: Where are the OS 9 diehards hiding?


iMatt
Feb 25th, 2005, 12:19 AM
I remember seeing, a year ago or so, a site by and for loyal fans of OS 9. Google as I might, I can't find it or anything fitting the description today at all...and yet isn't there supposed to be this 10-million-strong user base that's perfectly happy with the old way? Where are they all? :confused:

(I realize that many are in professional settings with established if-it-aint-broke workflows; I'm more curious about home users.)

kloan
Feb 25th, 2005, 12:48 AM
they're all back in the 90's along with bel biv davoe and neon..

as far as the if it aint broke dont fix it philosophy, OS 9 was broken, instable, memory leaks, crashing all the time, freezing beyond control.. there's a reason why OS X replaced it.. i feel anyone who refuses to switch is just stuborn.

gmark2000
Feb 25th, 2005, 12:57 AM
They're waiting for their menubar clock to restart. ;)

iMatt
Feb 25th, 2005, 01:33 AM
i feel anyone who refuses to switch is just stuborn.

I have to disagree. Personally I'm glad to be rid of 9, but many companies have precisely tuned workflows built around the combination of OS 9 and a specific app, often a particular version of Quark xPress. You and I might wish otherwise, but plenty of those companies really have no compelling reason to switch. That includes stability: with lots of RAM, proper configuration, and avoidance of untrustworthy apps OS 9 can be very stable.

Anyway, this is a detour from what I was asking about... :)

kloan
Feb 25th, 2005, 02:20 AM
well as apple gains popularity, new users are using OS X from the get go.. so i don't think you're gonna find many of 'us' around.. the home users, that are still using OS 9 and nothing else.. i'm sure there are still the few nutters that are content with their windows 98-ish OS, google come up with anything?

as you can probably tell.. i really hate, and i mean HATE OS 9 and anything that came before it.. i used it for many, many years.. and i had nothing but problems. even if companies are used to using it, i still don't see how it's such a big deal to upgrade.. everything still works like a computer, but better. just my opinion..

if you still wanna see some of those crazy wackos stuck in an augmented reality, i found this site: http://www.clubofnines.com/

Macaholic
Feb 25th, 2005, 02:54 AM
iMatt offers a cogent argument. For some companies, making the move to OS X would require at the very least big software license upgrades and possibly at the very least RAM upgrades -- not to mention new Macs for some of them. Just so long as they don't go Windows, which would be the least logic, least cost effective migration of all.

kloan
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:38 AM
sure, if that's the case then it would make sense, but i guess i just cant picture companies still using old macs that only run OS 9.. at least not any design/ad/production studios, etc..

angrymonkey
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:52 AM
I knew an artist type using photoshop 4 when 6 was out for quite awhile. And he was in a fast 'time is money' business. (and another person in the same biz quickly upgrades with each release).
If people have a good workflow going and feel comfortable they aren't as likely to quickly switch. Plus os9 to X was a big jump.

Daniel911
Feb 25th, 2005, 07:38 AM
I remember seeing, a year ago or so, a site by and for loyal fans of OS 9. Google as I might, I can't find it or anything fitting the description today at all...
Do you mean this one?
OS9 Forever (http://www.os9forever.com/)

Typing "OS9 forever" in Google will give you a few relevant links, rants and raves...
--------
Daniel911

Heart
Feb 25th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Where are all the OS 8 users, I know they are out there.

The original iMac Bondie Blue, came with OS 8.1, the five flavors with OS 8.5.1 and the first slot-loading with OS 8.6. Was not until the summer of 2000 that we saw OS 9.

Some of these users never touched the OS from the day the turned the iMac on.

But there is a reason they call them legacy or vintage.

Bosco
Feb 25th, 2005, 09:04 AM
There's a couple of OS 6 sites out there. Here's one

http://www.euronet.nl/users/mvdk/system_6_heaven.html

They claim that it was the best OS ever. I think 8.6 was the best "Classic" OS.

iMatt
Feb 25th, 2005, 09:36 AM
sure, if that's the case then it would make sense, but i guess i just cant picture companies still using old macs that only run OS 9.. at least not any design/ad/production studios, etc..

I think you're seriously underestimating the cost (in both time and money) of taking a functioning workflow, dismantling it, and reconstituting it in a new environment...especially when there's no fundamental reason except "this is old, that's new."

