Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Classic Macs and Mac OS > Non-Classic booting Macs coming...what do non-Xers do?

Non-Classic booting Macs coming...what do non-Xers do?
Thread Tools
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 04:35 PM
 
Its my understanding that whenever (soon) Macs will not be bootable in any classic OS 9x. That they will only boot in X and still for the foreseeable future launch a classic OS from within X, when a document created in classic is opened. And/or, somehow will launch the classic apps as stand alone. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyway, My main questions are:

Is classic going to be a slow dog dragging X along in the background?

Will classic look the same or will Aqua be the look?

Will the processors get fast enough to bring classic back to speed before Apple's magic number of X users triggers leaving the rest out in the cold with an X only Mac?

Hello!.. is anybody out there?? Does anybody care about this?.. or is this just too speculative?

P.S. Has any body noticed that OSX matches the the computer cases? Was iMac so successful that Jobs hired the case designer to do the OS? Or was the whole thing conceived in one swell foop?


[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 09:27 PM
 
If Apple does that any time soon, they lose me.

And many many users along with me.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 11:48 PM
 
As much as you'll hate to hear me saying this, Cipher, I have made a complete conversion to X and the sooner 9 goes, the better. Maybe it's just my computer, but X runs a ton smoother and 9 crashes way more often.
World of Warcraft (Whisperwind - Alliance) <The Eternal Spiral>
Go Dogcows!
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 01:00 AM
 
If Apple produce a machine that cannot run Classic Mac OS, it is not a Mac, it is a PC that only run UNIX.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 01:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>If Apple does that any time soon, they lose me.

And many many users along with me.</STRONG>
Yeah same here. I would liken that to quitting your job and spitting on your boss on the way out. There is no need for Apple to burn their bridges just yet.

I said it once and I'll say it again. Once everything I do, day-in, day out, can be done better in X then I will switch. Until then I hope 9 isn't prematurely axed.....
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 01:28 AM
 
Classic is not slow at all on my Dual 800 running in OSX. (nor is OSX, for that matter)

I don't see this as a problem.

-B
Dual 800 - GF3 - 1.5GB
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by benh57:
<STRONG>Classic is not slow at all on my Dual 800 running in OSX. (nor is OSX, for that matter)

I don't see this as a problem.

-B</STRONG>
Not everyone has Dual G4s (me for one and X.1 is slow and so is classic mode) or any G4 for that matter. Its to early to axe it. Just because you are one of the few with the capabilities to throw classic out does not mean that its the case for the rest of the 70% of people who have Macs.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 03:34 PM
 
First off, I think OSX runs fast enough for MY daily use. OS X may not be as fast as OS9, but it runs much smoother. Just b/c of the fact that I don't have to worry as much about my OS crashing and my RAM usage restrictions makes me more productive because more of my attention is put into doing my job and less about a computer glitch. Rebooting breaks my focus and when I'm very busy, it'll put more stress on me. These are my reasons why I like OS X ten times more than OS9.

As for the slimmed-down Classic mode you're talking about, I'm assuming you got the idea from MacOSRumors. If Apple is going to move in that direction, Classic will run faster. It wouldn't make sense for Apple to do so otherwise because 1)waste of resources and 2)more complaints about performance. As for the interface, that's a toughie to speculate on. It would make more sense for Apple to stick with the OS9 look for classic out of convenience for the OS9 app users.

Yes, I have noticed the iMac and iBooks matching OS X. My guess is that the iMac is very astethically pleasing so someone thought, "hey, why not make the OS that way too?" I like Aqua. I used Duality and try different looks, but I keep coming back to Aqua b/c it feels good to sit in front of it. It's attractive, yet not too distracting. I love the colored open, minimize, resize buttons. Apple went with more visual feedback in Aqua and if you (the user) are capable of utilizing that feature properly, it's much more effective than reading text. When you see a stop sign, you think stop. When you see a sign that says stop, you read stop, then you think stop.
Current: XPC SB81P, 3GHz P4, 1GB RAM; Compaq Presario V2410US, Turion 64 ML-30, 512MB RAM
Previous: Sawtooth G4/400 448MB RAM
ATI Radeon 8500 64MB - flashed variant
OS X 10.3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399 37510
Future: 13" Widescreen Powerbook, Core Duo Intel
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 11:24 PM
 
"If Apple produce a machine that cannot run Classic Mac OS, it is not a Mac, it is a PC that only run UNIX."

Can someone PLEASE etch this on a very large stone (BEIGE stone) and send it to Steve Jobs!?

I agree smooth is nice. But slow makes me nervous and mostly at deadlines.


I think what I don't like about X is being forced to look at X and then go back to 9 back and forth... I would rather just stay in 9/ classic and save myself working with 2 OSs.

