 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / August 2004OS 9.2.2: is it slow running standalone?
I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you boot directly into it and use it as your primary OS. I need to know if this is true. Is this something which is widely reported? Any first hand stories?  SignatureJohn Brock jbrock@panix.com > I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while > OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you > boot directly into it and use it as your primary OS. I need to > know if this is true. I'd say that's rubbish. While Apple has done a very good job with the Classic environment my experience is that the general feel of the GUI isn't quite as snappy as when booted into OS 9. Also Classic apps that require hardware access (e.g. scanning software) usually don't work properly. Classic runs on top of OSX and therefore shares resources with it - hardly a good solution. You can compensate for it by having lots of RAM. It's amusing: in the old days the smug Mac elitists used to make fun of Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing something similar it's suddenly supposed to be a good thing,... ?! SignatureCheers Martin > It's amusing: in the old days the smug Mac elitists used to make fun of > Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing > something similar it's suddenly supposed to be a good thing,... ?! But Windows was meant to be the main attraction, where as Classic was never meant to be the main environment. >It's amusing: in the old days the smug Mac elitists used to make fun of >Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing >something similar it's suddenly supposed to be a good thing,... ?! Apple's doing the opposite (as indeed Windows does now) -- the old OS runs on top of the new OS, not vice-versa. > >It's amusing: in the old days the smug Mac elitists used to make fun of > >Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing > >something similar it's suddenly supposed to be a good thing,... ?! > > Apple's doing the opposite (as indeed Windows does now) -- the old OS > runs on top of the new OS, not vice-versa. Sure, but for a lot of users it's a necessity to be able to use their apps. The expense of updating *all* your apps to native versions can be prohibitive. SignatureCheers Martin > > >It's amusing: in the old days the smug Mac elitists used to make fun of > > >Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > apps. The expense of updating *all* your apps to native versions can be > prohibitive. I think you need to reread your post and the reply to it. "Mac elitists" made fun of Windows running on top of DOS, not DOS running in a compatibility mode on top of Windows. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." >> >It's amusing: in the old days the smug Mac elitists used to make fun of >> >Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >apps. The expense of updating *all* your apps to native versions can be >prohibitive. Stop changing the subject. Your claim was that Apple was doing what "Mac elitists" were making fun of Windows for. I have sufficiently debunked that claim. > > I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while > > OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Windows because it was running on top of DOS. Now that Apple is doing > something similar it's suddenly supposed to be a good thing,... ?! The difference, of course, is that M$ runs its new OS under its old one, and Apple runs its old OS under its new one. But 9.2.2 does run just fine without X running it in Classic. In fact I'm always reminded how much faster the old stuff ran before I got used to the pokiness of X (Jaguar at least). John SignatureUse plasma destruct ray on return address for direct mail response. > But 9.2.2 does run just fine without X running it in Classic. In fact I'm > always reminded how much faster the old stuff ran before I got used to the > pokiness of X (Jaguar at least). Hehe, that's progress! I guess if Apple would ever do away with all the pathetic animation effects in OSX's GUI it would feel as snappy as prior OSs - I'm afraid it ain't gonna happen though. SignatureCheers Martin Thank you. I thought I was imagining it-! I mean, shouldn't 1024MB of memory be enough for, say, AppleWorks on my G4 tower-? Every application seems to be a slowed-down version of its predecessor. I miss the swiftness of my old 8500 (it's now my scanning station). To this machine's credit, though, it will handle huge Pho'shop files pretty well, and that's great. I agree that the pulsating lozenge-shrinking windows-cute little Dock is excessive, and I long for the simplicity and sophisticated look of the Old Days. Seems to me that Apple is forgetting its old artist customers and concentrating on making a portable juke box. (I imagine criticism this will invite a bite from a "yellow-dog" Apple person.) Besides, my G4 (jaguar) won't even boot under OS9 anyway; I get the bomb symbol. I'd love to fix this but don't know how (I can't use my JAZ deck under OSX). I've tried all the up-to-date diagnostics I can find. And I'm beginning to see the SBBOD in my nightmares... I am not even on the same planet as the guys/gals who design and tweak the Mac OS ('s), so I readily admit that I have *Done Something Wrong*. I know this: I will never again dial up the Apple tecchies (in India working for two bucks a day) again; that's why I dig the Usenet. Thanks for letting me vent. BuZzY >>But 9.2.2 does run just fine without X running it in Classic. In fact I'm >>always reminded how much faster the old stuff ran before I got used to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > effects in OSX's GUI it would feel as snappy as prior OSs - I'm afraid > it ain't gonna happen though. > Thank you. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > deck under OSX). I've tried all the up-to-date diagnostics I can find. > And I'm beginning to see the SBBOD in my nightmares... I might be able to help you out there... What model of G4 Mac do you have? Is it suppose to be able to boot into OS 9 as well as OS X? Or are you talking about loading up Classic mode, rather than booting up? I suspect the problem is with either an incompatible or corrupted extension, or your System is buggered completely - which would explain the bomb. Suggest you try to boot with extensions disabled first, and see if it loads up properly. If it works then you have some kind of extension, prefs or control panel corruption. If it still bombs, then that can only mean either disk corruption, or a completely trashed system installation. Repair the disk first, then reinstall OS 9.x, and if necessary update it to 9.2.2. > I am not even on the same planet as the guys/gals who design and tweak > the Mac OS ('s), so I readily admit that I have *Done Something Wrong*. