View Poll Results:

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43

Thread: OS X vs OS 9

  1. #1

    knightjp's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts
    304
    Specs:
    Mac Mini Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB ram running OS X Lion
    Cool OS X vs OS 9
    I know that OS 9 is kinda old...
    OK... its really, really old, but what I want to know is, why did they change the platform for OS X?? Whart was wrong with Apple's OS platform

    The old OS was apple's original platform design. Having changed it to something else is really sad... I'd say.
    Although I use OS 10.3 Panther now (because of all the availability of software on the web), I actually much prefer the old OS and would consider downgrading if someone can show me a way of surviving with OS 9 in todays OS X world...

    I liked alot of features on it... like the voice activated login password. OS X doesn't have that. Plus other features..... like the complete ability to customize the appearance of the OS.

  2. #2

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    OS9 was simply old. Apple had pushed the core of the OS as far as it could go, and it was showing it's age. Don't forget, Apple tried to write a whole new OS back in the 90s and failed miserably, so the "Classic" OS got a bit of reprieve and few more years of life. It was a great OS, for the 80's, but by 95-96 was just too old and outdated to handle the way the industry and computers were going.

    It had some nice features, but nowhere near the scalability, functionality, security or stability of OSX.


  3. #3

    knightjp's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts
    304
    Specs:
    Mac Mini Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB ram running OS X Lion
    Quote Originally Posted by baggss View Post
    OS9 was simply old. Apple had pushed the core of the OS as far as it could go, and it was showing it's age.
    I guess ur right.... but isn't Unix from the same age??? How come a completely unstable platform like Windows get so much hype and survive till they changed it to Vista????

    What I want to know is why did the Apple OS become too old to go on??? Was it the programming??? Was it the support??? Or was it just because the others had outside help an Apple didn't.

  4. #4

    yogi's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    2,078
    Specs:
    Mac Mini, iPad Air 2, iPhone 5S, Apple TV 4th Gen, Apple Watch (38mm Link Bracelet)
    OS 9 was simply beginning to lag behind standard features that had become commonplace in other OSes. Graphically, OS 9 is pathetic compared to windows 98.

    I think watching the MacWorld 2000 keynote will give you some insight:

    Here's part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3...elated&search=
    If you liked this post, consider using the Reputation System by hitting the icon on the left.

  5. #5

    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,926
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by knightjp View Post
    I guess ur right.... but isn't Unix from the same age??? How come a completely unstable platform like Windows get so much hype and survive till they changed it to Vista????

    What I want to know is why did the Apple OS become too old to go on??? Was it the programming??? Was it the support??? Or was it just because the others had outside help an Apple didn't.
    You have to understand the goals of classic Mac OS vs. UNIX. UNIX (or BSD, which is the flavor of UNIX that OS X uses) was built for mainframe computers. Those computers were built to handle hundreds of attached terminals, servicing many, many users. It was also designed to never need a reboot, never crash and not need much maintenance - not to mention the fact that UNIX was built to be a network OS. Classic Mac OS was designed for the needs typical of computer users in the 80s. As the needs of users changed and things like multitasking, networking, multiprocessing and Internet access became more prevalent for all users, Mac OS had to change too.

    Don't forget that Windows went through a similar change with Windows NT. Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and Me all ran on top of good old MS-DOS. Windows NT was basically built for servers and gradually matured to run on the desktop where it continued to evolve into Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and now Vista. Although they may look similar, the underpinnings (kernel) of Windows 98 and Windows XP are as different as OS 9 and OS X.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  6. #6


    Member Since
    Oct 27, 2006
    Posts
    897
    I voted for OS X, but I still grin a bit when confronted with a System 9 machine.

  7. #7

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Quote Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post
    You have to understand the goals of classic Mac OS vs. UNIX. UNIX (or BSD, which is the flavor of UNIX that OS X uses) was built for mainframe computers. Those computers were built to handle hundreds of attached terminals, servicing many, many users. It was also designed to never need a reboot, never crash and not need much maintenance - not to mention the fact that UNIX was built to be a network OS. Classic Mac OS was designed for the needs typical of computer users in the 80s. As the needs of users changed and things like multitasking, networking, multiprocessing and Internet access became more prevalent for all users, Mac OS had to change too.

