Thread
OS 8.6
How's the stability of OS 8.6 vs 9.2? Any difference? My wallstreet came with 8.6 and I might just keep it on there rather than putting 9 on as originally planned. It seems to have all the good features of OS9 but it's missing some of the pointless ones as well as some of the stupid-ness (e.g. 8.6 doesn't the Applications folder in its place).
8.6 is considered extremely stable in comparison to all earlier versions of the Mac OS. I'm not sure how it stacks up against 9.2.x, but bugs and incompatibilities shouldn't be much of an issue if you can live without the newer features in 9.
Cool! Pity I don't actually have an install CD for it, but oh well. I was surprised by how close it is to 9. There's hardly any difference.
That's not what I've heard re: the stability though. I always thought all the systems after 7.6 were considered less reliable than the earlier ones. Could just be the people who told me that have been talking through their hats though.
That's not what I've heard re: the stability though. I always thought all the systems after 7.6 were considered less reliable than the earlier ones. Could just be the people who told me that have been talking through their hats though.
I always found OS9.0-9.1 to be just as quick as 8.6, without the bloat of the 9.x.x updates.
If you've got/can find 8.5, it's a free download upgrade from there.
HATS!! Yes they were. Generally 8.0 and 8.5 are a bit unstable, but the free point upgrades fix them right up. 7.5.x versions are way more unstable in my experience, especially on PPCs. I can't speak for 9.0 as I've never used it.I always thought all the systems after 7.6 were considered less reliable than the earlier ones. Could just be the people who told me that have been talking through their hats though.
Another thing to keep in mind, if you have a system that will allow you to install and run 9.2.2, then you should probably use it because it runs noticeably faster than 8.6-9.1.
That's surprising. I have a cd of 9.2.1 but for some reason the updater to 9.2.2 won't work.
Are you using the right localisation of the updater for your copy of 9.2.1? I seem to remember having problems updating 9.1 (which is what my disc is) to 9.2.2 on my G3 as it complained I was using the wrong updater - I managed to get another updater which worked; can't remember exactly which one it was I needed now though. What is the error that you get?
You have to have a copy of 9 installed for the 9.2 updater to work, I think. I remember reading something about that in another forum somewhere where some old Mac users who never updated beyond 7 or 8 were trying to install 9.2 but couldn't because you have to have some version of 9 already for the installer to work. Can anyone verify this??
You mean they were trying to install the OS 9.2.2 updater on OS7/8? Of course that's not going to work, they are updaters, not OSes. That would be like downloading the XP Service Pack 2 update and trying to install it on Windows 98, thinking that would give you Windows XP! You of course need the full version of Windows XP to do that, not just the Service Pack.
The update path for OS 9 is 9.0.x (any version) > 9.1 > 9.2.1 > 9.2.2 - updates must be installed in that order, you can't just go straight to 9.2.2 using that updater from 9.0.4, for instance. As you have 9.2.1 (presumably already installed from the CD), 9.2.2 is the final one in the sequence to get the latest revision of OS 9, so if you get the right 9.2.2 update for your copy of 9 it should work.
The update path for OS 9 is 9.0.x (any version) > 9.1 > 9.2.1 > 9.2.2 - updates must be installed in that order, you can't just go straight to 9.2.2 using that updater from 9.0.4, for instance. As you have 9.2.1 (presumably already installed from the CD), 9.2.2 is the final one in the sequence to get the latest revision of OS 9, so if you get the right 9.2.2 update for your copy of 9 it should work.
No, I mean trying to install over 7 or 8 from a retail 9.2.1 CD and the installer wouldn't run.
Ah, I see - that makes a bit more sense! It sounds like Heebs has already got 9.2.1 installed from his CD though, as otherwise he wouldn't have been able to try loading the 9.2.2 updater and finding that it doesn't want to work?
You think maybe OS9 Helper might work?
Unlikely, given that the only purpose of OS9 Helper is to bypass the check for a G3 or later processor, which is required for 9.2.x releases. The fact that the 9.2.1 CD has worked (as far as I gather) suggests that isn't the problem - I reckon it could well be the issue with different localisations of the updater that I think is what I encountered. The error message that it's producing will tell us whether this is the cause. Alternatively I seem to remember seeing a thing about "big system morsels" errors with the 9.2.x updaters - I've never got one but apparently they can occur randomly, and I think Apple have some info about it somewhere if that is the error.
Yes that's exactly what it is, Macster. I'm using the Aussie version of the system. I don't know where to get the updater for that version of it.
"International English" being a euphemism for "American English" I presume. 
But yeah you're probably right, that'd be the one I'd say. As we French say, "mucho gracias, señor"!
But yeah you're probably right, that'd be the one I'd say. As we French say, "mucho gracias, señor"!No, International English means English speaking countries outside the United States and Canada."International English" being a euphemism for "American English" I presume.
I suppose so - I think it was 9.0 that dropped the actual ("International English" being a euphemism for "American English" I presume.
) English versions wasn't it? You know, those ones where Trash was Wastebasket and Color was Colour? I remember seeing those on Macs back in the day, but all of the pre-9 OSes I have (7.6, 8.x etc) I have are the "Trash" ones as that seems to be all that is available on the internet. I do have a couple of old restore CDs for Macs I don't have actually - I suppose they are probably the UK localisations. I'm used to Trash now, anyway Quite funny really, how they think we call bins "Wastebaskets"!
Yeah, exactly - it will have some localised elements but it will be an all-inclusive thing which, like everything international these days, will use American English.
