Let's talk OS 9 then....

[Macflyer]

From tinkering with my older Macs I got pretty used to doing things the classic Mac way.

Naturally, I decided to install OS 9.2.2 on a newly acquired 466 iBook clamshell. It got full RAM (576 MB).

While I love the consistency of OS 9 with the older system software, I am slightly irritated with the speed.

It works perfectly fine, but compared to a fresh Panther install on the same iBook, it doesn't feel superior speed wise. 10.3.9 gives OS 9 a run for its money, so to speak.

This is not helped with less wireless performance under the 9er airport card driver than compared to the OS X one.

Maybe I expected too much from the last classic OS but certainly thought it had to be first choice for the old iBook that was designed for it.

 

[Unknown_K]

People confuse the snappyness of the OS GUI with speed of doing calculations.

I find OS 9.x to be plenty fast on old machines unless you are doing some major multitasking. OS 9.x has less overhead then OSX 10.3.x, so while the GUI might feel snappy using OSX the tasks in the background run slower to make up for it (same CPU and all). Also OS 9.x works better with less RAM then OSX does (load up a few apps and see). Classic mac OS is best for task switching, and kind of sucks for new multimedia (lack of codecs, baddly written java, old browsers).

 

[Macflyer]

I can see your point and certainly I can bog down Panther by running several apps, streaming music, and downloading a dmg while surfing the internet. Still, there is plenty of air until that happens.Then again, OS 9 runs fine and does everything I want it to do. I just thought I couldn't run Panther the way I do without serious slow downs. And OS 9 I thought would always be the choice of OS on the clamshells.

I can see that this might be the case on a 300 Mhz clam with 64 MB, though.

 

[Flash!]

@ Macflyer if you're not putting OSX onto your clamshell then you won't need 9.2.2

9.1 is all you need...the extra "0.1.2" worth of software update is so that your mac can run classic in OSX.

 

[Bunsen]

That's not what os9forever say:

What are the benefits of installing 9.2.x?
Apple touted 9.2.1 as a minor update to 9.1 that added "better classic compatibility". However, the performance improvements that were added in 9.2.x are clearly noticeable once you install it. In particular, the Finder is incredibly responsive, and Open Transport networking is vastly more stable. However, the four most important reasons for installing 9.2.x are:

1. Compatibility with ATI's latest drivers. ATI dropped support for OpenGL versions lower than 1.2.2. (9.1 has 1.2.1)

2. You can't run DVD Studio Pro 1.5 or 1.2.1 without 9.2.2.

3. You can't run Final Cut Pro 3 without 9.2.2.

4. Full compatibility with first and second generation iPods.

 

[Scott Baret]

Don't forget the virtual memory aspect of OS X. Since virtual memory is always on with OS X and optional on OS 9, your hard drive will be taxed and your speed may suffer. Running one application with 512MB+ may not cause much of an issue, but try running a heavier hitter or multiple apps on there and you'll encounter slowdowns. This is especially an issue if you have a slower hard drive. Even the stock drives in later iBook G4s are too slow to run OS X nicely--you'll want something faster than 4400RPM.

As I said in another thread not too long ago, the 9/X debate on G3s will be a lot like the 6/7 debate on 68000s was back when some fairly current software packages still ran on earlier versions of 7.x.

 

[Flash!]

I stand corrected then, however I didn't find any significant spped advantage by using 9.2 on an old Mac. (by old, I mean a Mac that was never supposed to run OSX, such as a Clamshell. If you have a DP G4 running FCP3, well that's a different story....)