Re: [NTLK] OT - PowerBook OS Level to be a Newt Accessory?

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Lord Groundhog <LordGroundhog@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have run it on a PB 1400, Pismo and am running it on a PowerWave
>> with a G3 brain transplant. In fact, I moved the PowerWave back to
>> 9.0.4, and have been happier with that over both 9.1 and 9.2.2...
>
> Jon,
>
> Just to put a different view, I first met OS 9 when I got my new Pismo, and
> found 9.0.4 a little rocky but especially to be a bit uncompliant.

I suppose I should have qualified my statement more. I threw in my
Pismo, because I have run OS 9 on it. However, I should have added
some qualifications. Both the PowerWave and the PB1400 came out years
before OS 9. The Pismo came with OS 9, as well as with new-gen
hardware--IDE drives (Ok, the PB1400 did IDE, too, but the PowerWave
needs an aftermarket card), Firewire, USB... On the Pismo, 9.2.2 is
what I ran asap, and yes, it was more stable under that--but then
again, it had 384 meg of RAM, too. 9.2.2 craves ram more than the
earlier versions.

My recommendation for older systems (like the 3400 that originally ran
7.6) would be to not go beyond 9.0.4. 9.1 introduced things to help
compatibliity with OS X, as well as to make it more stable on the new
world hardware. It has always been my suspicion that those
forward-compatibility elements are exactly what make the OS crash on
older, legacy hardware. All I know is that my PB 1400 hated 9.1, as
does our PowerWave. Actually, the 1400 probably ran best under 7.6 and
8.5.... but they were lacking something I needed--oh, networking
didn't work properly with OS 9, IIRC, so I was forced to move both up
to OS 9.

So, with that in mind, with limited RAM, and with no needs to network
with OS X or 9.1+, I would probably stick with System 7.6.... but
that's my thoughts.

> I know other people were complaining about OS 9.x, especially once OS X
> was
> on the scene. I won't say that the dissatisfaction may have been fanned
> just a little by people who really wanted us to crave to get our hands on
> OS
> X and ditch OS 9 -- no one would do that, would they?

Well, I certainly wasn't one! I had _no_ desire to upgrade to X when
it came out! For me it would have been/was a giant leap _backwards_ in
knowledge and understanding--a bigger leap, in fact, than moving to
Windows! I put it off as long as possible. Ask my friends on my
Mac-Ministry mailing list. I was kind of an anachronism and a thorn in
the flesh to all who had upgraded.

But that said, OS 9.2.2 still wasn't super stable for me. I could
probably go a few days or week, but never weeks on end. Sometimes,
however, it would just sit and crash... very frustrating when it did.
But I'll also be honest. My march of icons was waaaay too long, and I
tend to push my hardware--have way too many apps open, etc.

> So while I accept that OS 9 was cranky for some people, especially those
> running things like PhotoShop and similar apps, I feel pretty sure that for
> less demanding work than heavy graphics processing and the like, 9.2.2 is
> worth considering.

On a Pismo, yes. But I fear that the 3400 won't cut it for 9.2.2 or
9.1, based on my usage on other hardware from that era--PB 1400 and
PowerWave. lack of RAM is crucial. Oh, and another thought 9.2.2 can
be HUGE on the hard drive. I've pared mine down in recent years (to
try to keep it stable under X). Right now, it's about 550meg, but I
was well over a gig when it was my only OS.

Oh, and my Pismo is _still_ my only/main computer. I recently bought
an even older Dell laptop to put Linux onto, but it's more of an
experiment/toy than a serious business tool. ;-) (Wife bought herself
an eeePC, but her main computer is _her_ Pismo) But I avoid using
Classic like the plague! ;-)

***One bit of advice for any user of System 9 or earlier. Always, and
I mean, always, quit programs in the reverse order that you opened
them. So if you start app A, B, C and D, quit D before you quite any
other program, and then quit C, before B and A, and B before A.
Otherwise your memory will get fragmented, and your OS will get all
discombobulated, and it'll crash. Modern operating systems can move
apps in memory to reclaim empty RAM, but earlier systems cannot.

-- 
 -Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland
<jonglass@usa.net>
"I don't believe in philosophies. I believe in fundamentals." --Jack Nicklaus
==================================================================== 
The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
The Official Newton FAQ     - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
The Newton Glossary         - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
====================================================================