Panther vs. OS9
- Thread starter bopsi
- Start date
hulkaros
The Incredible...
Panther has simply better multitasking, better stability, new features, future proof (hardware and software-wise) than OS 9...
Check for your software and hardware if it can be upgraded to Panther and upgrade ASAP! Also, if you have less than 256 MB or even 512 MB, buy some more RAM! Panther (OS X in general) loves RAM more than anything!
Did I welcome you here before?
Check for your software and hardware if it can be upgraded to Panther and upgrade ASAP! Also, if you have less than 256 MB or even 512 MB, buy some more RAM! Panther (OS X in general) loves RAM more than anything!
Did I welcome you here before?
voice-
Registered
Dusky, I have the same running, but I won't update the iMac, at least not yet...Panther was an upgrade, but it doesn't exactly impress me beyond belief.
bopsi, don't fear. 768MB RAM is plenty for making Panther happy, and you'll have access to some new software at the same time...
bopsi, don't fear. 768MB RAM is plenty for making Panther happy, and you'll have access to some new software at the same time...
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
Comparing OS 9.1 to Panther is like trying to determine whether your refrigerator is faster than your TV.
The two OSs are two completely different technologies. Percieved speed (i.e., user interface, menus, etc.) will probably SEEM to be a bit slower in OS X, but with protected memory and other advanced techologies, I think productivity will be increased with OS X. It takes some time getting used to, but you're going to be forced to jump to OS X at some point in the future and in my opinion it's better now than later. Start getting used to it and I think you'll find yourself liking it more than you think.
The two OSs are two completely different technologies. Percieved speed (i.e., user interface, menus, etc.) will probably SEEM to be a bit slower in OS X, but with protected memory and other advanced techologies, I think productivity will be increased with OS X. It takes some time getting used to, but you're going to be forced to jump to OS X at some point in the future and in my opinion it's better now than later. Start getting used to it and I think you'll find yourself liking it more than you think.
bobw
The Late: SuperMacMod
Your G4/400 should be extremely fast with OS 9. Jaguar or Panther will be very slow on this machine compared to OS 9. Both Jaguar and Panther will run much better, but at a much slower speed. Just depends on what you want. If you want a system that will probably never crash, go for Panther.
I have a G4/450/AGP and OS 9 is much faster. I put a Powerlogix 1GHz processor before I went full time to OS X because it was too slow to use full time.
I have a G4/450/AGP and OS 9 is much faster. I put a Powerlogix 1GHz processor before I went full time to OS X because it was too slow to use full time.
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
No offense, but is something wrong with your system? Other than a couple situations, Panther feels just as 'fast' as 9.2.2 on my Lombard G3 system. In some cases you have that I don't, 9 might feel faster, but a lot of that just has to do with the fact that there is NO way an app can hog the CPU and lock all other programs out anymore.
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
I think what people are experiencing here is the shift from OS 9's method of handling memory to OS X's method. In OS 9, a single application in the foreground could "hog" all the system resources and appear to be zipping along quite fast. In OS X, protected memory and multitasking won't let a single application do that.
For example, in OS 9, Final Cut Pro's export feature basically brought the system to a standstill and prevented the user from being able to do anything else in any other application until the export was done. In OS X this isn't the case -- you can happily switch to Safari and continue surfing the web while FCP exports, with only a modest speed hit.
I have Panther installed on my G4/400, and this is the Yikes! machine... Panther zips right along just like OS 9 did, but in a different way. I would have to say that OS 9's user interface was a little faster, but the productivity I have gained from being able to perform multiple activities at once under OS X more than makes up for the percieved speed hit.
This is only my opinion, but Panther runs just fine on my G4/400 (well, it HAS been upgraded to 500MHz, but it's still a PCI/Yikes! machine). Sure, I'd love some more speed -- who wouldn't? but I would hardly call it unacceptable. I use this machine for daily web/email tasks as well as some PhotoShop/Illustrator/Flash work and it's just fine.
For example, in OS 9, Final Cut Pro's export feature basically brought the system to a standstill and prevented the user from being able to do anything else in any other application until the export was done. In OS X this isn't the case -- you can happily switch to Safari and continue surfing the web while FCP exports, with only a modest speed hit.
I have Panther installed on my G4/400, and this is the Yikes! machine... Panther zips right along just like OS 9 did, but in a different way. I would have to say that OS 9's user interface was a little faster, but the productivity I have gained from being able to perform multiple activities at once under OS X more than makes up for the percieved speed hit.
This is only my opinion, but Panther runs just fine on my G4/400 (well, it HAS been upgraded to 500MHz, but it's still a PCI/Yikes! machine). Sure, I'd love some more speed -- who wouldn't? but I would hardly call it unacceptable. I use this machine for daily web/email tasks as well as some PhotoShop/Illustrator/Flash work and it's just fine.
I have yet to update to Panther, on any of my 3 macs, but Jaguar has been good to me speed-wise overall. But I do have an idea for Apple... they should let developers create programs that "hog" the OS, so you can "log in" as the program, say Pro Tools or Digital Performer, and that program hogs all the resources for that session, with just the basic BSD backend and Aqua GUI loaded. You can "log out" of that session and log in as a regular user with the full OS later, but it would be cool for speed reasons to allow an app to be a "resource hog" at the user's discretion.
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
Tip for resource hogging: only run the program that you want maximum performance out of. Don't run any other programs, save for the Finder. Your program will get the maximum amount of resources that way.
...and good luck with that G4/400! I really enjoy Panther on my G4/400 and I'm sure you will too... it's not as bad as people make it seem -- in fact, I've gotten rid of OS 9 altogether on my machine and live in an OS X only world.
...and good luck with that G4/400! I really enjoy Panther on my G4/400 and I'm sure you will too... it's not as bad as people make it seem -- in fact, I've gotten rid of OS 9 altogether on my machine and live in an OS X only world.
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
An app CAN hog the CPU if the CPU time is available. However, if you have more than one app running, it is not allowed to hog the CPU and prevent the other processes from running.
Now the key is that apps cannot be optimized the same way for OS X as they could in OS 9. Some perceived slowdown is from apps optimized well for OS 9, but poorly for OS X.
Now the key is that apps cannot be optimized the same way for OS X as they could in OS 9. Some perceived slowdown is from apps optimized well for OS 9, but poorly for OS X.