In a company I know, the print production department uses G4 towers ranging from Quicksilver to MDD and they all run OS 9 + Quark (and probably things such as PS, Illustrator, Eudora...). So they're not ancient machines that can't run X, they're fairly new ones that have not been switched over.

These people have no particular love for OS 9, and they're not especially stubborn. What they do have is a system consisting of dozens of machines that have been carefully tuned for the specialized task of producing documents for commercial printing presses. To mess with that just because the OS is no longer being updated would be folly. When the computers are so slow compared to new ones that they put a noticeable dent in profitability, or when Quark comes out with a new feature that saves oodles of time (and that is the <b>only</b> kind of new feature that's truly compelling), then they will begin a transition.

Anyway, thanks for the clubofnines link; I thing that was the one I saw previously (site seems to be down right now).

And Daniel911, thanks for OS9Forever.

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, personally I dislike OS 9. My curiosity about the die-hards was piqued because I suddenly noticed they weren't making much noise anymore. :)

Kosh
Feb 25th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Where are all the OS 8 users, I know they are out there.


Oh, there's still a few OS 8 users out there... I saw one just this week converting from 8.5.1 to 10.3.x - that's a big leap.

I guess I'm still an OS 9 user, my Pismo G3 400 is still running OS 9.2.1. I'm contemplating getting the processor and RAM upgraded if it's gonna last this long - if I can get a G4 550 in there it should run OS X okay. My other two Macs are running os 10.3.7/8.

iMatt
Feb 25th, 2005, 09:40 AM
I think 8.6 was the best "Classic" OS.

I agree, but only because OS 9 was IMO an overhyped minor upgrade. I've heard that OS 9 was really just a "marketing name" for what was supposed to be OS 8.7, and I fully believe it. Unfortunately Apple took the opportunity to cripple new software by making it needlessly OS 9-only. iTunes was a prime example, and it didn't take long for patches to appear that made iTunes 1.x run on 8.6.

Macaholic
Feb 25th, 2005, 09:41 AM
sure, if that's the case then it would make sense, but i guess i just cant picture companies still using old macs that only run OS 9.. at least not any design/ad/production studios, etc..

Well, we're not talking Performa 5200's here (although regrettably Apple sold a ton of these lemons in education). If you have a fleet of early G4 Powermacs, you'd need at least a RAM upgrade for all of them and possibly CPU upgrades depending on the nature of the work performed on them. If a school board has legions of early G3 iMacs (and many do), you'd need more RAM, possibly faster CPU (could get by without if they used 512Mb RAM)... but they'd need BIGGER hard drives... in a G3 iMac! :eek: As you can understand, that all means they should pitch the old machines and get new ones -- and the Mac Mini is an excellent option (Apple's educational sales reports should prove interesting reading this year) -- but that is STILL a big expenditure that some business entities might be unwilling to go through if their current setup "aint broke".

Boomcha
Feb 25th, 2005, 09:46 AM
I work in a photography studio and we deal with various pre-press print production people all the time. Most places are switched over but when can't make Quark 6 files because people are still stuck in a OS 9 environment and using Quark 4 and refuse to move up then, you have a problem. I mean you can totally do the same thing in X as you can in OS 9, it might be slightlier different but its not that hard a change.

It also took us a few versions of X before we completely changed over (due to crappy networking problems) but now everything is really stable and don't have the hassles of full machine lock ups. I for one do not miss 9 at all anymore.

Jorge

K_OS
Feb 25th, 2005, 10:00 AM
I think you're seriously underestimating the cost (in both time and money) of taking a functioning workflow, dismantling it, and reconstituting it in a new environment...especially when there's no fundamental reason except "this is old, that's new."


Actually the company I work for the prepress department use's a mixture of Beige G3's with a few G4's and there all running Mac OS 9.2.2. I't not that we wouldn't love to have OS X running it's the cost of upgrading the software, training the operators on all the new software and the new OS, making sure that there are no font issues at all, we're slowly converting but the current workflow has worked for the last 7 years and since 99% of our work is generated inhouse we don't have too much to worry about. It will be nice tough to have everyone on OS X soon. :)

Laterz

iMatt
Feb 25th, 2005, 10:51 AM
K_OS, that situation is similar to the one I'm familar with: it's essentially a closed system. Raw materials go in, finished press-ready material comes out. The raw materials are subject to easily met specs that are readily available to anyone who needs to supply anything. The system is capable of producing output compatible with commercial printing presses. In that situation, you stick with what works as long as you can, though you should plan for an orderly transition instead of waiting until you must switch NOW.

