OSX/9 Partition Performance Hit?

[LCARS]

I recall a LEM article years ago discussing the performance benefits of installing the OS & applications on the first HD partition. With a 60GB 7200rpm drive in my Wallstreet, if I install OS X in the first 8GB but use 9.2.2 more often, would I creating a distinct performance hit for 9?

 

[CC_333]

I don't recall the article, but in my experience, having separate partition for Mac OS X and Mac OS 9 doesn't necessarily improve performance, but it does seem to improve convenience, at least on NewWorld Macs with the boot picker, because if X and 9 are on the same partition, the boot picker doesn't register both of them, but rather the one most recently booted, so if you recently booted into 9 and want to go to X (or vice versa), and they're both installed to a single partition, you must use the Startup Disk control panel (or pref pane) to switch.  Of course, this is all fuzzy now, since the last time I did any of it was at least 5 or 6 years ago.

Hopefully someone with more information can chime in....

c

 

[LCARS]

Thanks, @CC_333. I had forgotten about the OldWorld vs NewWorld boot differences. Convenience is definitely improved, I agree. To run Jaguar or Panther (via Xpostfacto) the OSX install must be on the first partition, which is considered to more quickly accessed than the second partition where I'd more frequently use 9.2.2

Al things considered, I'd wager that one might not notice if its slightly slower in that configuration. I had also forgotten about the fussiness of OSX on OldWord Macs.

 

[CC_333]

Yes, running OS X on OldWorld Macs (even when officially supported) can be frustrating, since limitations such as having to install within the first 8 GB don't seem to apply so strictly to OS 9 or older (technically I think they do in theory, but somehow it's rarely a problem in practice, probably because of how OS 9 works).

And I agree that, especially when a machine is maxed out, anyone would notice a significant performance hit by configuring things that way.

c

 

[LCARS]

That's true- by comparison, OS 9 feels relaxed. At least I'm doing this on a HD and not an SSD. I've reformatted about four times by this point. If this was my sole project, I'd go for quantifying performance between the two configurations. As it is, vacation is quickly running out.

While I'm thinking about it, shutting down seems to be much faster on these pre-OSX machines than even my rMBP.

 

[LCARS]

After a two attempts to install 10.3 on the first partition failed, I went with 10.2. So far, using 9.2.2 on the second (larger) partition seems just as quick. I didn't think I'd see any major slowdown but without quantifying the change, I'd say it's unnoticeable. 

What was noticeable was the "cracked LCD" style of pink and purple lines that the xpostfacto 10.3 installation created during the process.

 

[NJRoadfan]

The beige G3 (and presumably the Wallstreet) has problems with boot partitions located over the 8.4GB mark due to a particularly lousy IDE implementation. Apple officially required that OS X 10.2 boot partitions be entirely under that line to avoid problems.