OS9 vs Classic
OS9 vs Classic
- Subject: OS9 vs Classic
- From: Mark Tennent <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:58:12 +0100
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 05:41 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
If you find it considerably slower on OSX then on OS9, as your question
seems to imply, consider that pretty much *everything* (graphic apps
like
Adobe's) is considerably slower on OSX than on their OS9 counterpart.
I have to disagree there. We find that some applications actually run
faster in Classic than in OS9 native. Plus we get the wonderful
multi-tasking and computer stability that OSX allows. It's perfectly
possible to leave an application running in Classic and get on with
other tasks in OSX (such as preparing the bill). Yet the same
application running in OS9 monopolises the whole Mac.
QuarkXPress is a perfect example. When running in classic, set it to
scroll a long job to print - such as a book full of images. In OS9
that's all a Mac can do but the same XPress scrolling the same job when
running in Classic not only allows us to work with OSX native
applications at the same time but also other Classic apps as well. In
the unlikely event of XPress crashing (ha ha), it's only Classic
affected and not the rest of your Mac. The time saved in such
circumstances far outweigh any slight slowdown some applications may
seem to have in Classic.
Mark Tennent
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.