Bosco
Feb 25th, 2005, 11:01 AM
My understanding was that Quark was taking a loooong time to port over to OSX and that was one of the reasons Mac was still offering dual boot G4's and print shops etc were still using OS9.

I assume Quark is now OSX ready. Maybe not. Is anyone using it and if so how is it in OSX?

And the only reason I can see anyone using OS 9 is financial. It was a good OS. I found it very stable. But the cost of converting over can get very high.

Of course you'll always find people who hate change or refuse to learn something new. Kinda like Pop Music. :)

BobbyFett
Feb 25th, 2005, 11:20 AM
sure, if that's the case then it would make sense, but i guess i just cant picture companies still using old macs that only run OS 9.. at least not any design/ad/production studios, etc..


I think design/ ad/ production studios are probably the majority of people who are still stuck on os9. A lot of newspapers for example, when Apple announced the release of the last G4 to boot from os9 decided it would be then that they upgraded their machines because I presume they figured the machines, loaded with RAM would be fast enough for a few years to come - and they wouldn't have to spend the money on new app licenses etc.

I know the newspaper that owns the building I work in still uses os9 on MDD G4s. I won't mention the name of the paper, but it's one of the biggest in Canada.

thejst
Feb 25th, 2005, 11:50 AM
I was stuck on os 9.1 for the longest time, and I only ever had one problem with it- but I was seldom multi-tasking anything...
I moved up to x.3.7 and could never imagine going back! It's like having a new computer that is fun to use!
I do worry about classic though...when I get my new mini, there will be some programs that I want to run, but they were built for 9... anyone have any experience with Classic, and how to make it run smoothly? Perhaps someone could explain to me how it works, if they had the time.... :)
James

Kosh
Feb 25th, 2005, 11:56 AM
It also took us a few versions of X before we completely changed over (due to crappy networking problems) but now everything is really stable and don't have the hassles of full machine lock ups. I for one do not miss 9 at all anymore.

Jorge


Yes, there were some problems for network users in those early versions of MacOS X and they had to wait till later versions of Jaguar or Panther to move over.

iMatt
Feb 25th, 2005, 12:07 PM
James, Classic simply runs OS 9 as a process within OS X; your OS 9 apps run within that, and they generally run just as well as on a machine booted into 9 (they appear in the dock as standalone apps like any other).

Over time, Classic has improved considerably. For example, I have an old copy of SoftWindows 95. I have no real use for it anymore, but I've tried running it twice: under 10.2.x/Classic, it failed to load. Under 10.3.x, it ran fine, giving me Windows 95 (shudder) running within Classic within OS X -- with networking and all.

My one real gripe with Classic is that if one user has it loaded, another user on the same machine can't load it for their own purposes (when using Fast User Switching).

To get back to the origin of this thread: Club of Nines is back up and it's pretty desolate...looks to me like there aren't a whole lot of OS 9 evangelists left...

MannyP Design
Feb 25th, 2005, 01:09 PM
The firm I work for has been seeing a gradual increase in incompatibilities between our OS 9 software and documents supplied to us by our customers who previously hired firms that are OS X-centric (Quark 6, Illustrator 10, etc. vs. Quark 4, Illustrator 9, etc.) The boss decided to do an office-wide upgrade in April when the dust has settled from the Gov't year-end spending stampede and our workload is normal.

I can't wait... I don't know how many untitled folders are created throughout the day from me trying to open a new finder window. :D

rogueToe
Feb 25th, 2005, 01:38 PM
Just to concur with what others have said: the newspaper where I work is still using OS 9 and OS 8, mainly because of the cost and hassle of upgrading. We got a G5 running OS X, but for reasons beyond my understanding can't make it work in our system.

kloan
Feb 25th, 2005, 02:17 PM
wow, i had no idea so many companies/offices were still using older OS's.. i didn't realize there would be so many issues pertaining to upgrading..

to get back to the original point of the thread though, individual users have less reason to keep using OS 9 or earlier, unless of course it's because of hardware limitations, budget, etc... guess in my perfect world we'd ALL be using macs and OS X. ;)

ArtistSeries
Feb 25th, 2005, 02:23 PM
And the only reason I can see anyone using OS 9 is financial. It was a good OS. I found it very stable. But the cost of converting over can get very high.