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > BuZzY SignatureRegards, Michael Hutchison Mac-Troubleshooter+OE FAQ: www.graphixmad.plus.com > I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while > OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you > boot directly into it and use it as your primary OS. I need to > know if this is true. Is this something which is widely reported? > Any first hand stories? No that's backwards. Apps that run in classis will be slow but run very fast if you boot directly into 9. OS9 was beautiful and fast and I reluctantly upgraded to OSX around the time Panther was coming out. Classic is an emulation of sorts, and will always run slower than the real thing. >> I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while >> OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you >> boot directly into it and use it as your primary OS. I need to >> know if this is true. Is this something which is widely reported? >> Any first hand stories? >No that's backwards. Apps that run in classis will be slow but run very >fast if you boot directly into 9. OS9 was beautiful and fast and I >reluctantly upgraded to OSX around the time Panther was coming out. > >Classic is an emulation of sorts, and will always run slower than the >real thing. OS 9.2.2 is optimized to run well under OS X, and the claim, as far as I understood it, was that this optimization hurt its standalone performance compared to, say, OS 9.1. No claim was made that running under OS X would speed any version of OS 9 up. What I need to know is whether standalone 9.2.2 runs like a dog compared to earlier versions of OS 9, or if it has other problems when *not* running under OS X. SignatureJohn Brock jbrock@panix.com > What I need to know is whether standalone 9.2.2 runs > like a dog compared to earlier versions of OS 9, or if it has other > problems when *not* running under OS X. OS 9.2.2 runs best/fastest *on its own* - it has no problems when *not* running under OSX, in fact it is more likely to encounter problems when running under OSX. OS 9 was designed as a fully-capable, stand-alone OS and the incremental upgrades to 9.2.1/9.2.2 were merely supposed to enhance its performance when run as the so-called Classic environment under OSX. SignatureCheers Martin > OS 9.2.2 is optimized to run well under OS X, and the claim, as > far as I understood it, was that this optimization hurt its standalone > performance compared to, say, OS 9.1. Not at all. My Sawtooth saw every version of 9.x from 9.0.2 to 9.2.2, at no time did any upgrade result in a measurable decrease in performance or responsiveness. Same statement can be about the Wall Street I had. SignatureStandard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom, they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his "standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon > OS 9.2.2 is optimized to run well under OS X, and the claim, as > far as I understood it, was that this optimization hurt its standalone > performance compared to, say, OS 9.1. That may be true, that 9.2.2 runs slightly less good than 9.1, but iI've never heard it advertised as a known limitation of upgrading. > No claim was made that running under OS X would speed any version > of OS 9 up. What I need to know is whether standalone 9.2.2 runs > like a dog compared to earlier versions of OS 9, or if it has other > problems when *not* running under OS X. I was running 9.2.2 for a while on a 600 MHz G3 iMac, and never had any problems. Or at least, no more or less problems than earlier OS9 versions. I'm not sure anyone without an insane amount of free time on their hands could possibly do enough testing to see a difference. > Classic is an emulation of sorts, and will always run slower than the > real thing. This is most definitely not true. A lot of things are much faster in Classic than under the real thing. Off the top of my had: Disk I/O, virtual memory and basic QuickDraw (but not QuickTime). SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while > > OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Classic is an emulation of sorts, and will always run slower than the > real thing. What I found is that if you take your Mac OS 9 system with all your added extenstions, control panels, drivers, that have accumulated over the years, that this just clogged Mac OS Classic. Cleaning out most of that stuff and just having the minimum you need allows Classic to run reasonable well. There are a few ways to do this, but I just created a separate Mac OS 9.2.2 environment for running Classic, and for a time I kept my bootable Mac OS 9.* environment. I no longer boot Mac OS 9.* so it doesn't matter to me any longer. But there are some apps that will run much better under a booted Mac OS 9.* system. If that app is critical to your needs, then booting Mac OS 9 is the way to go. Bob Harris > I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while > OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you > boot directly into it and use it as your primary OS. I need to > know if this is true. Is this something which is widely reported? > Any first hand stories? It's true. I used OS 9.2.2 on my PowerBook 5300 which was maxed out at 64 MB RAM w/o an L2 and it ran really slow. (However it's snappy on anything with a G3 and up.) SignaturePaul Fuchs paulfuchs-at-attglobal-dot-net Sitting on a small rock (St. John) in the Caribbean >> I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while >> OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (However it's snappy on anything with a G3 and up.) OS 9.2.2 _hates_ running in less than 80 MB. There is a _significant_ speed increase if you have 128 MB or more installed. SignatureWe are Microsoft of Borg. You will be assimilated. Stability is irrelevant. Where _you_ want to go to today is irrelevant. We will add your currency to our own. Bend over right now. Resistance is futile. > I read a post on one of these newsgroups which stated that while > OS 9.2.2 runs fine as Classic under OS X, it runs poorly if you > boot directly into it and use it as your primary OS. Not that I've noticed. I _have_ noticed that it takes _significatnly_ longer to boot a system in OS 9.x than to boot the _same_ system as Classic under OS X. This is a feature; they went out of their way to cut the boot time under Classic. if you're using an app which crashes a lot <cough> Quirk 4 or Quirk 5 </cough> you can save a lot of time in the average day if you're running Classic. > I need to > know if this is true. Is this something which is widely reported? > Any first hand stories? Some apps won't work, period, under Classic, and some which do work don't work well. If you have one of those you're better off running OS 9 direct. Some apps work better under Classic than OS 9. It depends on what you're doing. SignatureWe are Microsoft of Borg. You will be assimilated. Stability is irrelevant. Where _you_ want to go to today is irrelevant. We will add your currency to our own. Bend over right now. Resistance is futile. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.