MacOS 8.6 vs 9.1 vs 9.2.2

C

cobalt60

Well-known member
I feel like this has been probably been discussed extensively, but, I haven't quite found the info I am looking for. I am eventually going to build everything into a 9600 (well, a 9500 in an 8600 case), but for now the test machine is a 7300. Here are the specs:

RAM : 320MB
CPU : G4 @ 470MHz or G3 @ 520MHz
Boot device : hoping eventually a Rabbit Hole Computing SATA Hard Card
currently a ZuluSCSI (SD card)
GPU : ATI Rage 128 16MB

I installed OS 9.1, but it just didn't seem to run right. There seemed to be a lot of lag; it seemed periodic to me but I can't say for sure. From what research I have done, I thought 9.1 would run perfectly fine on this setup. Is it possible my install was corrupt?

8.6 ran great, no complaints. I currently have 9.0.4 installed, and that seems somewhat buggy too. It overall runs OK, but one thing I noticed is when I open a folder and try to scroll down, it keeps resetting to the top of the folder. It does this for like 10 seconds.

I have heard a lot of people prefer 8.6 over newer versions, since it runs better and is less buggy. But I have also heard that if I have plenty of RAM, I should choose 9.1 or newer. So my question is, with a setup like mine with relatively plenty of RAM and CPU, which version should I choose? Should I try and get 9.1 running right, or even 9.2.2? Or should I run 8.6, and just pull whatever drivers I may need from newer versions to get things like USB working well? I know this is a subjective question, so definitely just looking for opinions. I highly value speed, efficiency, and less bugs. However, I do want to get SATA and USB working.
 
Phipli

Phipli

Well-known member
cobalt60 said:
I feel like this has been probably been discussed extensively, but, I haven't quite found the info I am looking for. I am eventually going to build everything into a 9600 (well, a 9500 in an 8600 case), but for now the test machine is a 7300. Here are the specs:

RAM : 320MB
CPU : G4 @ 470MHz or G3 @ 520MHz
Boot device : hoping eventually a Rabbit Hole Computing SATA Hard Card
currently a ZuluSCSI (SD card)
GPU : ATI Rage 128 16MB

I installed OS 9.1, but it just didn't seem to run right. There seemed to be a lot of lag; it seemed periodic to me but I can't say for sure. From what research I have done, I thought 9.1 would run perfectly fine on this setup. Is it possible my install was corrupt?

8.6 ran great, no complaints. I currently have 9.0.4 installed, and that seems somewhat buggy too. It overall runs OK, but one thing I noticed is when I open a folder and try to scroll down, it keeps resetting to the top of the folder. It does this for like 10 seconds.

I have heard a lot of people prefer 8.6 over newer versions, since it runs better and is less buggy. But I have also heard that if I have plenty of RAM, I should choose 9.1 or newer. So my question is, with a setup like mine with relatively plenty of RAM and CPU, which version should I choose? Should I try and get 9.1 running right, or even 9.2.2? Or should I run 8.6, and just pull whatever drivers I may need from newer versions to get things like USB working well? I know this is a subjective question, so definitely just looking for opinions. I highly value speed, efficiency, and less bugs. However, I do want to get SATA and USB working.
Click to expand...
Option three - dual boot. It's as easy as anything. Either partition your disk, or fit a second disk. Install, and use the control panel "Startup Disk" to pick which disk.

Personally, my preference is to daily 8.6, but some software needs 9.1 or even 9.2.

SATA doesn't have an OS restriction, you could run 7.5.3 on your 9500 and SATA would work. USB you can just install the drivers you want, although it should work even with stock 8.6.
 
Phipli

Phipli

Well-known member
cobalt60 said:
What are your reasons for preferring 8.6 over newer versions?
Click to expand...
It tends to crash less often, and boots much faster. Possibly also runs faster. It uses less memory too.

The only reason not to is that a small amount of software and hardware requires 9.*. But most things work.

OpenGL, FireWire, USB, SATA, inputSprockets etc etc... All work well in 8.6 (some of those work back to 8.1 and even older).
 
