System 6 Heaven
System 7 Today
... :?: ...
OS9forever
Something is wrong with this picture. Discuss.
System 7 Today
... :?: ...
OS9forever
Something is wrong with this picture. Discuss.
-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
MacOS 8: where's the love?
- Thread starter Bunsen
- Start date
Piffle.
- 8 marked the transition to mass use of the internet;
- 8 had much better multiprocessor (2, 4 x 604e processor) functionality (esp. 8.6);
- the kernel in 8.6 in particular did multitasking way better than 7.6-8.5 ever did, especially on a 604e or 604ev (try it);
- 8 supported firewire and usb;
- 8 (alas) basically left behind QuickDraw GX and OpenDoc;
- 8.6 is among the most stable of all the old "classic" systems, and is comparable to something like 7.1 in this respect;
- unlike 9.x, 8.x doesn't eat all your available ram when using a limited machine, yet offers compatibility with more recent software releases (e.g., Office 2001);
- even a fast 603ev is a dog running 9.x, whereas it runs any version of 8 very well;
- my PowerBook 2400c likes 8.6 a lot.
So it's a good question why no System 8 fanzone exists. (For a while, by the way, there was a System 7.1 heaven too.)
- 8 marked the transition to mass use of the internet;
- 8 had much better multiprocessor (2, 4 x 604e processor) functionality (esp. 8.6);
- the kernel in 8.6 in particular did multitasking way better than 7.6-8.5 ever did, especially on a 604e or 604ev (try it);
- 8 supported firewire and usb;
- 8 (alas) basically left behind QuickDraw GX and OpenDoc;
- 8.6 is among the most stable of all the old "classic" systems, and is comparable to something like 7.1 in this respect;
- unlike 9.x, 8.x doesn't eat all your available ram when using a limited machine, yet offers compatibility with more recent software releases (e.g., Office 2001);
- even a fast 603ev is a dog running 9.x, whereas it runs any version of 8 very well;
- my PowerBook 2400c likes 8.6 a lot.
So it's a good question why no System 8 fanzone exists. (For a while, by the way, there was a System 7.1 heaven too.)
System 6 is well-loved because it was the defining system of the older Macintosh and was around for a long time (1988-1991). Even after System 7 came out many continued to use System 6 due to its speed advantages (compare it to System 7 on a Classic for proof), ability to fit on a floppy disk, and lower RAM requirements. In fact, System 6 was still in widespread use as late as 1995 among both individuals and schools in my neck of the woods. (I actually saw it up and running on computers in a school library in 2000). There is also a love for it due to the memories that many have had with System 6--whether it be at home, at work, or (most notably) at school. Anyone who has ever played Oregon Trail on a Mac LC running System 6.0.8 is sure to remember the experience, especially because many people didn't have computers with edutainment titles at home during that era (in fact, a lot of people didn't even have computers in their homes in the early 1990s).
System 7 was "the big upgrade" of the early 1990s. It also became the "reference release" and was around in some form from 1991-1997. I feel the nostalgia factor is greater with System 6 for most people, perhaps because it runs smoother on most of the iconic compact Macs. System 7 was big for two reasons--it was a huge upgrade (especially in terms of system requirements--you could forget running it on your dual-floppy SE with 1MB of RAM unless it was significantly upgraded) and was noted by most folks who knew their stuff as being the far superior alternative to Windows. When Windows 95 came out, System 7 lost its ground, as did the Mac (which had been in a free-fall for some time already due to poor management at Apple).
OS 9 was the final version of the Classic OS and is the last version that will run some of our great programs of old. Since it will run on newer equipment, many have dedicated themselves to further development of practical programs (such as Classilla) for the aging operating system.
Why no love for OS 8? It was released at a time when the Mac was struggling (1997), most people either run System 7 (for nostalgia) or OS 9 (for compatibility) on their machines, and was pretty much vaporware that didn't live up to the initial hype. Oldtimers like myself probably remember reading about Copland in the mid-1990s. Copland was supposed to be System 8 yet only a handful of the Copland features actually made it. Had Copland (and its successor, Gershwin) come around (and become our System 8 and System 9, respectively), we would have never had to depend on an operating system that is merely a shell running on top of Unix. As I have said before, the Mac lost its traditional identity when OS X was released. Copland and Gershwin would have prevented this from happening.
Since OS 8 wasn't all it was supposed to be when it was first proposed and people prefer older or newer systems for the aforementioned reasons, OS 8 has gone neglected. This is a shame--as some have pointed out, it is a very fine operating system. My favorite version is 8.1 since it runs on 68040s.
