Hi. I just bought a Mac G4 with OSX. I copied my Photoshop 5.5 from my iMac to the G4 as I no longer needed to use the iMac. But everytime I start P.S, the Classic OS starts in the G4. It’s very slow and buggy. It’s crashed quite a few times and when I click on the image icons it just sits there witout opening them. So I have to force quit the application. Is that normal or do I have bad karma????
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Photoshop 5.5 will not run under OS X, so the Classic environment has to start in order for your old version of Photoshop to run.
And quite frankly, it probably would be more prudent to reinstall your old applications as opposed to just copying them over from your iMac.
Sounds like you’ll need to do some troubleshooting in the Classic environment.
Start with resetting your Photoshop preferences and moving any third party plugins to a different folder in order to rule them out as a possible cause for trouble.
You don’t have bad karma. I just recently upgraded to OSX and have been having problems ever since. Instead of using OS Classic I just restart in OS 9.9.2. You might want to reinstall 9.2.2 in ADDITION to OSX. Several places in the Adobe site talk about it. It takes away some memory, but helps with the frustration of Classic. Good Luck. NB
Or find a [legal] version of PS v7 (e.g. via eBay) and buy it to run under OS X. Or scratch up enough for one of the Creative Suite sets, remembering that manuals will be a separate and extra cost purchase.
You all are most likley having problems because you are new to OSX and don’t have the patience to learn, and are trying to run software that is not made to run in OSX.
OSX is much better and much more stable than OS9. anyone who says different is showing their ignorance of the new system and how well it works.
At this point I still dispute the claim that OS X is "more stable than OS X". You were accusing us Mac OS 9.x holdouts of ignorance about a year ago, but now I see more and more users saying that OS X was "beta" software before the current Panther release. I certainly don’t remember drives being fried before OS X, unlike what happened with the first 10.2.8 release, later withdrawn.
Mac OS 9.2.2 has been absolutely stable for me, both on the Frankenmac Beige G4 and on the new dual processor G4. I read about users OS X problems all the time here and on the Apple boards. The OS itself may not freeze or crash, but other stuff happens, like font management problems, programs quitting, etc.
Now that I have Panther, albeit dormant on a separate drive, I choose to boot straight into 9.2.2 for the time being. I have no doubt that I will gradually move up to Panther, eventually, but I just wanted to speak out against the "greater stability" myth. Mac OS 9.2.2 is totally stable.
But there is no way in hell that OS 9 is more stable than OSX Panther. Not to mention the fact you can do so much more at once, without the possibility or bringing the system to a screeching halt because you are trying to do too much at once. Tell me you can, in OS9, Automate a folder full of RAW images to web gallery, while scanning, burning a DVD, surfing the web, and making PDFs in ID with 30 to 40 apps running in the background. All on 1 gig of RAM
You can’t. OS9 would lock up so fast.
you may think OS9 is faster and better, but its not true any more. Just because an update just happen to fry the new Firewire 800 drives does not mean OSX is bad. Force yourself to just use OSX for 2 weeks, you will never go back. Admittedly having all OSX software helps. trying to run old classic apps is just plain idiotic. If thats all you have why bother getting OSX. But once you’ve become accustomed to OSX, OS9 will seem clunky & jerky and a PITA.
Like I said give it 2 weeks. Its just like a WACOM tablet, throw the mouse in the draw for 2 weeks and you will never go back. OSX is the same.
the only thing I can think of is people afraid of the unknown and OSX is uncharted territory. Most are afraid of change.
One other thing OSX is not a beta product. The only reason anyone would say this is because they have never tried using it (apply my 2 week rule), and are repeating something someone else said that doesn’t have a clue.
The only problem is that you seem to take this issue rather personally. What I said and maintain is that asserting that "OS X is more stable than Mac OS 9.2.2" is a fallacy. In my view and experience, 9.2.2 is stable in absolute terms. An OS can’t be "more stable" than one that is stable. That’s what I said.; that’s what I think.
