Mac OS 9

based shitposter

Yeah and no, most things being cooperatively multitasked is horse shit if you're doing a lot of I/O heavy shit, it's basically unusable while transferring large files for example. But if your workload doesn't involve running a lot of applications constantly processing something in the background (which is pretty much most average desktop use) it's perfectly fine and as stable as anything else. OS X was definitely badly needed anyway, though, just as NT was badly needed to replace 9x on the Windows side.

This G4/500 was a bitch to set up with the shitty I/O but once I got everything set up it's perfectly fine, honestly I find OS 7-9 much nicer to use in 2019 than even NT in some cases thanks to shit like Classilla and the shitloads of accessible abandonware for them.

I came here for the shitposter.

it smells in here

You've always been in here, Raj. Stop samefagging, nobody in here wants to buy a MacBook no matter how hard you try to arouse them.

It may be unix for brainlets, but it's still unix so it's automatically better than windows

>Classic Mac OS was much more stable than any version of Windows made in the same time period, and System 7 was basically perfect.
No. Just, no.

>In practice the multi-tasking worked just fine
why would you lie
any single task could (and would) tie up the system completely, like applying a filter to an image

>It was basically unhackable too,
it had no security
like, actually none

It was a kludgy hack of a kludgy hack that Apple had spent that entire decade trying to get rid of.
It's the same shitty MultiFinder design, hastily ported to a new CPU, and then extended for a few years while Apple continued to try to unfuck themselves and get a working OS.

he couldn't get any attention spamming PPC/legacy threads with memes so he's showing off his scat fetish to everyone instead

it's like poetry

Attached: 1542388728211.jpg (366x366, 16K)

>why would you lie
He's not, it just depends on your definition of multi-tasking. Most applications don't really monopolize your processor, and in those cases everything was fine. OS 8.6 also supported a degree of preemptive multitasking on the kernel level which could be accessed with the Multiprocessing Services API, though few applications made good use of it.
>it had no security
Correct. But neither did anything else. So it's not really much of a point against any particular operating system in context.

What the fuck is wrong with that dude. He is here literally 24/7

he's a mentally disabled child who probably got put in his place after saying some dumb shit in a PPC thread way back and now made it his life's goal to be a mild inconvenience to other faceless retards on the internet

he'll probably kill himself eventually if he isn't just a paid shill or bot

by the time of OS 9, XP was on the way, 2000 was out, and even Windows 9x at least had memory protection, nothing like a program dying under Mac OS and then the whole machine bombing out as it dies (Windows still had stability issues due to its poor handling of programs ungracefully dying, but you at least could expect to save your work in your other programs and then reboot).
and the Mac OS was "secure" almost entirely because it wasn't really a target that mattered to anyone due to low marketshare

>Most applications don't really monopolize your processor, and in those cases everything was fine.
It works in the sense that you could have multiple applications open (assuming you had a bunch of RAM (64MB was okay for OS 9, but you really wanted more regardless so you could really crank up memory partition sizes), fucked around with MultiFinder-era memory partitioning in the Get Info box for your programs, or had more recent applications that dynamically asked for memory).

It doesn't work in the sense that just doing a download in the background will have slowed things down, let alone just browsing the internet while waiting for something intensive to run in the background.

Attached: 1525482335890.jpg (560x420, 53K)

Attached: 1530787183369.jpg (560x420, 52K)

Attached: 1554447174362.jpg (560x491, 58K)

>by the time of OS 9, XP was on the way, 2000 was out
As was OS X, with OS X Server 1.0 already available for potential early adopters. Consumer Windows systems also overwhelmingly still shipped with 98SE and ME at this time, 2000 was not ubiquitous.
>Windows 9x at least had memory protection
Not really.
>nothing like a program dying under Mac OS and then the whole machine bombing out as it dies
I really don't think you've used 9x, perhaps you were fortunate enough to grow up using NT 3-4 whose main point of existence was not being vulnerable to these kinds of system-wide mishaps.
>and the Mac OS was "secure" almost entirely because it wasn't really a target that mattered to anyone due to low marketshare
This is true, but remember that I am not the one who claimed OS 9 was secure, it was merely average in such a way that singling it out is a little unfair. Security beyond the fundamentals of access control was barely a concept at that time.
>It works in the sense that you could have multiple applications open
Which, like it or not, is still multitasking. Lackluster and primitive multitasking compared to proper preemptive systems offered in the Windows, Unix et al. worlds indeed, but multitasking nonetheless, which was acceptable in most cases on a single-user desktop where someone was generally focusing on one application at a time.

