Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Okay, don't laugh...

5K views 31 replies 16 participants last post by  broken_g3 
#1 ·
If I made a Mac OS 9 bootable FireWire hard drive and connected it to a new iMac, will I be able to see OS 9 on the iMac (using the startup FireWire target mode thingy)?
 
#5 ·
Aahh, ha, ha, ha! ;)

Oops, sorry. Couldn't help it.

Seriously, unfortunately you won't be able to do it. Too bad though as it's something I wouldn't mind being able to do as well.
 
#7 ·
With a bit of inside support from Apple, SheepShaver could go from a novelty to a really useful tool for running legacy apps on Intel Macs. Compared to the Gigabytes of developer tools they give away for free, this would be a tiny crumb of a project. The gratitude/man-hour ratio would be mighty high.
 
#9 ·
Just buy a real OS 9 Mac- it will run much better than either Classic or SheepShaver, both of which I've been rather unimpressed with.
 
#10 ·
What he said. I still use PhotoShop Elements1. Later Versions have consistently taken more & more screen real estate. Well worth the little extra time to boot into 9.
 
#11 ·
What is the last/fastest Mac that could actually boot in OS 9? I'm guessing MDD G4?
 
#13 ·
The fastest Mac that can boot directly into OS 9 is the 1.25 GHz Mirror Drive Door G4, produced from June 2003 until June 2004. I'm sure that thing with 1 GB of RAM will scream under OS 9; even my beige G3 was a very nimble performer under 9.2.2, imagine what this thing could do!
 
#16 ·
Purely Observational



A 1.25 GHz G4 running OS 9 would be approximately the same speed for most things as a 3.625 GHz G4 running OS X 10.4 - about two and a half to one.

I have no idea how that would translate to G5's and intel chips.

Where it tumbles is on the things that require higher bus speeds/super graphics cards or on those things that were in infancy when Classic died and it never did do them well.
 
#19 ·
Well, I know this doesn't qualify as quite the same thing, but I thought just to amuse you I'd fire up the Sheepshaver and time the bootup of OS 9.2.2 on my 2.16GHz (Intel Core2Duo, obviously) Blackbook. It takes 20 seconds from pressing the icon on the dock to finish booting (with the usual complement of standard extensions). Shutdown takes three seconds.

It should be noted that Sheepshaver v.2.3 is a universal binary, but unless someone does the work of making all parts Intel-only, probably won't run under Snow Leopard.
 
#23 ·
It takes 20 seconds from pressing the icon on the dock to finish booting (with the usual complement of standard extensions). Shutdown takes three seconds.
Holy smokes! For my beige G3 to boot up OS 8.6, it usually takes about 2 and a half minutes, although shutdown is reasonably fast at 5-10 seconds. OS 9 used to take even longer to boot.
 
#31 · (Edited)
" ... I was using OS 9 from 2005 until early this year, can't even remember why I upgraded, but it was a total mistake. I have never had OS 8.6 "bomb" me. Why could this be? ..."

One possible reason would be using the latest version of OS9 ... on a machine that directly boots into OS9 and not OSX.

Use 9.1 for those machines; 9.2.2 is really optimized for Classic on OSX.

Also, OS9 needs about 64MB RAM (128 is a sweet spot), once you are there you can turn Virtual Memory off. All Adobe apps conflict with Apple VM, for example on System7~OS9.

As for the latest hardware that booted into OS9, most MDD and earlier G4 desktops can. Apple sold one machine, mostly for Education markets, after the G4 line was essentially discontinued; that could boot into OS9. That was the PowerMac G4 1.25 GHz MDD (2003) M9145LL/A. It could be custom configured with a dual processor motherboard via the AppleStore. This model sold alongside the first G5 series, and was discontinued when they were, in June 2004.

The so-called "Firewire 800" MDDs cannot boot OS9. That would be the single 1.0 M8839LL/A, dual 1.25 M8840LL/A and dual 1.42 GHz M8841LL/A models.

However, the 1.42 is not as sophisticated a machine as the single/dual 1.25 G4's that hung around alongside the G5 introduction despite lacking the added support for FW800 and Bluetooth (there is the 133 vs 167 Mhz bus, for example). They benchmark very closely in stock form and upgrades are more effective on the 167 Mhz bus machines.

Most eMacs cannot boot OS9. The 1.0 GHz M8950LL/A might be able to, depending on the original configuration; if it was a first version with the combo drive. Again, this was essentially an Education Market version. All others cannot.

As for iMacs, the last versions that boot OS9 are the G4/800's. These cannot run 10.5, by the way (867 Mhz minimum). Of course, Classic does not work in 10.5 either.

The iBook G4's cannot boot OS9. You have to use a G3 model, or Classic mode.

Most (if not all) G4 processor upgrades from 3rd party providers can boot OS9, provided they are installed in a machine that otherwise could with the original Apple CPU.
 
#32 ·
" ... I was using OS 9 from 2005 until early this year, can't even remember why I upgraded, but it was a total mistake. I have never had OS 8.6 "bomb" me. Why could this be? ..."

One possible reason would be using the latest version of OS9 ... on a machine that directly boots into OS9 and not OSX.

Use 9.1 for those machines; 9.2.2 is really optimized for Classic on OSX.
Ohhh... oops. I never used 9.1 for any length of time on my G3, just when performing the update to 9.2.2. I had it on a Powerbook that I borrowed for a month way back in 2001, didn't really pay attention to its stability though, I was just using it because I was in Japan, and my desktop was waaay across the Pacific :)

Also, OS9 needs about 64MB RAM (128 is a sweet spot), once you are there you can turn Virtual Memory off. All Adobe apps conflict with Apple VM, for example on System7~OS9.
Memory was never a problem. When I first bought the computer with OS 8.1 or something like that, I immediately upgraded it to 64 MB of RAM, and then brought it up to a whopping 224 MB when I first installed OS 9. I did indeed have virtual memory turned off, never needed it. I never ran out of free memory, although one time I was down to about 4 MB. I promptly shut down all open programs at that point.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top