It may very well have to do with the way I use my computer. Just to take up some of your examples, I never work with Web Gallery, never use JPEG files for anything, never do anything for the Web. I never automate folders of anything, or make PDFs in ID or any other application. Yes, I would like to scan and do something else at the same time; this is something I’m looking forward to doing in the near future, now that I can. But none of that has to do with greater or lesser stability. We’re not discussing versatility, functionality or speed.
I’m not saying Mac OS 9 is better than OS X. There are many good things about OS X. What I was specifically addressing was the stability issue. I stand by what I wrote. Calling OS X "more stable than Mac OS 9.2.2" is perpetuating a myth.
Finally, your condescending attitude towards those of us who are not as enamored of this new OS X is presumptuous at best. I tried OS X for months, all the way through the first release of Jaguar, and I admit that the shortcomings of my Frankenmac contributed greatly to my frustration at the time. But that’s in the past; before finally deciding to buy the Dual G4, I had the opportunity to work several hours a day on a G5, exclusively in OS X, for almost seven weeks. There was much about OS X that I admire, but I still can’t overcome my visceral aversion to the OS X interface, the abominable Dock, the bouncing icons, the color buttons, the handling of fonts, the incredibly tortuous and arcane way of attempting to install custom keyboard layouts in the system. For those reasons, among others, I decided to get the G4, just so I can still boot straight into 9.2.2.
Calling OS X "more stable than Mac OS 9.2.2" is perpetuating a myth.
That is not my impression but it is clear that experiences (and tastes!) very greatly among users. Also I think that the term "stability" means a different thing to different people.
To me, a stable operating system means one that doesn’t fall over, and doesn’t stall (appear to hang and then resume). That means that whatever a particular application does, it does not affect the ability of other processes, whether background or not, to carry out their tasks successfully.
All the Mac OS operatings systems that I’ve used, from 8.0 through 10.3.2, were stable to a degree. However there was one thing I noticed before 10.0. If an application hung then it would have to be force-quit in order to continue to work on the computer. After force-quitting an application, there was an even chance that the system would be left in a state whereby the quickest, and perhaps only, resolution was to restart the computer. Sometimes I was not able to switch to other applications to save their data before restarting. I got around this by learning to save my documents often (a technique I picked up from Windows at the time).
On my machine, Internet Explorer in Mac OS 9 would crash perhaps once a day. About half the time it did this I would have to restart the computer. Since I was in the habit of keeping my Mac switched on (but sleeping when not in use) this meant a forced restart approximately once every two days.
When I installed Mac OS 10.0 I noticed several things: 1) there wasn’t much native software about, unless you only needed to email, browse and play music; 2) the GUI was slow, particularly on a G3 iBook. Window resizes (which were now live) were horriblly slow; 3) Internet Explorer crashed frequently (say, 5 to 10 times per day). But, 4) the OS kept on running! When IE crashed, I simply restarted IE; 5) although the GUI was slow, it didn’t matter as much as you would think because the system was very responsive when switching to other applications; 6) Finder fonts were blurry on a CRT monitor, except on IE which was even worse: its fonts were unsmoothed and spidery.
I had some start-up and wake from sleep issues which I later isolated to my SCSI card if a running device wasn’t plugged in, but apart from that I noticed that the OS was stable. Applications crashed more frequently than in Mac OS 9, but all I needed to do was to restart the application, not the computer.
Ramón, I for one respect your preference for Mac OS 9; after your experience who wouldn’t?; but I can affirm that this user has found Mac OS X to be very pleasant to use, and like previous iterations of the Mac OS each release has got better and better. When I see a Mac OS 9 machine now I have fond memories but I think its look and feel are dated, in much the same way as I think that elements of Windows are dated.
I like the Dock but there seem to be many who don’t. It behaves itself much better than the old Application Switcher palette and gives a lot of information at a glance. I don’t like the rollover magnification effect and have switched it off, but the bouncing icons are useful because they tell me when a background application is waiting to receive input.
As far as Photoshop performance is concerned I have not noticed a great deal of difference between Mac OS 9 and X, but then I deal with small files so my view of the world is somewhat limited. I’m not greatly concerned about who prefers Mac OS 9 and who prefers Mac OS X: as long as you’re using a Mac I’m happy for you.