Attached: 1546706916977.jpg (450x600, 34K)

OS 9 was not Unix. OS X was.
Why do you never do this in Windows threads?

fagOS will never be unix, pajeet

Attached: 1550377213921.png (1245x852, 106K)

We get it, Apple triggers you. But you don't even know what Unix and POSIX are. This has been shown. Sorry that an OS you don't like meets a standard you don't understand.

Your manchild fruit toys will never be UNIX nor POSIX compliant. We get it. Your manchild cult is all you have and you invested your entire self worth into it. Perhaps you should seek professional counseling for your mental illnet.

Attached: 1555010498515.png (506x927, 163K)

Really, why don't they ban the flooding retard? He keeps posting shit and no jannie has ever done anything about it.

You're still posting this even though you get BTFO on it every time. You really think a bug that existed in macOS for two months almost three years ago means it is not POSIX-compliant, despite the fact that the bug was present elsewhere. I know windows pajeets aren't very bright, but this is ridiculous even for you.

can you stop projecting your myriad insecurities and closeted homosexuality on your betters and instead go back to dumping your scat stash? much easier to spot your posts that way and they don't give me brain damage.

they clean out his shit periodically, but the fatty needs his exercise so he'll just go reset the router and come back to share more of his favorite gay porn with us after a short hiatus.

You keep street shitting even though your fruit toys have been proven to be just that and will never be UNIX. We get it, you can only parrot what Timmy boy spoon feeds you since you don't have a mind or opinion of your own.

Attached: 1545243416117.jpg (162x225, 11K)

>fagOS fails POSIX compliance
>that means it's POSIX complaint
Back to your designated shitting street Rakesh.

Yes, you're clearly very upset that people don't use Windows. I get it. But you don't know what Unix is and you have no idea how anything works. Sorry, but you've been BTFO again. So now are you going to post memes or scat?
Stop samefagging, winjeet. You don't even know what POSIX is.

Yes, you're clearly very upset that 95% of thw world uses Windows and Linux instead of your manchildOS. I get it. But you don't know what Unix is and you have no idea how anything works. Sorry, but you've been BTFO again. So now are you going to post memes or scat?

Attached: 1549622471205.jpg (542x417, 115K)

>fagOS fails POSIX compliance
>that means it's POSIX complaint
Back to your designated shitting street Rakesh.

>Not really.
It literally did. The system generally didn't collapse after a single program trashed half of the address space coming down (because it couldn't), at the absolute least. Programs could not write to the memory of other programs (without trying, at least).
Admittedly, IIRC, there's still a bit of common address space in low memory that isn't protected, and Windows does allow ordinary programs to do all kind of hardware access.

I addressed how 9x handles programs dying (namely, non-NT Windows doesn't take too kindly to programs just up and dying and gets plenty unstable), but again, you can at least bring the machine down yourself usually instead of "oops, the shit you were working on in your other programs is gone now because so and so program caused rampant memory corruption as it fell".

>I really don't think you've used 9x, perhaps you were fortunate enough to grow up using NT 3-4 whose main point of existence was not being vulnerable to these kinds of system-wide mishaps.
XP was a godsend. I did use quite a bit of Win2k at the time, but I didn't have it at home. I did know people who did (pirated of course -- no one felt like laying down $400 or whatever for a Win2k license).
Skipped 98, but had a machine with 95 on it and a machine with ME on it (that one got XP like a month after XP's launch). Kinda sucked.
I had an iMac with 9.1 on it as well, and an iBook with 10.1 and 9.2 installed when my brother gave it to me.

OSX Server was far less of an option for Mac users than Win2k was in the Windows world, what with it completely and utterly lacking any desktop facing software, being strictly for server use. NT-based products were at least targeted at workstations and ran ordinary Win32 software.

>Which, like it or not, is still multitasking.
It's shit.

>thw
There's that winjeet English again. Now you're going to say my own words back to me because you can't defend against what I have said. And your image is hilarious if you think that says anything about macOS. But you don't know the history of BSD at all. Do you actually love Windows or are you just shilling it because you are paid?
Nice spam, winjeet.

