On 11/12/02 10:04 AM, H. Halverson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said; >Just curious about this: > >>9.1 and 9.2.2 for Macs with more than 128 MB RAM. >>9.2.2 *only*, for use with OS X 10.x > >Why is OS 9.2.2 to be used only with OS X?
>From what I can tell, that isn't true. Lots of good folks have tried to convince me on both sides of the coin. The standard line is that 9.2 is "ONLY" needed for OS X Classic compatibility. But I have also read threads, and have come to be convinced of them, is that 9.2 was actually an improvement over 9.1 in many ways. I can tell you that installing 9.2 on a legacy machine (mine is a 9600) is major B-tch to undertake. There is a little utility now called "System9forever.com" that is supposed to do it seamlessley. But I was unable to get it to work the last time I tried it. The other way is to get way under the hood and pull out specific lines of code via resedit that Apple put in to have it not recognize pre beige G3 machines. Then you have to reinsert some of the old code from 9.1, also via resedit. I can tell you that when I put in my Sonnet IDE card and internal Sony IDE burner and an IDE HD I was having some real problems worrying about the 9.1 driver for the off brand (Sony) IDE CD burner. But after I used Tome viewer to pull out the 9.2 versions of the CD drivers (extensions) it has worked like a charm. FWIW I am still using 9.1 since the changeover is not easy and I have already attempted it twice. But Eventually, I do plan to cross that line. I also want to try out Jaguar on this old box. I think that 9.2 would be reason enough to use just for it's system improvements. Please remember that this is not an easy operation and that if you are already happy with 9.1 then there is no harm that I can see in letting sleeping dogs lie. 9.1 is still a good OS. Dave Groover ___________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
