but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,
If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't
run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that
says you can't use them and newer systems also.
In article <slrns4ct35.ero.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> >> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
http://morrick.me/archives/9220
Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro >> > route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you >> > have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of
TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.
Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.
There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger, but both of
them as so ancient no one should be using either,
Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my preference over anything else.
I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!
On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more comfortable than anything else.
In article <um4trd$90cs$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:
On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my
preference over anything else.
I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!
On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more
comfortable than anything else.
I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...
Ha, sorry about the thread necromancy. Yeah, it's a 2021 thread... :)
I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.
Yup, Tiger was last OSX that ran Classic Mode.
So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.
Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running
Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.
I've got a (2009?) Mac Pro packed away in the shed that I installed El Capitan to via a firmware hack. It ran it like an absolute champ, used
it as a photo retouching workstation for a couple of years because my
2016 "bleeding edge" Mac Mini struggled with the latest version of
Adobe CC... Interestingly, when I switched out the stock hard drive for
a SSD that problem pretty much disappeared.
Anyway, point I was getting to was that it's impressive how, in
general, Macs have good forward compatibility and will often work fine
with several later generations of OS.
In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:
I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.
I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be true SSDs however, more like adapters.
It would be cool if someone made a true SSD to SCSI device, though I don't think it would make any noticable difference on an old mac like the LC
III.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 55:12:46 |
Calls: | 6,650 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,200 |
Messages: | 5,330,748 |