http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/0 9/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do

>>56565030
>arse technica

>you shouldn't be using old versions even if you work perfectly with them
I hate that meme. Let these users enjoy the last good version of Mac OS.

On the other hand, if you install a lightweight, stable version of GNU/Linux, like Debian stable, paired with a "classical" DE like MATE can get you a similar experience today on any computer.

>>56565804
>his os doesn't use cooperative multitasking
also the point isn't really in the DE
>>56565030
guess what: os x is much more complex; and even os x itself was faster before
it'd be more fair to compare mac os 9 with os x 10.9

Well I don't really doubt that a cooperatively multitasked OS can be fast and responsive but considering the disks used in that era I doubt loading the actual applications and OS into memory is really "instantaneous". I hope the guy who relies on MacOS eventually finds a more suitable solution to his problem.

>>56565834
>the point isn't really in the DE
It's one of the points, although not the only one of course. The lack of heavy animations and shiny things help with the perceived speed of the system. What I'm saying is that people that want that kind of experience and are fed up with "modern" desktop environments (but still want the latest browser, etc) can have something similar with Linux (or Windows 7 with the classical theme).

This is so fucking weird I just joined the Mac OS 9 boards a few months ago because I found an abused Mac in the charity dumpster (I volunteer) and wanted to see whats up and now I'm seeing this shit everywhere.

>>56565848

I've been rebuilding a 1998 era gaming PC with a Pentium II, its shocking how snappy Windows 98 is.

>>56565933
Maybe because if you get an old machine you can get the best parts from that particular era without having to pay a premium for them since they're old and useless anyway. That doesn't reflect the experience for the average user of that operating system... I can assure you that windows 98 wasn't "snappy" on most computers back in the day.

>>56565933
and it's UI is more logical. not a mess of pajeet turd inconsistency like windows 10 :(

File: r1nx7a7kgp6x.jpg (597KB, 4000x6000px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 4000x6000px

>>56565984

Its even snappy on my ThinkPad 380.

>>56565933
Probably because of the hard disk I'd guess. The biggest bottleneck as far as performance even today is the hard disk. Back in the 9x era they were way slower than they are even today.

Not a bad article I think but the author made the mistake of calling Classilla a fork of Firefox. Classilla is a fork of Mozilla, not Firefox. Specifically Classilla is forked from the last version of Mozilla that still worked on classic macOS.

bump because this is somewhat interesting

>>56565804
doesn't run the software though, that's honestly one of the best parts of OS 9, there's so much nifty shit from big proprietary vendors and literally whos alike and it's easily the most well-archived platform when it comes to non-games software thanks to the macintosh garden and various public FTPs

>>56565761
this

still the point stands, say what you want about mac os 9 shitty internals (it was shit), it still is the best gui it ever existed, both on how it looks and how it functions

>>56565804
>GNU/Linux
>"classical" DE like MATE
>similar experience today

nope, not even close

I use Debian Stable + Xfce and while I'm very satisfied, GTK is way too heavy and slow.
And I don't think it's even GTK (or Qt, etc) fault either, X11 is slow.
An interface as good as Mac OS 9 will never be developed again

>>56565834
>10.9
10.6 was the pinnacle of Mac OS X

>>56569069
> GTK is way too heavy and slow
What kind of toaster are you using as your computer?

>>56569069
or 10.4.
but i mean mac os 9 = mac os x 10.9
like 9 versions

>>56565848
>I doubt loading the actual applications and OS into memory is really "instantaneous"
old Mac OS had pretty quick boot times but applications definitely varied, it took about 3-5 seconds to load classilla up on my G4 with a 10k cheetah disk, maybe 6 or 7 for something big like photoshop

>>56569108
>What kind of toaster are you using as your computer?
You don't get it, do you?

It's the simple things, like drag and drop, window repainting and the whole window re-parenting hack that X11 window managers use. Layer upon layer of abstraction upon the X protocol compatibility. Modern compositors are another level of abstraction. All these abstractions add up and there is a noticeable lag. There is always a disconnect between your actions and how the X11 interprets those actions.

Besides X11 since it's inception was designed to make the most powerful workstation feel slower than even the most underpowered macintosh. It's a tragedy that X11 (the first modular software disaster) is still the only solution for graphics on GNU/Linux (and wayland is not the answer)

In Mac OS 9 everything felt instant and connected.

>>56569150
>>56565848
Mac OS 9 memory management (or lack of memory management) is unlike anything else

Mac OS 9 didn't support memory fragmentation or dynamic memory allocation. If I'm not mistaken it didn't even support swap memory. An application requested the memory it would need and the OS handed a contiguous are of memory to the application. The application had total control to the memory, the OS couldn't reclaim it or manage it.

That meant that Mac OS 9 had crazy memory requirements and it's true. Macs had a LOT of memory back then because memory management sucked.

But that had a positive effect too. Coupled with the universal menu all applications remained loaded in memory ALL the time. Once you started them everything was instant, no swapping out of memory and swapping back in in low memory situations. Therefore everything was blazing fast. It was a primitive system but if you had money to burn in buying extra RAM, Mac OS 9 rewarded you with a fast and fluid experience unlike anything to this day. Well... until an application misbehaved and then everything crashed... it happened quite often

Mac OS 9 was a strange and beautiful beast