Not everyone wants the icandy of OS X - and if you have a chance to use both on the same maching (dual boot) you'd be surprised how fast OS 9 feels compared to OS X at times.

TroutMaskReplica
Feb 25th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Not everyone wants the icandy of OS X - and if you have a chance to use both on the same maching (dual boot) you'd be surprised how fast OS 9 feels compared to OS X at times.

OS 9 is faster, as long as you only do one thing at a time and it isn't frozen. ;)

Macaholic
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:10 PM
OS X's multitasking capabilities are awesome.

MacDoc
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:13 PM
So are OS 9s VERY capable of multiasking. There is very little in X that cannot be done well in 9 with machines of similar configs.

Music is slowly getting to X but not entirely yet. The demand for big dual G4s is out of sight....tells you something.

Macaholic
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:23 PM
So are OS 9s VERY capable of multiasking. There is very little in X that cannot be done well in 9 with machines of similar configs.

Just for yucks, I once tried burning a full audio CD, printing a hi res image document -- AND outputting ten minutes of iMovie to VHS (which obviously MUST be done in realtime) in Mac OS X on my original G4/450 CPU. Everything came off without a hitch -- although the burning and printing were obviously slower than had I done them by themselves. All tasks were competed within ten minutes. I'm not sure how OS 9 would have handled that load...

Music is slowly getting to X but not entirely yet. The demand for big dual G4s is out of sight....tells you something.

Most guys I know have moved on to OS X for music. BUT, we're all on Logic. They do have a few 3rd party plugins (I currently use just the Logic plugins), and the guys I know are composers (therefore not using ProTools despite it being in OS X -- but Nelvana is using ProTools in X. Another studio I go to is still in 9, however). This is far from a wide sampling of the userbase, however.

Do you know how many people buying dual G4 systems from you are still using 9? E.G.: I probably would have been fine with Logic on my G4/450 in OS 9 and I needed a dual CPU because I wanted to go to OS X for music. Might the demand for duallies out there be for similar reasons?

TroutMaskReplica
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:27 PM
edit: my post was addressed to macdoc, macaholic managed to squeeze in a post before me.
--------------
extensions conflicts were the norm when i was a classic user. i had to be vewy vewy careful about which apps i started up. for example there was a conflict between MS Word and my 3D app at the time. i could start one or the other but not both or the machine would freeze, and i had to restart the machine after using one of the apps before i could start the other.

this is just one horror story. i've got a million of 'em. OS 9 was sooo bad at multitasking i ran my classic apps for a year under jag just so i could at least run my email/ms word protected from the hellish classic environment. my system was much more stable under that config.

i don't think music guys dragging their heels says anything about multitasking, but i'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make or whether they're separate thoughts.

gordguide
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:28 PM
I still use OS9 on occasion, although most of the time it's in Classic mode. For example Deneba was giving away free copies of Canvas7 a while ago and I won't be upgrading that to an OSX version simply because I don't need it that much; I can't justify the expense.

I do boot directly into OS9 to play Madden, and some older games and apps that don't work in Classic, and don't mind it at all. The QS is going to have to last a little while longer; I tend to use my Macs until they're nearly worthless. Makes it easier to keep 'em around after the new one shows up.

K_OS
Feb 25th, 2005, 03:33 PM
K_OS, that situation is similar to the one I'm familar with: it's essentially a closed system. Raw materials go in, finished press-ready material comes out. The raw materials are subject to easily met specs that are readily available to anyone who needs to supply anything. The system is capable of producing output compatible with commercial printing presses. In that situation, you stick with what works as long as you can, though you should plan for an orderly transition instead of waiting until you must switch NOW.

The switch plan has actually been in the works now for almost a year I've got a OS X machine and so does my boss together I think we've solved most of the problems, the next step includes introducing one OS X machine into the prepress department so the staff can get familiar with it and maybe start producing the occasional job on it to see if we have missed something in testing. After that we start installing X on whatever machines can take it and I start to replace the beige G3's with G5's I hope, the other option I've thrown about is getting everybody a Mac Mini with 1gb of ram.