    Don't forget that Windows went through a similar change with Windows NT. Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and Me all ran on top of good old MS-DOS. Windows NT was basically built for servers and gradually matured to run on the desktop where it continued to evolve into Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and now Vista. Although they may look similar, the underpinnings (kernel) of Windows 98 and Windows XP are as different as OS 9 and OS X.
    And don't forget, NT first debuted back in 93.....


  8. #8

    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,926
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by baggss View Post
    And don't forget, NT first debuted back in 93.....
    ...which was around the time Apple was cooking up their replacement kernel for Mac OS. I think this point underscores the argument that Apple and Microsoft both recognized that the underpinnings of their respective OSes were in need of an overhaul.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  9. #9

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Quote Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post
    ...which was around the time Apple was cooking up their replacement kernel for Mac OS. I think this point underscores the argument that Apple and Microsoft both recognized that the underpinnings of their respective OSes were in need of an overhaul.
    Exactly. That was the same time Apple was working on ill-fated Copeland, and trying to figure out if Pink or Taligent had any use at all.


  10. #10

    knightjp's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts
    304
    Specs:
    Mac Mini Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB ram running OS X Lion
    Apple try again...
    Anyone every suggested that Apple try again to make a completely new OS from scratch....

    Pretty sure that there are no short of really good programmers and considering Apple is using an Intel base now it should be relatively easier.

    What do you think??? Plus once again Apple would have an something that they can truely call their own.

  11. #11

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    That's actually a pretty tall order. Considering the issues that MS had with Vista, which isn't really even new, I'm not sure Apple would go that route. Many of the "new" features that were supposed to ship with Vista were delayed or outright canceled in the end.

    The best part about Unix is it is always being updated and developed by a large body of folks worldwide. Apple can tap into a lot of that stuff and purchase it or make it proprietary as they see fit. Why reinvent the wheel?


  12. #12

    knightjp's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts
    304
    Specs:
    Mac Mini Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB ram running OS X Lion
    Quote Originally Posted by baggss View Post
    That's actually a pretty tall order. Considering the issues that MS had with Vista, which isn't really even new, I'm not sure Apple would go that route. Many of the "new" features that were supposed to ship with Vista were delayed or outright canceled in the end.

    The best part about Unix is it is always being updated and developed by a large body of folks worldwide. Apple can tap into a lot of that stuff and purchase it or make it proprietary as they see fit. Why reinvent the wheel?
    Excellent point.... Plus I guess you are giving Unix programmers another platform to write software for aren't you.... I mean, considering that normal Desktop computing is more of what is available in the common market, Unix programmers can now tap into and sell inventions that are for home users and stuff, instead of just servers.

    However one has to ask the question, is there anything that Apple has that they can truely call their own now??? I mean is there any product of apple's that's not a copy or a mod of another product???

  13. #13

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Well, the core of OSX is Unix, but all of the layers that run on top of it were made by Apple. Some of them are based on NeXT, which Apple bought though.

    I think the current iPod OS was built by Apple when they stopped using PortalPlayers OS. I'm not sure about the AppleTV or the iPhone, although the iPhone supposedly runs a modified version of OSX.


  14. #14

    knightjp's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts
    304
    Specs:
    Mac Mini Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB ram running OS X Lion
    Cool iPhone
    the iPhone is just amazing.....

    If you've seen Microsoft's new surface invention, you'll like the iPhone. The iPhone is surface in a phone.... thats it. My brother saw a demo on it. He's a Windows freak and he was impressed.

    Sorry about the earlier comment about Apple not innovating.... just saw the videos of OS X introduction. Alot of thought went into it.

    You think Microsoft's media centre is a rip from Mac OS X. If so, which one....

  15. #15

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    I've never seen or used any version of MS Media Center so I honestly can't say.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •