs 9 )



## fryke (Feb 22, 2003)

Moving this to Opinions... Guess it's where it belongs.


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2003)

Good answers, RacerX. And I guess Snood is some sort of game that would run in Classic? 

And I just have to repeat one of the basic benefits of using Mac OS X: You can keep your applications open. In OS 9, I always had to _decide_ what to work with. I kept two copies of Photoshop, one using 80 MB of RAM, one using 300 MB of RAM (when I had 512), and I always had to quit the big one as soon as I wanted to use either GoLive, Illustrator or InDesign concurrently. Now in OS X, I just open them all. I'm glad that I can tell Photoshop the percentage of RAM it should use, but somehow I'd rather not, as I fear as long as it's opened, it hogs RAM - even in the background and without images open...

The most important thing, I think, is that you _HAVE_ to try and adapt to the differences Mac OS X has over Mac OS 9 - and you'll not only SEE the advantages, you'll feel them. And use them. And start to miss the days when you thought OS X was a bad idea.


----------



## twister (Feb 21, 2003)

I wouldn't give up X for anything, but i restarted in 9.2.2 to play unreal and the OS amazingly fast.   I'm running Explorer 4.5 and the web surfing is SO fast also.  There is also not much installed in this environment so maybe that helps.  So i hate to admit it but this 9.2.2 is MUCH faster than 10.2.4.


----------



## twister (Feb 21, 2003)

I actually rebooted into 9.2.2 and was running IE 4.5.  Fast as could be.  Even the finder seemed more responsve.  

But get this.  It then wouldn't let me re-boot in to 10!  It said my X drive had major errors!  And it couldn't fix them.  But after a restart or two there it was.  As good as can be.  So now i'm back in X.


----------



## twister (Feb 22, 2003)

I just thought it seemed faster.  I wouldn't switch back though.


----------



## RacerX (Feb 22, 2003)

> *by twister*
> I wouldn't give up X for anything, but i restarted in 9.2.2 to play unreal and the OS amazingly fast.   I'm running Explorer 4.5 and the web surfing is SO fast also.  There is also not much installed in this environment so maybe that helps.  So i hate to admit it but this 9.2.2 is MUCH faster than 10.2.4.



Wow, that is soooo funny, I was just having the completely opposite experience. My wife boots our system into 9.2 to play _WarCraft_ so there are times when I get to the computer and it is still running the Classic OS. When trying to use the internet with IE 5.1.6 it seems to take longer to load pages than in Safari (and sometimes would stall for up to a minute for no reason what-so-ever then start working fine again). Plus I miss features like system wide text-to-speech and spell-checking.

Six months ago I would have just left the system in Mac OS 9.2 until I needed one of my Mac OS X apps, today the only time this system is in Mac OS 9.2 is when playing a classic game (and as I have Quake I, II, III, Elite Force, Cro-Mag Rally and Ghost Recon all running in Mac OS X, I don't reboot into 9.2 much anymore).

But, experiences are a personal thing. You should use what makes you, personally, happier. If Mac OS 9.2 does it for you... more power to ya.


----------



## chevy (Mar 2, 2003)

MacOS X is to MacOS 9 what MacOS was to the old Apple II text oriented OS.

The text oriented OS is MUCH faster. But you are faster with Mac OS, because the limitating factor in not CPU power, but human reaction, human reflexion, human creativity. That's why I find MacOS X is better than MacOS 9... and my iMac is better than any 4GHz PC.

Just do it faster.


----------



## MacLegacy (Feb 21, 2003)

It might change with 10.3

About 10.3 , anyone know where I can find any information (reliable) about it?


----------



## toast (Feb 21, 2003)

OS9 is generally faster than OSX, for it is simpler than OSX in many ways. For better, for worse.

I still use OS9 a LOT: it is stable (here), it is fast, it can run PS7/Ill.10/Quark 4 and Acrobat Distiller/Reader, plus some Web browser and email client like Netscape, plus ATM/ATR, plus Font Reserve and FlightCheck at times
 and still work very smoothly 

My G3/500 won't let me do that on OSX, although I have considerably upgraded my RAM.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 22, 2003)

While Mac OS 9 is still a useful operating system development on it has been haulted. Therefore, i think a claim of the overall speed is irrelevant. Just like the windows vs. mac argument. Two different operating systems, two different ways to handle things.


----------



## iscaro (Feb 22, 2003)

Well... OS 9 does one thing... OS X does amny things at hte same time... so it feels slower sometimes, but all the applications are working and you don't feel it!   

Then, use OS 9 and sometimes you ahve to re-boot... how much time do you waste?

Compare it... and you'll see that with OS X it takes less time.... and it feels better! 


Ciao


----------



## MisterMe (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twister _
> *I wouldn't give up X for anything, but i restarted in 9.2.2 to play unreal and the OS amazingly fast.   I'm running Explorer 4.5 and the web surfing is SO fast also.  There is also not much installed in this environment so maybe that helps.  So i hate to admit it but this 9.2.2 is MUCH faster than 10.2.4. *


It may very well be that a game designed to run on MacOS 9.x runs faster on that OS than it does on MacOS X under Classic. However, my experience is very different using M$ Office, web browsers, and such like.

