Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.

So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.

inez

iehsmith wrote:
> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>
> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>
> inez
>
You should be able to convert the files with Appleworks.
If you have OS 9 on an external drive it is recommended that you
dismount and remove the drive prior to the upgrade.



--
http://intonewdecade.blogspot.com/

iehsmith wrote:
> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>
> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>
> inez
>
You should be able to convert the files with Appleworks.
If you have OS 9 on an external drive it is recommended that you
dismount and remove the drive prior to the upgrade.



--
http://intonewdecade.blogspot.com/

On 2/20/06 2:57 PM, Marshall commented:

> iehsmith wrote:
>> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
>> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
>> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
>> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
>> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
>> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
>> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
>> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>>
>> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
>> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>>
>> inez
>>
> You should be able to convert the files with Appleworks.
> If you have OS 9 on an external drive it is recommended that you
> dismount and remove the drive prior to the upgrade.

OS 9.2.2 and OS 10.2.2 are on separate internal drives.
I don't have AppleWorks.

inez

On 2/20/06 2:57 PM, Marshall commented:

> iehsmith wrote:
>> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
>> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
>> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
>> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
>> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
>> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
>> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
>> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>>
>> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
>> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>>
>> inez
>>
> You should be able to convert the files with Appleworks.
> If you have OS 9 on an external drive it is recommended that you
> dismount and remove the drive prior to the upgrade.

OS 9.2.2 and OS 10.2.2 are on separate internal drives.
I don't have AppleWorks.

inez

In article <C01F72E0.493CE%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> ,
iehsmith <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>
> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>
> inez

First the good news: installing an updated version of OS X should not
mess up your existing OS 9.2.2 installation.

There's other good news. Each successive version of OS X has offered
better performance- even on old systems, as long as the old system has
had enough RAM and hard drive space to give it a fighting chance of
running efficiently.

The bad news is that each successive version of OS X has required more
hard drive space and somewhat more RAM. However, assuming that you have
at least 256 MB of RAM and a couple of free GB of drive space, you
should find OS X 3.8 or later an improvement-- without wrecking your
existing 'classic OS' installation.

===============================================
remove 'nospam' when replying

In article <C01F72E0.493CE%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> ,
iehsmith <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>
> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>
> inez

First the good news: installing an updated version of OS X should not
mess up your existing OS 9.2.2 installation.

There's other good news. Each successive version of OS X has offered
better performance- even on old systems, as long as the old system has
had enough RAM and hard drive space to give it a fighting chance of
running efficiently.

The bad news is that each successive version of OS X has required more
hard drive space and somewhat more RAM. However, assuming that you have
at least 256 MB of RAM and a couple of free GB of drive space, you
should find OS X 3.8 or later an improvement-- without wrecking your
existing 'classic OS' installation.

===============================================
remove 'nospam' when replying

On 2/20/06 6:23 PM, Alan Zisman commented:

> In article <C01F72E0.493CE%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> ,
> iehsmith <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
>> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
>> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
>> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
>> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
>> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
>> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
>> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>>
>> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
>> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>>
>> inez
>
> First the good news: installing an updated version of OS X should not
> mess up your existing OS 9.2.2 installation.
>
> There's other good news. Each successive version of OS X has offered
> better performance- even on old systems, as long as the old system has
> had enough RAM and hard drive space to give it a fighting chance of
> running efficiently.
>
> The bad news is that each successive version of OS X has required more
> hard drive space and somewhat more RAM. However, assuming that you have
> at least 256 MB of RAM and a couple of free GB of drive space, you
> should find OS X 3.8 or later an improvement-- without wrecking your
> existing 'classic OS' installation.


Thank you, Alan,

I just want to triple check because I did notice vague differences in my OS
9 after installing 10 the first time. I can't even name them now, but I do
remember differences. I should also mention, since it's hugely importnat,
that I've never been able to make a bootable backup disk of my working, OS
9.2.2 drive. I've been flying without a ner. I finally got a SuperDrive, but
haven't been able to make the backup with the software I have at hand. So,
triple checking that all should run smoothly. It doesn't seem pratcial to
pull the master drive (to 'turn it off') for the sake of installing the
upgrades on a slave drive. I admit it, I'm fearful; I believe in gremlins
and Murphy's Law was written for me;) BTW, my machine is a 350MHz G4-Yikes
with 1GB RAM. Sad, I know, for a graphics machine running Adobe apps. The OS
10.x drive is 10GB with 7.18GB of free space.

