You've got the right idea, OS9 can be made faster by removing things from the system folder, but there's only so much you can remove, and at some point (you may have already hit it, even.) there's nothing more to remove.

As far as browsers go, you basically listed all the OS9 browsers, and stated their advantages and disadvantages. I personally keep them all around. I'm writing this in IE5, but I might be using something else tomorrow.

to make a 6200 faster, you may try running it with an older OS - 7.6.1 would still run IE5 and iCab, and will be significantly lighter weight.

As far as other computers? I guess a 6200 compares to a 1995 Packard Bell machine. Other macs? Well, there's the 5200 which uses the same motherboard. Faster macs? I've got an Intel Core2Duo machine, but I doubt that's the type of advice you're looking for.

I'd get a nice PCI mac as an upgrade, I have a 7300/200 and I love it, it's super-reliable and even though mine only has 64mb of ram right now, it will take like, 768mb and 3 pci cards - nice overall machines.

As I mentioned on 68KMLA, 9.1 is too much for an old Mac like the 6200. I would recommend 7.6.1 since it's pretty lean compared to 9.1 (not as much memory requirements). If you need the contextual menu and some other features not found in 7.6.1 (like HFS+ support), then go Mac OS 8.1. Contrary to Windows, you don't always need to run the latest OS version on the Mac platform. Just the one that works the fastest.

Also, if you can make sure that you upgrade the RAM to its maximum (64 MB).

All of this is covered on the thread that you created over at 68KMLA.

Even on Windows you don't need to run the latest version, In fact, NT4 from 1996 (albeit with servicepacks from much later) runs Firefox 2 flawlessly. (just as an example.)

With Mac OS, if it's not oS X, it's classic (OS 7 to 9) and it's inherently at the end of its pretty much at the end of its useful-life-for-general-public, so you may as well use an old version to get the best performance.

I'm a little torn on this one myself...

To be sure, Mac OS 9 has a lot of bloat compared to System 7. On the other hand, OS 9 has a lot more PowerPC native code than any other system. I'd try to find a happy medium. System 7.5 or OS 7.6 will be slower than strictly necessary on that Mac as a result of 68k emulation on already slow hardware. I've generally found that I actually get _better_ performance from 8.6 than from 8.1 (after the startup is complete, anyway) on NuBus Power Macs. Have you considered 8.5.1? That might provide a nice balance between modernity & speed.

OS 9 is a RAM hog. The more RAM you have, the better. I've run 9.0.4 on a 6100/60 w/ 72 MB of RAM and was reasonably pleased with it's speed. I even used AOL 5 to browse the web on that setup. It was no speed demon, but it got the job done. I didn't try 8.1 or lower, but I had been running 8.6 on it for quite some time with great success.

A 6100, while technically slower than the 75 MHz 6200, might compare favorably to a 6200. The 6100 doesn't have the same design compromises that make the x200 and x300 so underwhelming. And the PowerPC 601 is actually faster than the 603 in FPU performance. So when all is said and done, the two might get about the same results in terms of "feel" when operating one. And if you add an L2 cache to the equation on the side of the 6100, you've actually got a pretty fast 60 to 66 MHz Mac. L2 cache is one of the best upgrades you can give any Mac...

Peace,
Drew

While I sympathize with any computer owner who wishes to use the most productive software for hir (Old English, and it gets past the ridiculously PC 'his/her' usage) purpose, I also marvel that so many, even the enlightened enlisted who join the PPC MLA and 68K MLA, do not realize that the first three acts after acquisition of a new (different) old Mac should be to:

1) open it, inspect it, clean it, and repair it;
2) maximize the RAM complement, stopping only at 512MB if the max. is greater than that figure;
3) replace the RAM battery if that does not show as near-new (3.67V).

Then, if it is not possible to do what is desired with the Mac, consider a CPU upgrade or a Mac with a better native spec. If the aim is only to explore the Mac, the bar can be lowered while you do so.

I routinely junk any software from any (System 6 to OS 9) System Folder that I shall never use, which includes all sharing other than Personal File Sharing over ethernet or LocalTalk, anything to do with (dial-up) modems and their CCLs, stupid voices and talking Mac programs, printers outside the half-dozen that I own, or the one that my Mac will use, and so on. I never cease to marvel at claims that System Z is unstable, slow, buggy, crash-prone or the like, because I have never found any to be so. Admittedly, I use trusted Systems, which are usually the last of their lines: 6.0.8, '7.1.3', 7.5.5, 7.6.1, 8.1, 8.6, 9.1 (or 9.2.2, if possible), and not the intervening versions. I have no desire to force OS X onto anything when I have Macs that run it better, natively. (OS X is, of course, in a category of its own.) That, and good, regular housekeeping make for a happy household.

If I lived somewhere with an even smaller second-hand Mac market than Australia has, I might be tempted to push an LC II to run Leopard, but I don't. I'm quite happy to push an LC II only as far as 8.6, and would if I didn't have perfectly competent Macs already running it. Giving a horse two extra legs may not necessarily be an advantage, but giving one its own Mustang might be ...

de