System 7 was "the big upgrade" of the early 1990s. It also became the "reference release" and was around in some form from 1991-1997. I feel the nostalgia factor is greater with System 6 for most people, perhaps because it runs smoother on most of the iconic compact Macs. System 7 was big for two reasons--it was a huge upgrade (especially in terms of system requirements--you could forget running it on your dual-floppy SE with 1MB of RAM unless it was significantly upgraded) and was noted by most folks who knew their stuff as being the far superior alternative to Windows. When Windows 95 came out, System 7 lost its ground, as did the Mac (which had been in a free-fall for some time already due to poor management at Apple).
OS 9 was the final version of the Classic OS and is the last version that will run some of our great programs of old. Since it will run on newer equipment, many have dedicated themselves to further development of practical programs (such as Classilla) for the aging operating system.
Why no love for OS 8? It was released at a time when the Mac was struggling (1997), most people either run System 7 (for nostalgia) or OS 9 (for compatibility) on their machines, and was pretty much vaporware that didn't live up to the initial hype. Oldtimers like myself probably remember reading about Copland in the mid-1990s. Copland was supposed to be System 8 yet only a handful of the Copland features actually made it. Had Copland (and its successor, Gershwin) come around (and become our System 8 and System 9, respectively), we would have never had to depend on an operating system that is merely a shell running on top of Unix. As I have said before, the Mac lost its traditional identity when OS X was released. Copland and Gershwin would have prevented this from happening.
Since OS 8 wasn't all it was supposed to be when it was first proposed and people prefer older or newer systems for the aforementioned reasons, OS 8 has gone neglected. This is a shame--as some have pointed out, it is a very fine operating system. My favorite version is 8.1 since it runs on 68040s.
I think everyone has answered this question really well (intentionally or not): OS 8's real usefulness is pretty narrow:
- Only one version is really of any use at this point: 8.6
- It's particularly well-suited only to a narrow range of Macs made in only two years - 1996 and 1997
- It's got a similarly narrow RAM sweet spot: at least 32MB RAM (the minimum for running OS 8 comfortably) but less than 64MB (at which point it becomes possible to run OS 9 comfortably).
I think that's a pretty small hook to hang your hat on, as far as building a fan-site or special-interest software archive.
- Only one version is really of any use at this point: 8.6
- It's particularly well-suited only to a narrow range of Macs made in only two years - 1996 and 1997
- It's got a similarly narrow RAM sweet spot: at least 32MB RAM (the minimum for running OS 8 comfortably) but less than 64MB (at which point it becomes possible to run OS 9 comfortably).
I think that's a pretty small hook to hang your hat on, as far as building a fan-site or special-interest software archive.
And HFS+, let's not forget HFS+. That stood the OS well for a very long time.
Personally, I had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of 6.0.8 due to application requirements, even then I waited for the bugfix tuneup for 7 before switching.
I ran 7.0.1 (?) with the tune-up, until I bought a used 6360, because that was the cutoff OS for my 32 MB equipped Radius Rocket/IIX combo. IIRC the 6360 came with 7.x and a free 7.5 upgrade which I ran until AOL continually borked my system by trying to run, an intentionally deleted, Internet Exploder every time some Dumb@$$ site wanted it.
By then I had a Crescendo G-3/466 in my baby and enough RAM to run OS 9. So, except for liberated machines that booted into 8.x, I never really had any experience with it at all.
I think a lot of folks were in the same boat when it came to upgrading. When you had something that "just worked," why take a chance on a new OS until APP requirements forced it upon you? Even then, if you were smart, you still waited for the new OS to "mature" into a reliable bug-free environment before making the change.
I think that OS 8 was skipped over for these reasons by a lot of folks, hence, the apparent lack of love for it.
I ran 7.0.1 (?) with the tune-up, until I bought a used 6360, because that was the cutoff OS for my 32 MB equipped Radius Rocket/IIX combo. IIRC the 6360 came with 7.x and a free 7.5 upgrade which I ran until AOL continually borked my system by trying to run, an intentionally deleted, Internet Exploder every time some Dumb@$$ site wanted it.
By then I had a Crescendo G-3/466 in my baby and enough RAM to run OS 9. So, except for liberated machines that booted into 8.x, I never really had any experience with it at all.
I think a lot of folks were in the same boat when it came to upgrading. When you had something that "just worked," why take a chance on a new OS until APP requirements forced it upon you? Even then, if you were smart, you still waited for the new OS to "mature" into a reliable bug-free environment before making the change.
I think that OS 8 was skipped over for these reasons by a lot of folks, hence, the apparent lack of love for it.
