Most computer users believe that you need a computer that is up to date with what the rest of the world uses to be useful. I don't believe that to be true. About average these days in a home computer seems to be a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo processor with 2 GB of RAM and at least a 160 GB hard drive. First, I don't really like the x86 architecture that the rest of the world uses. Second, it is quite possible to make do with a 117 MHz PowerBook 1400c with no L2 cache and 32 MB of RAM running Mac OS 7.6.1. I've also heard that certain modern Linuxes work very well on 486-based PCs and 68000-based Macs.

The first common complaint about Mac OS 9 is the lack of a modern web browser. Easily remedied with Classilla, basically Firefox for Mac OS 9 but without the extensions. The Javascript engine, though slightly unstable, is pulled from Firefox 3.5, a reasonably modern version. It supports some parts of the HTML5 standard in addition to CSS3. Can also be used for POP or IMAP email.

The second common complaint is that OS 9 is slow. Actually, OS 9 is a lot less bloated than OS X. I can squeeze a system folder in less than 100 MB while even Mac OS 10.0 requires at least 1.5 GB of drive space and 128 MB of RAM. OS 9's memory footprint is a mere 27 MB for my configuration. Any pokiness is simply a limitation of the processors at the time. Try running OS 9 on a Titanium PowerBook or late model PowerMac G4, ideally a dual 1.25 GHz MDD. It will absolutely scream. Grab a processor upgrade that runs at 500 MHz+ in anything save the PowerMac and Performa 5200-53xx and 6200-6320 and it will work beautifully. Even my 266 MHz Wallstreet feels faster than a 1 GHz Titanium running Leopard.

Complaint number three is instability. That is easy to solve. Just don't run software made by Microsoft. I'm dead serious that that will double or maybe even triple reliability. Also, turn off unnecessary extensions to increase speed and save a few KB of RAM. If you must use MS stuff, stay away from IE and turn off their extensions when possible. Hold space at startup to change extensions without having to boot and reboot.

Complaint number four, as petty as it is, is iTunes and iPods. iPods will work with iTunes as long as they are first or second generation. iTunes 2.0.4 is out there and works quite well. Remember the days when iTunes took up less than 10 MB? Now it is at 178.2 MB (as of 9.2.1 on 10.5.8). iTunes 6 was the last good version at 17 MB, anyway. iTunes 7 started the massive bloat we've come to know and hate.

But why use OS 9? Quite simple: Apple's build quality was at its peak in the late 90s to early 2000s. If you have a computer that can run it, it is a faster, lighter and, indeed, more power efficient alternative to OS X. For instance, if you are simply reading a webpage, you don't need the hard drive spinning. You can turn it off from the control strip. It makes the computer silent until it is next needed, when it spins back up. I already dealt with lighter and faster in complaint number two.

OS 9 is also more customizable with built-in theme support plus a third party theme app called Kaleidoscope. It is still being sold, last I heard. Trial is available.

And before I forget again, hardware support is better in OS 9 than OS X. For instance, OS 9 has better SCSI, ADB and floppy support plus actually recognizes early G3s' built-in Rage Pro graphics hardware. That and no more cryptic Windows-esque file extensions to worry about removing.

I think that if Apple made a successor to OS 9 or even just released the source code as they did with Quickdraw and MacPaint a few weeks ago, the fans would do amazing things with it given modern hardware.