All reassurance, pats on the head, warm milk appreciated;)
inez

On 2/20/06 6:23 PM, Alan Zisman commented:

> In article <C01F72E0.493CE%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> ,
> iehsmith <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Most of my apps are still for old Mac OS and my machine is very slow,
>> so OS X is not my norm. I have OS 9.2.2 loadd on my main drive, and OS
>> 10.2.2 loaded on a slave drive. I downloaded the Mac OS X 10.1-10.3.8
>> upgrades, but a little leary of the install. Will it muck about with my OS
>> 9.2.2 drive? This is a work machine and I can't afford problems. The only
>> reason I'm considering the upgrade is for the sake of obtaining NeoOffice. I
>> receive files from clients who use Windoze MS Office and my current
>> solutions to gettting at the info contained is a PITA at times.
>>
>> So, would the upgrade on one HD affect my OS 9.2.2 on the other drive? What
>> exactly might it do? I switch OS's by changing Startup Disk.
>>
>> inez
>
> First the good news: installing an updated version of OS X should not
> mess up your existing OS 9.2.2 installation.
>
> There's other good news. Each successive version of OS X has offered
> better performance- even on old systems, as long as the old system has
> had enough RAM and hard drive space to give it a fighting chance of
> running efficiently.
>
> The bad news is that each successive version of OS X has required more
> hard drive space and somewhat more RAM. However, assuming that you have
> at least 256 MB of RAM and a couple of free GB of drive space, you
> should find OS X 3.8 or later an improvement-- without wrecking your
> existing 'classic OS' installation.


Thank you, Alan,

I just want to triple check because I did notice vague differences in my OS
9 after installing 10 the first time. I can't even name them now, but I do
remember differences. I should also mention, since it's hugely importnat,
that I've never been able to make a bootable backup disk of my working, OS
9.2.2 drive. I've been flying without a ner. I finally got a SuperDrive, but
haven't been able to make the backup with the software I have at hand. So,
triple checking that all should run smoothly. It doesn't seem pratcial to
pull the master drive (to 'turn it off') for the sake of installing the
upgrades on a slave drive. I admit it, I'm fearful; I believe in gremlins
and Murphy's Law was written for me;) BTW, my machine is a 350MHz G4-Yikes
with 1GB RAM. Sad, I know, for a graphics machine running Adobe apps. The OS
10.x drive is 10GB with 7.18GB of free space.

All reassurance, pats on the head, warm milk appreciated;)
inez

In article <C01FD7C0.4940C%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> ,
iehsmith <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> I just want to triple check because I did notice vague differences in my OS
> 9 after installing 10 the first time. I can't even name them now, but I do
> remember differences. I should also mention, since it's hugely importnat,
> that I've never been able to make a bootable backup disk of my working, OS
> 9.2.2 drive. I've been flying without a ner. I finally got a SuperDrive, but
> haven't been able to make the backup with the software I have at hand. So,
> triple checking that all should run smoothly. It doesn't seem pratcial to
> pull the master drive (to 'turn it off') for the sake of installing the
> upgrades on a slave drive. I admit it, I'm fearful; I believe in gremlins
> and Murphy's Law was written for me;) BTW, my machine is a 350MHz G4-Yikes
> with 1GB RAM. Sad, I know, for a graphics machine running Adobe apps. The OS
> 10.x drive is 10GB with 7.18GB of free space.
>
> All reassurance, pats on the head, warm milk appreciated;)
> inez

Sounds like you have more than enough RAM and free drive space for OS X
10.3.x or 10.4.x... I've run them on an iMac-G3-266 and am currently
using OS X 10.4 on an iBook-G3-500 with less RAM and free drive space
than you're reporting.

re. the Adobe apps-- while you're machine would be frustrating to use
with the current CS2 versions, it should perform more than adequately
with the older classic OS versions; if your system is doing the work you
need it to do, there should be no embarassment. In fact, not buying
hardware (and software) that you don't need is a sign of wisdom and
maturity.

===============================================
remove 'nospam' when replying

In article <C01FD7C0.4940C%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> ,
iehsmith <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> I just want to triple check because I did notice vague differences in my OS
> 9 after installing 10 the first time. I can't even name them now, but I do
> remember differences. I should also mention, since it's hugely importnat,
> that I've never been able to make a bootable backup disk of my working, OS
> 9.2.2 drive. I've been flying without a ner. I finally got a SuperDrive, but
> haven't been able to make the backup with the software I have at hand. So,
> triple checking that all should run smoothly. It doesn't seem pratcial to
> pull the master drive (to 'turn it off') for the sake of installing the
> upgrades on a slave drive. I admit it, I'm fearful; I believe in gremlins
> and Murphy's Law was written for me;) BTW, my machine is a 350MHz G4-Yikes
> with 1GB RAM. Sad, I know, for a graphics machine running Adobe apps. The OS
> 10.x drive is 10GB with 7.18GB of free space.
>
> All reassurance, pats on the head, warm milk appreciated;)
> inez

Sounds like you have more than enough RAM and free drive space for OS X
10.3.x or 10.4.x... I've run them on an iMac-G3-266 and am currently
using OS X 10.4 on an iBook-G3-500 with less RAM and free drive space
than you're reporting.

re. the Adobe apps-- while you're machine would be frustrating to use
with the current CS2 versions, it should perform more than adequately
with the older classic OS versions; if your system is doing the work you
need it to do, there should be no embarassment. In fact, not buying
hardware (and software) that you don't need is a sign of wisdom and
maturity.