Why do I choose 9 if I have to choose? Simple; About 10 years worth of investing in classic applications. Pretty much all I need to get all my stuff done. Apps that have become second nature to me so I can concentrate on the work intead of where they moved the clutch.

Nothing wrong with trying new things BY CHOICE.

I think the last time Apple forced users to start over on software through hardware was the Lisa... And, as I remember it cost them big time. In fact it was a large part of one of their first big losses in users. I think that's even before Windows was in the race.

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 01:05 AM
 
Originally posted by Macalong:
<STRONG>Its my understanding that whenever (soon) Macs will not be bootable in any classic OS 9x. That they will only boot in X and still for the foreseeable future launch a classic OS from within X, when a document created in classic is opened.
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]</STRONG>
Where did you get this understanding? I don't recall anything like this officially being announced by Apple. My question is this: why would Apple spend time rewriting code, so that a machine only boots in X, when they already load both 9 and X on the units? It's true that Jobs is trying to shove X down everybody's throat, but he's also no dummy, and realizes that not everybody is ready for X yet. Even if this were true, there's something that many of you seem to forget; if there's one thing that's constant in the computer world, it's change! You see, computers evolve to meet changing demands and capabilities, but many Mac users (and I own and sell Macs) hang on to their dinosaurs forever, and get upset when Apple changes something! I have a good friend who belongs to several user groups, and they're always talking about their Performa 6500s, or their 7100s, or their Powerbook 1400s, as if they're irreplaceable! Life, and computers, is about change, and learning new things, and moving forward! Even if Apple does eliminate 9.2 boot up, which I don't think they will "soon", it's not the end of the world; get over it and move on! I am waiting for two things, Photoshop for X, and scanner drivers for my Epson, and I'm done with 9. I'm running a G4/400 AGP, and, yes, X is a little slower, but it's a hell of a lot more reliable! Besides, the difference in speed is negligible! The change is coming, whether it's sooner or later, and there's nothing you can do about it, so accept it, learn something new, and get on with your lives.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 02:01 AM
 
Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>Not everyone has Dual G4s (me for one and X.1 is slow and so is classic mode) or any G4 for that matter. Its to early to axe it. Just because you are one of the few with the capabilities to throw classic out does not mean that its the case for the rest of the 70% of people who have Macs.</STRONG>
Um... the discussion is about whether Apple will make new machines X-only. All new Macs now come with a G4 (except for the iBook, which will likely change very soon as it's the only G3 Mac left). It's not as if your existing Mac is going to magically lose the ability to boot into 9. If Apple started making X-only Macs, it would be the new, G4-based Macs. And a G4 runs X quite well, actually.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 02:18 AM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
<STRONG>

Um... the discussion is about whether Apple will make new machines X-only. All new Macs now come with a G4 (except for the iBook, which will likely change very soon as it's the only G3 Mac left). It's not as if your existing Mac is going to magically lose the ability to boot into 9. If Apple started making X-only Macs, it would be the new, G4-based Macs.</STRONG>
Um. Lemme see here. I was saying how if Apple axes OS9 in the near future, then all of a sudden there is a large tech gap. Granted I can still boot into 9, but Apple will have shown its real agenda by killing off bootable classic. If this happens tech support for 9 will drop and all of a sudden I am using a discontinued and barely supported operating system, which, in my humble opinion, is still damn good and very useful.

And a G4 runs X quite well, actually.
Oh really? And if your definition of well likens to a Pentium 2, 233 running XP then ok. Tell that line to my G4, you'll get loads of laughs. Maybe a dual 800 or dual 1000 machine makes X melt in the palm of its hand, but for the rest of us, its a slug compared to 9.x. If you truly think otherwise you are kidding yourself.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:42 AM
 
In response to CarlG saying
You see, computers evolve to meet changing demands and capabilities, but many Mac users (and I own and sell Macs) hang on to their dinosaurs forever, and get upset when Apple changes something! I have a good friend who belongs to several user groups, and they're always talking about their Performa 6500s, or their 7100s, or their Powerbook 1400s, as if they're irreplaceable! Life, and computers, is about change, and learning new things, and moving forward! Even if Apple does eliminate 9.2 boot up, which I don't think they will "soon"
Actually as a catalog publisher I need to go faster. This is the reason for my consern with sluggishness of OSX in the backround when 9 no longer boots as a stand alone.. Its a little like Windows running on top of DOS.

As far as dinosaurs; I started with Q605 that ran my Pagemaker 5,
and Photoshop 3.2 on a 21" 256 monitor stock. Eventhough it was a great computer, time is very valuable. I have since gone through six upgrades to my current G4/400 running on the Adaptech 160scsi interface w/10K rpm 160 drives. I have no problem moving on. Its not only important its essential.
.
I only have a problem moving backwards. Sideways I can put up with.. Like some temporary speed sacrifice if its overcome with my next computer upgrade. Which though will probably be non-9-booting Mac G5, will still run my apps.(They are coming and very soon). But "moving on" backwards in having to relearn and buy new apps.and write new tasks scripts? No that not progress for many users.

