Horses for courses! I earn my living with my OS X machines. I'd be mad not to do so. You can believe that OS X is therefore my work OS of preference. That doesn't in any way diminish my appreciation of Systems 6 to 7, or OSs 7 to 9, on the Macs that were designed to run them. If my IIci/50MHz/128MB could support Tiger I should still not run Tiger on it, but OS 7.6.1 does very well indeed. On a 40MHz '040 IIci, OS 7.6.1 screams. Tiger runs better on a G4/MDD/DP, and that's the size and extent of it. I will not run OS 9.1 on even an upgraded 1400/G3/400MHz when a 9600/G4/800MHz runs 9.2.2 far better. I understand well enough that members of this Army with fewer Macs may wish to experiment, and even to try to push the boundaries of their Macs, but I have no need to do so. As one result of that policy, I have fewer cases of little people turning to me with stubbed toes and skinned knees when they can't deal with their system's demands.Come on! This is supposed to be the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army, not the OSX Macintosh Liberation Army!!!
...But it appears that most everyone here prefers OSX over the classic MacOS! ...
It is odd that the Macintosh chose to use MFS, especially since Apple had been using HFS-type filing systems since the Apple III in 1980, as well as the Lisa. Even more perplexing when one considers that it actually takes more RAM and CPU time for the Finder to "fake" single-leveled psuedo-HFS in a machine that was starved for both.My least favorite Mac OSes were the ones before 3.
You've got a point there. I never actually used OS 9 on anything more recent than a 7300 until a couple of months ago. Then, late last year, I ran 9.2.2 on a 300MHz beige G3, and it was absolutely smoking.OS 9, for the simple fact that it ZOOMS on G3 and especially G4 Macs (I'm a proud user of Mac OS 9.2.1 on my 500 Mhz Quicksilver G4). No other version of the Mac OS I know of runs as fast as OS 9 does on any other Mac.![]()