===============================================
remove 'nospam' when replying

On 2/21/06 6:43 PM, Alan Zisman commented:

> re. the Adobe apps-- while you're machine would be frustrating to use
> with the current CS2 versions, it should perform more than adequately
> with the older classic OS versions; if your system is doing the work you
> need it to do, there should be no embarassment. In fact, not buying
> hardware (and software) that you don't need is a sign of wisdom and
> maturity.


Unfortunately, it chokes on high resolution stuff in Photoshop. I mostly do
stuff for print. I'm using an external Firewire drive as a scratch disk, but
I continue to get type -1, -2 and 11 errors (cna't remember if they're 1, or
-1 with the minus sign), failures on starting apps, unexpected quits, some
freezes and the ocassional bomb. I'm low on solid utilities though:( Just
and old Norton Disk Doctor, which I'm forced to run every now and then; and
Intech Hard Disk SpeedTools�, Disk Defrag� Classic, Integrity� Classic,
QuickBench� Classic.

I don't work in Classic from OS X. I boot into my OS 9.2.2 and work
directly. My apps have all fallen out of the mainstream. I'll have to do
something soon.

inez

On 2/21/06 6:43 PM, Alan Zisman commented:

> re. the Adobe apps-- while you're machine would be frustrating to use
> with the current CS2 versions, it should perform more than adequately
> with the older classic OS versions; if your system is doing the work you
> need it to do, there should be no embarassment. In fact, not buying
> hardware (and software) that you don't need is a sign of wisdom and
> maturity.


Unfortunately, it chokes on high resolution stuff in Photoshop. I mostly do
stuff for print. I'm using an external Firewire drive as a scratch disk, but
I continue to get type -1, -2 and 11 errors (cna't remember if they're 1, or
-1 with the minus sign), failures on starting apps, unexpected quits, some
freezes and the ocassional bomb. I'm low on solid utilities though:( Just
and old Norton Disk Doctor, which I'm forced to run every now and then; and
Intech Hard Disk SpeedTools�, Disk Defrag� Classic, Integrity� Classic,
QuickBench� Classic.

I don't work in Classic from OS X. I boot into my OS 9.2.2 and work
directly. My apps have all fallen out of the mainstream. I'll have to do
something soon.

inez

iehsmith wrote:
> On 2/21/06 6:43 PM, Alan Zisman commented:
>
>
>>re. the Adobe apps-- while you're machine would be frustrating to use
>>with the current CS2 versions, it should perform more than adequately
>>with the older classic OS versions; if your system is doing the work you
>>need it to do, there should be no embarassment. In fact, not buying
>>hardware (and software) that you don't need is a sign of wisdom and
>>maturity.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, it chokes on high resolution stuff in Photoshop. I mostly do
> stuff for print. I'm using an external Firewire drive as a scratch disk, but
> I continue to get type -1, -2 and 11 errors (cna't remember if they're 1, or
> -1 with the minus sign), failures on starting apps, unexpected quits, some
> freezes and the ocassional bomb. I'm low on solid utilities though:( Just
> and old Norton Disk Doctor, which I'm forced to run every now and then; and
> Intech Hard Disk SpeedTools�, Disk Defrag� Classic, Integrity� Classic,
> QuickBench� Classic.
>
> I don't work in Classic from OS X. I boot into my OS 9.2.2 and work
> directly. My apps have all fallen out of the mainstream. I'll have to do
> something soon.
>
> inez
>
Trash Norton, use DiskWarrior.

--
http://intonewdecade.blogspot.com/

iehsmith wrote:
> On 2/21/06 6:43 PM, Alan Zisman commented:
>
>
>>re. the Adobe apps-- while you're machine would be frustrating to use
>>with the current CS2 versions, it should perform more than adequately
>>with the older classic OS versions; if your system is doing the work you
>>need it to do, there should be no embarassment. In fact, not buying
>>hardware (and software) that you don't need is a sign of wisdom and
>>maturity.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, it chokes on high resolution stuff in Photoshop. I mostly do
> stuff for print. I'm using an external Firewire drive as a scratch disk, but
> I continue to get type -1, -2 and 11 errors (cna't remember if they're 1, or
> -1 with the minus sign), failures on starting apps, unexpected quits, some
> freezes and the ocassional bomb. I'm low on solid utilities though:( Just
> and old Norton Disk Doctor, which I'm forced to run every now and then; and
> Intech Hard Disk SpeedTools�, Disk Defrag� Classic, Integrity� Classic,
> QuickBench� Classic.
>
> I don't work in Classic from OS X. I boot into my OS 9.2.2 and work
> directly. My apps have all fallen out of the mainstream. I'll have to do
> something soon.
>
> inez
>
Trash Norton, use DiskWarrior.

--
http://intonewdecade.blogspot.com/