ArbysTPossum

ArbysTPossum

Well-known member
Any 603-G3 machines I have run 8.6, anything G4 runs 9.2.2. I completely agree, 9.1 on my 225Mhz 603ev runs pretty bad, even with the 400MHz G3 accelerator it does not run quite right. 9.0 crashed a lot and I gave up on it pretty quickly. 8.6 can do anything I need it to do, I may need to directly install a driver/extension, as opposed to it being included, but it's a small price.
 
J

joshc

Well-known member
Best to stick with OS 9 for G3 and G4 machines only. 8.6 has a few less things and should run better on the systems that can run it.

I use 8.1 on my Wombat and 9.2.2 on my Sonnet G4 Sawtooth. Both are fast and stable.

I briefly used 8.6 with a G3 equipped 7100, unfortunately had a lot of freezing due to other issues (bad onboard RAM I think).
 
Snial

Snial

Well-known member
Wow, people prefer 8.6 over 9.x? Gosh! I ran 9.0.4 then 9.1 on my Tangerine iBook G3/300 and it seemed pretty good. I didn't notice lots of crashing. But I didn't keep it that long (around May 2000 to March/April 2002 when I bought an iceBook G3/600) and then upgraded to Mac OS X 10.1 pretty early on.

Having said that, my favourite OS for the 601/603e era is Mac OS 8.1. I think I might even just prefer it on a Performa 630 though it's a bit sluggish!
 
C

cobalt60

Well-known member
joshc said:
Best to stick with OS 9 for G3 and G4 machines only.
Click to expand...
Do you mean machines that were originally G3/G4, or does my G3/G4 upgraded 7300 count?

Phipli said:
9.x is vastly more stable on new world. On old world it... Is a liability.
Click to expand...
Good info. I was wondering where the line was so to speak.

The 9.1 install I recently used seemed to be having issues just doing basic things, like using the file manager and launching fairly standard programs. I thought I remember 9.1 running fine on my Dads 7300/G3@300 with 192MB RAM, which was confusing me why it seemed to run worse on my higher spec'd one. However, I just asked him if he remembers what OS he used on it, and he said "pretty sure it was 8.6, 9 was problematic at work, think we went back to 8.6".

I have a bunch of new world machines, so think I'll run 9.x on one of those. For this 7300/9600, looks like I'll stick with 8.6, thanks!
 
LaPorta

LaPorta

Well-known member
On my PT Pro with NewerTech G3, I have triple boot 7.6.1/8.6/9.1. 8.6 and 9.1 have the exact same boot time and run responsiveness for me (on a SCSI2SD v6). 7.6.1 is incredibly fast (as was7.5.5 before I upgraded). The PT Pro is basically a 9600 (minus the G3 upgrade), so that should be pretty applicable to you in terms of speed.

Mine also has 512 MB RAM.
 
ArmorAlley

ArmorAlley

Well-known member
You could try mixing & matching: Mac OS 8.6 but with CarbonLib 1.6.1, USB & FW drivers from 9.2.2 maybe ATi/nvidia drivers from 9.2.2 as well.
Mac OS 9.2.2 is a requirement for some applications & drivers too, so you will learn which ones they are.
 
C

cobalt60

Well-known member
Thanks for all the info, I am going to go with an 8.6 install next, and pull drivers/software from newer versions as needed.

If I have a 9.2.2 iso to pull drivers/software from, would I have any need to also keep, say, a 9.1 iso? Or put another way, does the 9.1 iso have anything I might want that the 9.2.1 or 9.2.2 isos don't have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Byrd
iPod 1st gen 5GB - Windows format, can't see in Mac OS 9/iTunes
Replies
12
Views
1K
volvo242gt
volvo242gt
F
black screen when booting from 9.2.2 to 10.4
Replies
8
Views
578
feltel
F
Snial
Boot Pre-Firewire iMac G3 from USB Challenge.
Replies
7
Views
1K
joevt
J
eharmon
8.6 crashing on a Power PC upgraded Quadra?
Replies
11
Views
1K
eharmon
eharmon
Phipli
Mac OS 8.6 for (some) Unsupported G3s and G4s
2 3
Replies
45
Views
5K
bamdad
bamdad
Top