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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, International English means English speaking countries outside the United States and Canada."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"!
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"!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...
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.
I agree. With several New World Macs running OS 10.2.x to 10.4.x, I haven't pushed any of my seriously upgraded (G3) Old World beige Macs into OS X. Not even my two 'original' Beige G3s (DT and MT). The OW beiges include several 7300s, a 9600, a 9500 and a PowerTower Pro (under construction).
OS 9 is a damned good OS that has never given me bloat, sloth or fall-over problems even in memory-guzzling soundwave editing.
de
OS 9 is a damned good OS that has never given me bloat, sloth or fall-over problems even in memory-guzzling soundwave editing.
de
Oh dear, At Ease! I think kids should be allowed to muck around using the real thing. Any kid with a brain will work it out in no time - it's easy to them; same as how kids can easily pick up multiple languages when they're young.
P.S. Equill, re: bloat - 9.2.2 seems to run OK once it starts but after starting up my 190cs running 7.5 yesterday in about 30 seconds, I notice how much crap this thing must be loading at startup - it takes nearly two minutes!
P.S. Equill, re: bloat - 9.2.2 seems to run OK once it starts but after starting up my 190cs running 7.5 yesterday in about 30 seconds, I notice how much crap this thing must be loading at startup - it takes nearly two minutes!
I agree about At Ease. The only reason I brought it up is because I was working on an iMac yesterday with 8.6, At Ease with a password that none of us knew (school surplus machine), and a broken CD-ROM drive!
And about 9.2.2 bloat--ever notice how many extensions come pre-loaded on an OS 9 install? Add in a few drivers, etc and you have a parade that fills up the width of the screen and then some.
And about 9.2.2 bloat--ever notice how many extensions come pre-loaded on an OS 9 install? Add in a few drivers, etc and you have a parade that fills up the width of the screen and then some.
For a machine running classic Mac OS and ONLY classic Mac OS, iCab is your only real choice since it is the only browser for classic that is still being actively developed. It may not be as good as OS X browsers, but at least there is still hope for future improvement. All other browsers that run under classic are dead.
Btw IE5 came with my os9 install disc - so that makes it from 2001 or earlier. I couldn't even log in to this wireless point using that because its cookies system was outdated or something. And it's definitely not as speedy as Netscape. Well, not on this machine. [8D]
To be fair to OS 9, if not to Apple, some of the extra 'bloat' with each increment of System/OS number is occasioned by the attempt at backward (hardware) compatibilty. As one tiny example, how many Ethernet extensions does one need: NuBus, PCI, LC PDS, &c., &c? TokenRing hangs on in the OSs long after most people (especially those under 50 years of age) have ceased to remember it. Remedy? Kill! Kill! Let Extensions Manager be your friend. Department of Silly Voices, bite the dust! Personal Web Sharing, get thee hence! And so on. It's possible to get OS 9 lean enough that the real advances can begin to shine through. Judicious excision should not result in OS instability.
de
I tried that but you'd be surprised what an effect it has. Before I got wifi up and running, I trashed all the internet extensions, and so Quicktime wouldn't work!
A whole lot of other programmes went on strike as well due to various missing libraries that I was sure I didn't need.
Then when I eventually reinstalled the internet gear, something else must have still been missing that stopped TCP/IP from recognising the connection.
Even with all the superflous gear missing, it only shaved maybe 15 seconds off the boot time.
A whole lot of other programmes went on strike as well due to various missing libraries that I was sure I didn't need.
Then when I eventually reinstalled the internet gear, something else must have still been missing that stopped TCP/IP from recognising the connection.
Even with all the superflous gear missing, it only shaved maybe 15 seconds off the boot time.