9.2 versus 9.1 as Classic |
October, 15, 2002 8:59 PM |
fuzzball |
Is there any benefits to using 9.2 as the Classic versus 9.1? 9.2 is trickier to install so is it worth the effort? |
. |
RE: 9.2 versus 9.1 as Classic |
October, 16, 2002 4:37 PM |
powderhaus |
. |
The difference was comatability with X. I just left my 9.1 the way it was and created a second OS 9 disk with my Firewire hard drive and put 9.2 on it. I use 9.1 as my bootable and 9.2 as my classic mode. |
. |
RE: 9.2 versus 9.1 as Classic |
October, 16, 2002 7:21 AM |
OSXGuru |
. |
I'm not sure--I have used both, and not noticed a great deal of difference. The trick with installing 9.2 is that it won't be bootable (outside of Classic) on older machines, unless you apply the special procedures noted at http://www.os9forever.com/ or the like. And you can't boot from the Mac OS X 9.2 Install CD either. So you need to do the install while running in Classic. It turns out that you can actually use a 9.2 Install CD as your Classic disk, which is kind of cool--I hadn't thought of doing that. Or you can use your 9.1 installation as Classic and run the upgrade from there. |