Reading graphics-heavy documents created using Office for Windows under MacOS 9 is a pain. Those same documents using Office v.X on MacOS X are a pleasure.

Web browsing ranges from OK to just plain slow on MacOS 9. All my browsers running under MacOS X are quick, with Safari jaw-dropping fast.

The QuickTime Player is quick on both OSes while playing media. However, it loads files and is ready to play much faster under MacOS X.

And we must not forget that you may keep open as many applications as you want while running MacOS X. They all run, they don't crash, and they don't run out of memory.

Are they some applications that run faster under MacOS 9 than they do under MacOS X? Probably. Do I care? No.


----------



## cq107 (Feb 21, 2003)

I crashed on X.2.4 install and had to go to 9 for a day or so... Explorer 5.1 _at times_ felt it was way faster... some site loaded very fast... however some were horribly slow... on safari (latest beta) EVERY SITE is fast... good work apple... 
another thing, the GUI in 9 seems more responsive, however its not a HUGE diffrence even in my machine...


----------



## mr. k (Feb 21, 2003)

You are running Internet Explorer 4.5?  Is that an application that requires classic to run?  I know internet explorer 5 was written in carbon and runs natively in OS X, but if 4.5 requires classic to run it will be much faster in 9.2.2 then from classic mode in 10.2.4.  Its the same with any other classic application.


----------



## mr. k (Feb 21, 2003)

Its dubbed Panther, but there is really no information I have seen past a rumored release in late summer of this year.  I hope its got something incredible in it.


----------



## Stridder44 (Feb 22, 2003)

Alot of people have noticed that Mac OS X can sometimes be a little bit slower as far as speedyness goes...but come on now, who really needs speed? Oh man! "I HAVE to minimize this window...FASTER!" "I NEED to Navigate thru my hard drive a whole .00001 times faster!" The speed thing may be nice...but OS X is built not for speed...but stability. And stability is what a good OS needs. Im more than sure that Apple will make OS X much more responsive in future updates (not to say that it already isn't). Go Apple!


----------



## Stridder44 (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ApeintheShell _
> *While Mac OS 9 is still a useful operating system development on it has been haulted. Therefore, i think a claim of the overall speed is irrelevant. Just like the windows vs. mac argument. Two different operating systems, two different ways to handle things. *



This is true


----------



## Stridder44 (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *If Mac OS 9.2 does it for you... more power to ya. *



Ditto


----------



## Sirtovin (Feb 21, 2003)

OS X...  Rulez... sorry.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 21, 2003)

.. Yea. I hate to _read_ that, I don't like Classic... but could be - never tried really. If I can't do it with *X I want any Linux distro, not Classic..


----------



## fishbonex (Mar 1, 2003)

I'm on it right now, at home. It never crashes, networking is a breeze and is overall a great OS. But...

I work at home almost as much as I do at work, where I am still running 9.2. Why? Because I work in a hi-speed envirorment, and the window shade-less Os DOES slow you down. And that slight few-second delay to open a file adds up and seriously bogs down any groove you might be in. Besides that, I have several minor/major issues with OS X that I can't seem to resolve at home:  

-Double-clicking file opens it in Preview or IE, not native App.
-Drag and Drop file does not open it in Dreamweaver, Photoshop or Image Ready
-Downright slow and sluggish in Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Image Ready and IE
-Snapshots are taken as PDF files and go straight to your desktop
-A lot of my fonts do not show up (granted, in X I am not using a Font management program)
-NO SNOOD!!!

I wonder if I only had X installed, would it be faster than it's running? The only program I NEED OS 9 for is Quark Xpress, but it's a major program. I find myself restarting in 9 when I have to work because the above programs all FLY in 9 and as I said, are sluggish in X.
Some people might not think these issues are a big deal, but they seriously cramp my working style. I don't know if the problems are because I'm using an older 400MHz G4 with 832MB or if having OS 9 also installed is slowing it down, but if anybody knows how to fix some of these issues, please point my in the right direction!!

EDIT BY CHEVY:

I moved you post and the following to the Mac OS X System and Software where it will be better placed to be discussed.
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29294

END EDIT BY CHEVY


----------



## KrinkleCut (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fishbonex _
> *I'm on it right now, at home. It never crashes, networking is a breeze and is overall a great OS. But...
> 
> ...
> ...



Check VersionTracker. It's there. I got hardly any work done for a week after I downloaded it.


----------



## habilis (Mar 13, 2003)

This discussion reminds me of the extremely PAINFUL morph my mind had to go through when I switched from 9.2 to 10.2. I trashed Apple up and down over OSX and was ready to mount a terrorist guerilla strike againt their headquarters.

Flash forward 6 months, and I finally like osx better then 9, even though it is way slower, in almost all aspects then 9. It's bittersweet.

You really do have to change your philosophy entirely. I still use OS9 for 8 hours a day at work and OSX about another 3-6 at home. OSX "Lite" version would be a good idea, bare bones so as to be as fast as OS9.


----------