>95% of thw world uses Windows and Linux instead of your manchildOS.
In fact 98% of the world uses Windows and MacOS/OSX instead of your home-made Linux.
But you''re in denial.

Winjeet has never used Linux.

99% of desktops and servers use Linux and Windows. Literally no one uses machild fruit toys besides literal faggots. Stay in denial.

Cry harder, winjeet.

Yes, you're clearly very upset that 95% of thw world uses Windows and Linux instead of your manchildOS. I get it. But you don't know what Unix is and you have no idea how anything works. Sorry, but you've been BTFO again. So now are you going to post memes or scat?

No matter how much you shill Microsoft will never value you.

No matter how much you street shit Applel will never value you.

Wow, good one. Maybe stick to spamming scat, at least you can't fuck that up.

Yes, you're clearly very upset that 95% of the world uses Windows and Linux instead of your manchildOS. I get it. But you don't know what Unix is and you have no idea how anything works. Sorry, but you've been BTFO again. So now are you going to post memes or scat?

Wow, good one. Maybe stick to spamming scat, at least you can't fuck that up.

No wonder India has never been to the moon.

Of course, you love it pajeet

Damn, you got me with that one. I'd always seen the examples of shittily written software being able to mess with lower addresses and simply assumed there was a lack of memory protection on the entire system, guess not, cool. Though I'll still shit out and maintain that being able to fuck with anything at all like that is pretty bad and still could lead to a lot of problems, even if it was still a bit better than the absolute nothing that Mac OS offered at the same time.
>OSX Server was far less of an option for Mac users than Win2k was in the Windows world
Certainly, but if you really wanted the stability you could still have it, I was just drawing a few parallels that significant technical changes were around the corner in both cases.
>what with it completely and utterly lacking any desktop facing software
Well, there was blue box. Of course 1.x implemented it like shit.
>It's shit.
It is. But my point is that it's nowhere near the utterly unusable mess that people claim it is. It was something desperately in need of replacement, but still something you could make do with. I still like my OS 9 systems just as I like my 9x systems, even if I think they're both technical garbage fires.

Yes, you're clearly very upset that 95% of the world uses Windows and Linux instead of your manchildOS. I get it. But you don't know what Unix is and you have no idea how anything works. Sorry, but you've been BTFO again. So now are you going to post memes or scat?

iToddlers BTFO

Attached: tumblr_olgkmojsIs1tydz8to1_400.gif (400x400, 155K)

So shitty that I saw a mac on the side of the road today and while I did stop to check it out I didn't pick it up

Attached: IMac_G4_sunflower7.png (760x969, 459K)

you're late newfag

>posts a machine that shipped with OS X
Dumbshit.

shipped with os9 too you fuckwit

Only some of them, and only ever as a secondary operating system for legacy compatibility reasons.

oh boy move 'em goalposts you macfag penis pump

No goalposts were moved because they were always OS X machines, with the majority of them being unable to boot OS 9 at all. Sorry your dipshit plea for attention backfired, but you're just an idiot.

>fagOS
Found your problem.

Better than Windows.

Wrong. Nothing is worse than fagOS.

Attached: 1530495675619.png (672x428, 349K)

You can merge folders if you use the terminal, retarded winjeet.

MOST POWERFUL MACINTOSH WAS AN AMIGA

>just use the terminal for a common task on a graphical OS that windows and linux had a better solution to 3 decades ago
Back to your shitting street Pajeet.

Only pajeets are afraid of the terminal, winjeet.

>iPajeet has no defense for his broken toddlerOS
yikes

t. winjeet who fears the terminal

>just use the terminal for a common task on a graphical OS that windows and linux had a better solution to 3 decades ago
Back to your shitting street Pajeet.

You should use the terminal for all file management, pajeet. Why does your kind fear the terminal so much?

Yes.

Just imagine a major computer company just throwing their decades old OS out the window. What do you think?

I used it for work. It crashed every hour at least. It crashed so often that it had a cover up for crashes. Sure some Windows software does that, but you could tell when stuff was rebooting. It was all the time.

Admittedly, it was super comfy not having anything like a registry and being able to move anything anywhere, but I'm not sure if that was good for system stability. It didn't seem to matter since everything crashed all the time.

It was also pretty slow. There was nothing good about it. Apple really ran that shit into the ground. They must've known for some time they were throwing it away.