I, for one, enjoyed Mac OS 8 (8.6 specifically). My first Mac came with System 7.5.1 and I went through all of the updates to escape the dreaded Type 11 error. I maxed out on System 7.5.5 and stood my ground until Mac OS 8.5 was available. That's when I made the leap. My 6100 variant with 40MB of RAM seemed happy. It was even happier when I installed the 8.6 update. I cruised along fine on that until my next Mac purchase in 2004.
I completely avoided Mac OS 9 because of the RAM requirements. Plus, it didn't seem to offer any compelling features. With OS X just around the corner, it felt like they upped the version number just to fill the gap. Mac OS 9 probably would have otherwise been Mac OS 8.7. So when I see Mac OS 9 fan sites, I just automatically include Mac OS 8 in there, since 9, to me, basically *is* 8.
I completely avoided Mac OS 9 because of the RAM requirements. Plus, it didn't seem to offer any compelling features. With OS X just around the corner, it felt like they upped the version number just to fill the gap. Mac OS 9 probably would have otherwise been Mac OS 8.7. So when I see Mac OS 9 fan sites, I just automatically include Mac OS 8 in there, since 9, to me, basically *is* 8.
I use 8.1... os9 and the macs redundant
os 6 & 7 are ok
if it's a 68040 mac then it's 8.1 all the way here
os 6 & 7 are ok
if it's a 68040 mac then it's 8.1 all the way here
Poppycock!
Apart from beachycove's excellent summary, and HFS+, OS 8 was the first version truly stable on PPC. My memory of introducing 8.1 to my 6100 was that suddenly it was able to run for more than five minutes without bombing.
Aesthetically, I found the clean modern look much more appealing and useable than that of any version of System 7. And that look stayed with the Mac OS until the introduction of OS X.
As others have pointed out, 8.1 gives a relatively modern UI and capabilities to '040s and up, so the year range is quite a bit wider than the two years you claim. With a bit of tweaking, it can run on '030s, up to Beige G3s and iMacs. It would be ideal for a kerb-score iMac if you couldn't be bothered upgrading the RAM. And the improved networking layer makes Road Apple x2xx and x3xx Macs passably useable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8
See also: Mac OS 8 and 8.1: Maximum Size, Maximum Convenience
My 1400s like 8.6, too, but it feels a little heavy going - I was considering dropping them back to 8.1.
Which brings up another point - it's hard or impossible to find and/or fit enough RAM to early PPC Powerbooks to run OS 9 comfortably. This makes 8.x an ideal option.
Great defence, Bunsen. The strongest argument is the ability to breathe new life into RAM constrained PPC Macs. But I have to disagree about the appearance changes being 100% good -- some amazing features such as spring loaded folders (why still missing from Windows?), whilst some of the shading tricks just muddy the GUI. For those of us with lousy eyesight, the really simple System 7.x and earlier appearance is so easy to read.
Owing to a need to play with some DOS cards, I've been using one of my least favourite OS versions (8.1) on one of my least favourite Macs (8200). And I've been quite enjoying it. I don't need internet access for my exploration, so the small RAM footprint of OS 8.1 suits me very well. I could imagine that others using music composition packages or video editors might feel the same way. (System 7.6.1 and earlier won't cut it; I need HFS+ in order to support big disks with multiple DOS card images.)
Owing to a need to play with some DOS cards, I've been using one of my least favourite OS versions (8.1) on one of my least favourite Macs (8200). And I've been quite enjoying it. I don't need internet access for my exploration, so the small RAM footprint of OS 8.1 suits me very well. I could imagine that others using music composition packages or video editors might feel the same way. (System 7.6.1 and earlier won't cut it; I need HFS+ in order to support big disks with multiple DOS card images.)
I had been using a lab of Classics with system 6 on a MacJANET network for a bit in school, and when I bought my first Mac (a IIsi) it came with 7.1. I eventually got 7.5 through the old "my Performa didn't come with disks, please mail them" trick, and took that right up to 7.5.5 downloading the updates on my dad's 486 and transferring over disk. Once I got online with a 28.8 global village modem (going away gift when I moved) I got into 7.6.1. I desperately wanted to run OS8 and even spent may sleepless nights trying to hack apart system files and staring at lines of gibberish, but the best I could ever do was just mimic the look. Eventually I was given a 6320 and ran 8.6 for a bit but this was around the time 9 was out so I switched over pretty quick.
System 6 with multifinder was pretty neat, my friend had an SE dual floppy that ran it for quite some time. I consider myself a System 7 child as that is what I had used the longest.
System 6 with multifinder was pretty neat, my friend had an SE dual floppy that ran it for quite some time. I consider myself a System 7 child as that is what I had used the longest.
Similar threads