Goshdangit!! [8D] My Wallstreet came with the British version installed too. First time I've ever used it - nice to see Wastebasket and Colour for once. It's the main thing that stops me from upgrading that machine to 9.I suppose so - I think it was 9.0 that dropped the actual ("International English" being a euphemism for "American English" I presume.
I know we always want the thing we cannot have, but I always considered OS 8.6 to be the best classic OS for PPC.
OS 9 and above started getting really bloated, in order to support OS X and its technologies.
I still use OS 8.6 on my SuperMac, and Lombard...I really only use OS X to surf...
OS 9 and above started getting really bloated, in order to support OS X and its technologies.
I still use OS 8.6 on my SuperMac, and Lombard...I really only use OS X to surf...
Trash versus WasteBasket labels? ResEdit is your friend.
Yeah I'd probably have kept it, if I owned the CDs. Ended up putting OS 9 on the Wallstreet. Can't see much advantage to it except that in 8.6 if you go to "Get Info" without choosing one of the submenus, it does nothing. Very annoying. By the way, I love your name and avatar! [8D]
Tried that years ago. No way to do it. I managed to change "alias" to "nom-de-plume" though. Back in my crazy ResEditing days when I changed the Apple menu to a piece of swiss cheese. [8D]
[
] ]'> Thank you re: my name and avatar. After 10 years (maybe 12) of surfing the net and coming up with the dumbest, most embarressing "handles"/user-names, I finally have stumbled onto something I like [] ]'>Oh, and the other reason OS 8.6 is good is for older PowerBooks, like the 1400 and 2400, where you only have limited RAM. The OS 8.6 memory requirements are much lighter than OS 9, and you get much better battery life in OS 8.6 than earlier OS 8.1 and even 8.5 (well, at least 10% or more battery life).
With the Wallstreet, you are probably better off with OS 9.
heebie
System CD numbers, for your capacious memory bank:
System 7.1: X691-0086
System 7.5: ZP691-0246-A
System 7.5.2: U95073-0528
System 7.5.3: U96073-016A
OS 7.6.1: U97073-052A (691-1613-A)
OS 8.0: Z97050-098B (International, ie not North American)
OS 8.1: Z97050-315A
OS 8.5: ZU691-2017-A
OS 8.6: B691-2369-A (British. A brief flirtation)
OS 9.1: Z691-2748-A
OS 9.2.1: Z691-3334-A
Never let it be said that Apple believes in consistent numbering systems.
As has already been noted, you need consistent localizations to install an update over an upgrade (or a preceding update). Stick to Z-prefix—and that applies to downloadable updates—and you should have no trouble in Australia.
de
System CD numbers, for your capacious memory bank:
System 7.1: X691-0086
System 7.5: ZP691-0246-A
System 7.5.2: U95073-0528
System 7.5.3: U96073-016A
OS 7.6.1: U97073-052A (691-1613-A)
OS 8.0: Z97050-098B (International, ie not North American)
OS 8.1: Z97050-315A
OS 8.5: ZU691-2017-A
OS 8.6: B691-2369-A (British. A brief flirtation)
OS 9.1: Z691-2748-A
OS 9.2.1: Z691-3334-A
Never let it be said that Apple believes in consistent numbering systems.
As has already been noted, you need consistent localizations to install an update over an upgrade (or a preceding update). Stick to Z-prefix—and that applies to downloadable updates—and you should have no trouble in Australia.
de
I have 160 megs so plenty of ram for os 9. It runs very well for everything except web browsing, for which it pretty much stinks. iCab is very lousy; Netscape is slightly faster and nicer looking. Being used to OS X and a dual core, I really do notice its substandard multitasking abilities. Haven’t tried Wamcom just yet. I rather wish I’d just paid a little extra for a Pismo or something.
Thanque you for the CD numbers, equill. I’ve filed them alongside my collection of Calvin Klein boxer shorts reference codes and Roger Whittaker sheet music catalogue numbers. [8D]
Speaking of international systems and how my Wallstreet originally came with the British 8.6… I also noticed yesterday that it has a pound symbol instead of a hash - as God intended! So maybe my wallstreet is a closet pom? If I ever hear it complain about the weather then my suspicion is confirmed.
Thanque you for the CD numbers, equill. I’ve filed them alongside my collection of Calvin Klein boxer shorts reference codes and Roger Whittaker sheet music catalogue numbers. [8D]
Speaking of international systems and how my Wallstreet originally came with the British 8.6… I also noticed yesterday that it has a pound symbol instead of a hash - as God intended! So maybe my wallstreet is a closet pom? If I ever hear it complain about the weather then my suspicion is confirmed.
The miserable performance on the Web by Macs with OS 9.x is a consequence of program support, or rather the lack of it, as far as current browsers go. The attempt by site proprietors to enforce their view of what we should use is reprehensible. My PB1400/400 (Sonnet), nonetheless and bravely still gives a good account of itself, even on dial-up and Mozilla 1.0.2, when I am in the boondocks. That's a feature of its speed, of course, because it is gradually becoming less accomplished as sites get more feachers.
I have a Summer 2001 Indigo iMac/500, assembled in 'Czechoslovakia', that I bought near-new from a British migrant to Australia in Feb. 2004. Its Apple Pro keyboard has a 3/£ key (option-3) rather than a 3/# (shift-3). It also has §/± in place of `/~, which is handy for some technical writing.
de
Yes, I originally hoped to go for the leanest browser possible but naturally hardly anything displays properly on those systems. Couldn't even get through the wireless logon page with my old versions of IE/Netscape.
At least the new netscape displays pages properly. But seriously, surely someone can put together a decent browser for os9! It's not dead yet.
At least the new netscape displays pages properly. But seriously, surely someone can put together a decent browser for os9! It's not dead yet.