Laterz :)

Macaholic
Feb 25th, 2005, 04:20 PM
extensions conflicts were the norm when i was a classic user. i had to be vewy vewy careful about which apps i started up. for example there was a conflict between MS Word and my 3D app at the time. i could start one or the other but not both or the machine would freeze, and i had to restart the machine after using one of the apps before i could start the other.

Or watch the order that you boot your apps. Mac OS 9 only doled out the RAM in contiguous chunks per application. Say your web browser had a preferred RAm amount of 60Mb, but only used 20Mb when booted. Say you boot the browser first, and then boot your email program. Well, the email program's presence in RAM would prevent the browser from consuming any more RAM! CRASH!! bu-bye browser if you get into any heavy web browsing.

There's a term for the way Win NT/XP and OS X (among others) handles RAM more dynamically. I believe the term indeed had the word "dynamic" in it, but this buzzword escapes me at the moment... remember all those buzzwords in the nineties? "Pre-emptive multitasking", "protected memory" etc.? Those were the days when the stability we take for granted today was new and exotic (to the average desktop).

TroutMaskReplica
Feb 25th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Or watch the order that you boot your apps.

i actually traced the problem to a particular ms office extension by trial an error, now that i think about. i actually had to disable that extension, and then reboot and then start my 3d app. the next time i wanted to use office i had to quit the 3d app first but then starting office would reenable the extension so i'd have to go through it all again. it's crazy to think of how much time i wasted on that piece of sh*t OS.

printing was nightmare too. don't even think of trying to check email while printing, or the whole thing would come crashing down.

as you say in another thread, thank god steve came back.

thejst
Feb 25th, 2005, 05:19 PM
are there any links that any of you know of that delve into Classic as a topic
how it works
what works with it
how to make the best of it?
I have looked on Apples support site, but there is not much beyond installation info. Any help is greatly appreciated...
James :)

Gerbill
Feb 25th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Apple and all the other big software publishers have abandoned OS 9, so it has no future in the long run. It makes sense for some users to keep using OS 9 in the short run, but if they know what's good for them they should be moving in an OS X-wards direction. Otherwise they will find themselves high and dry when their partners (printers, service bureaux, etc) make the switch.

tonyz
Feb 25th, 2005, 11:23 PM
i actually traced the problem to a particular ms office extension by trial an error, now that i think about. i actually had to disable that extension, and then reboot and then start my 3d app. the next time i wanted to use office i had to quit the 3d app first but then starting office would reenable the extension so i'd have to go through it all again. it's crazy to think of how much time i wasted on that piece of sh*t OS.


MS Word, and other Microsoft apps in conjunction with graphic apps, was something we learned to avoid way back, and created one station which had MS word, Powerpoint etc. just for 'receiving' client files. All other computers had only the 'pure' graphics stuff which worked just fine in OS9. I still use and rely on 9.2.2 for traditional Quark layouts, any PDF/postscript creation, font issues, printing colour proofs etc. and a bevy of QTVR apps that work with QT 5 and OS9. Most of the image production is definitely in OSX with Photoshop CS, and of course video production in Final cut. So OS9 machines and apps are still here for print production, which I don't really mind actually for most of the same reasons already expressed - it works. One must remember, the printing trades are not too quick to change, especially after having come through a major shift in how things are done from traditional typeseting, pasteup art, film, etc. into the digital age, which was not really that long ago. Now that things have shifted and seem to work well - well no one wants to change too quickly again.

pismo923
Feb 27th, 2005, 12:52 AM
There are definately some diehard 9 users here http://www.thalo.net . Personally I think that there are some (not all) valid criticisms raised here The X Mac OS Theses (http://www.thalo.net/xtheses.html) . The forums here are interesting reading to say the least :eek:

Womprat
Jul 14th, 2005, 01:26 PM
The only reason I'm still using 9 is font problems. I can create a nice Pagemaker file on my G3 Beige (90% of my work files are legacy PM 6.5) and when I bring it over into the X environment I get lovely reflow. I also have font conflicts with the pre-loaded OSX fonts about once a month

Slowly but surely, I'm converting everything over to ID, but it doesn't make sense to import a whole booklet to change a few words, correct all the reflow or other import errors and then print when I can just make the changes on the G3 and print directly.

-Mike
www.womprat.com