PDA

View Full Version : 9.1 vs. 9.2.x?



Byrd
27th May 2004, 09:23 PM
Great to see this new forum :)

I'm throwing up between running OS 9.1 or 9.2.2 on a Wallstreet Powerbook w/160MB of RAM which won't be running OS X due to a general level of crappiness of the machine. It's currently running 9.1 and uses about ~ 30 - 50MB of RAM without virtual memory on. Is it worth upgrading to 9.2.2 - can't see much more benefit from it, apart from using more RAM and Discburner software and OS X likes it more.

JB

Danamania
27th May 2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by bYrd@May 27 2004, 09:23 PM
Great to see this new forum :)

I'm throwing up between running OS 9.1 or 9.2.2 on a Wallstreet Powerbook w/160MB of RAM which won't be running OS X due to a general level of crappiness of the machine. It's currently running 9.1 and uses about ~ 30 - 50MB of RAM without virtual memory on. Is it worth upgrading to 9.2.2 - can't see much more benefit from it, apart from using more RAM and Discburner software and OS X likes it more.

JB
os9forever.com (http://www.os9forever.com/) has a page with reasons to use 9.2.2 (http://www.os9forever.com/os9helper.html) over 9.1. I popped 9.2.2 on a 6400 that needed to have MSN messenger running, cos it needed 9.2.2. I didn't really notice much difference though, apart from MSN working :).

dana

LCGuy
28th May 2004, 11:13 AM
If you don't *need* any of the very few features that 9.2.2 provides, IMHO you're better off with 9.1 In my experience its faster, and less crash-prone.

Gothikon
13th June 2004, 09:33 AM
Yeah, I wouldn't run 9.2 unless you actually need to. Also I might be wrong but I seem to remember in the last days of OS 9 it was not such a bad idea to have VM turned on. Although with 160 MB of RAM I wouldn't be worried about the OS using 50MB. That is unless you plan on getting in to photoshop etc.

Currawong
14th June 2004, 05:55 PM
You can install 9.1, then download and install CarbonLib 1.6. That will allow you to run the latest programs that are written in Carbon (ie: run both in 9 and X).

kim jong il
25th June 2004, 08:21 AM
Never did any real speed comparisons as such between the two. With moderate use 9.2.2 crashed about (at least) twice daily for me. Never at a convenient time either. Sadly, the only application, that I am aware of, that ever crashed gracefully was internet explorer. Everything else took the finder and all open app's with it. I got pretty sick of its (OS 9.2.2) instability. You can always use 9.1 and use updated extensions (do this manually) as is mentioned above regarding carbon (amongst others). I have heard that earlier incarnations of OS 9 (9.0.4 - 9.1) were faster and more stable than the final release

I just have to add that I'm somehow comforted that the only good thing that I can say about microsoft is that their software (some of it at least) crashes gracefully (Before any flames start I should point out, for the record, that I have a policy, a matter of principle, of not using any microsoft products on my home machines. As such, I have limited experience.) With OS 9 there were few real choices for web browsers.

cheers, kim