Both on my Frankenmac and on the new G4, Photoshop 7.0.1 is definitely snappier when booted into Mac OS 9.2.2.
Once I got rid of the potential troublemakers like the Desktop Printer extension, the Control Strip, all "Sprocket" extensions, OS 9.2.2 has been rock solid for me.
Yes, MS IE can be a nasty one, but I found that if I give it plenty of RAM, launch it last, quit it first and purge the memory often, even that beast can be tamed.
The one thing I’m really going to enjoy is being able to scan and work on something else at the same time. Scanning is the only operation I can imagine running in the background while I do something else.
For the time being, I’m staying with Photoshop 7.0.1. I know I’ve barely scratched the surface of the program and, at this stage, I do not feel confident to decide whether I’m ready for Photoshop 8. That will give me time to decide whether I want the full Chicken Suite or just upgrade Photoshop. I find myself using Illustrator and the unspeakable QXP page layout application, less and less. The ability to work with 16-bit files in Photoshop is very appealing, of course. Given Adobe’s generous upgrading policy, maybe I’ll just wait for Photoshop 9.
Whenever I encounter a friend who is still on OS 9, as I did the other day, my jaw is almost ready to drop. I find it difficult to comphrehend. From my own experience OS X is such a leap forward that I can’t imagine not using it. But of the millions of Mac users it’s safe to bet there’s going to be those who prefer the previous (Classic) Mac OS. As mentioned, alot of that depends on personal taste and how one uses their computer. I went back and played in OS 9 after reading this thread. It was interesting but I didn’t stay for long. Strange though, on the Elements forum I was getting gently chided for being on 10.1 just before Panther was released. Like I’m a dinosaur. I upgraded and appreciate the new features and increased speed. I was happy with 10.1 but the prospect of increased speed and using OS 10.2 and above applications like Safari was the clincher.
All the Mac OS operatings systems that I’ve used, from 8.0 through 10.3.2 …
You’re a newcomer! 🙂
I’ve gone through all the Mac operating systems over the last 20 years. Maybe that has something to do with my dislike of OS X. As a 96-year-old lady told the judge when asked why she wanted to divorce her husband after 78 years, "Enough is enough!". 😀
My friend you are wrong. The inherent nature of OS X (versions 10.2 and above) is rock solid. I used all previous versions of the Mac OS, and there is no comparison to the stability of OS X. Even 10.1, that I called still Beta, was at least as stable as any version of OS 9.
The fact that many, many folks fully conversant with OS 9 find 10.2 and above far more solid says to me that those folks with stability problems not due to older boxes are anomalies, and need to fix their installs.
I put off the OSX move as long as possible. Illustrator CS tipped the scale. I too have used every Mac OS since system 4 and I feel that OS10.3.2 is the best OS yet. Sure it still needs some work in a few areas. But As die hard an OS9 user I was, I can’t imagine going back. It just takes a bit to get used to.
I’m curious to find out which OS X versions from the first to the latest had to be purchased at retail over just ordering the $20 dollar full install upgrade cd from Apple.
When I got my first Mac, it came with a full install 8.0 cd with a free 8.1 full install upgrade cd from Apple. (I have dialup and didn’t want to go through lengthy downloads.) Then later I had to pay $100 retail for full install 8.5 with the $20 full install upgrade cd to 8.6. OS 9 cost $100+ retail, again, and now I need to get 9.2.1 $100+ for full install, as well, which comes to a grand total of $320 for an operating system that’s a bit speedier and less buggy.
When I got my G3 it cam with 8.1, $20 got me 8.5, 8.6 was a free download. OS 9 was $100something all upgrades to 9.2.2 free. OSX $129 I think, upgrade to 10.1 free, 10.2 $129 updates to 10.2.8 free. 10.3 $129 updates free.
According to the press release <http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/1014_os85.html>, the suggested price was $99. Maybe you qualified for a discount Buko? Did you buy an 8.1 machine shortly before the 8.5 release?