And yes they will phase out 9 support. Why are X only Macs comming after that?.. Not because computers have to evolve. They can evolve in different directions. X is only one. Its because Apple wants the program designers to see X as the only market and push new product soft and hard.

This may sound good for Apple at least but its an arrogant move. I think it will cost them more than they will gain. And of course once macs only boot on X Apple knows that it IS in fact one program running on another. Kind of running virtual PC over MAC. How about running games on Vertual PC, running on 9, running on X, running on Unix. Is that computers evolving?.. Even Jobs knows that a no. Sooo how does he plan to simplify things. With the X only Mac. of course!

Originally posted by MacMonster:[QUOTE]
If Apple produce a machine that cannot run Classic Mac OS, it is not a Mac, it is a PC that only run UNIX.

Does anybody have a large BEIGE stone?


[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:50 AM
 
That has to be the single most insane comment ever made on this board.

Classic Mac OS is dead. Development has ceased. The longer you hang-on, the more likely you will get left behind.

Now suck it up and get ready for a world where OS 9 is a distant memory. Seriously, it's an operating system that is no longer being updated. Developers will not be updating or developing new titles for it, so for the most part it's dead or at the very least dying. OS X will not be everything to everyone, but it will be the reason Apple grows their market share in the next 2-5 years. We will all benefit from that in the long-term.

Hell, I left Mac and wouldn't come back until OS X was stable and mature enough. 10.1.2 was the ticket...


Originally posted by MacMonster:
<STRONG>If Apple produce a machine that cannot run Classic Mac OS, it is not a Mac, it is a PC that only run UNIX.</STRONG>
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: VanToffler ]
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 04:20 AM
 
So what are you saying that you don't agree with MacMonster? I'm saying I do. What's a Mac? 7.1 and earlier have a look and feel that I see in 9. This is more than a dated OS giving way to an update OS. Its the end of an era. It's the end of Macs as we know them...

Oh well, I'll just have to Macalong until Windows becomes more like a Mac OS than X or Virtual Mac for Windows or something....I know Virtual Mac for X Boxes!

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oakland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 04:32 AM
 
Its my understanding that whenever (soon) Macs will not be bootable in any classic OS 9x. That they will only boot in X and still for the foreseeable future launch a classic OS from within X, when a document created in classic is opened. And/or, somehow will launch the classic apps as stand alone. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
Yeah, you're wrong, sorry. I don't see OS9 going anywhere anytime soon. Where do people come up with this stuff?

     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 10:17 AM
 
I was asking, hoping, that somewone would correct me if I'm wrong. That is about the second step in Apples agenda and/or its exact effect on non Xers from some knowledge or real understanding that out there.

The first step of non OS 9 booting Apples, I'm afraid to say is very much in the works. I may be wrong about SOON which is a relative term but within the very near future. Its hidden in term " X default Macs" within many articles. They use the politically correct terminology of the Apple protocol/policies. And usually the articles are not directly about the topic. It's too chilling..

This is like calling stuff you can't use any more without buying special things that Mac no longer has by the all too convenient term "legacy"; Like SCSI (currently much faster in wide and 160 than firewire and usb). How do you think these labels evolve so conveniently and get accepted so quickly?

Email any of dozens of those paid to write crystal ball articles in the pages of MacWorld and MacAddict and other prominents industry publication. Like those who wrote and write about G4 and G5 chip introduction. Ask them what the term "OS X default" is about and why they don't just call it for what it is (non 9 booting Macs).

Its has something to do with providing those at the top with a back door after the Machines are in productions with ROMs that don't boot in classic. "But we've been telling you about their coming for a long time" They'll say. "This was no secret". And, "We had very little reason to think anyone had a problem with this from our users feedback and the Mac Forums out there" They'll say. "Computers are always evolving. It's time to get on with your life and adjust" they'll say.

X only Macs? What will they call them? something encouraging and fresh sounding. Like 9-Free Macs or The New Mac or The Different Mac. I would call them X-Boxes by Apple. Its coming.. If you don't care fine. But others do and they're in denial.

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oakland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 01:46 PM
 
X only Macs? What will they call them? something encouraging and fresh sounding. Like 9-Free Macs or The New Mac or The Different Mac. I would call them X-Boxes by Apple. Its coming.. If you don't care fine. But others do and they're in denial.

I don't understand why this is such a big surprise to you. We've all know about OSX for what? like the past 3 years? We've all known it was going to be the future OS of the platform, there is no hidden agenda from Apple to eradicate the OS9 user or make "X-boxes" as you call them.

The OSX/OS9 switch will be like every other migration Apple has had in the past. Right now the pendelum is still in OS9 land, and they're trying their hardest to swing it the other way (as they should) by developing OSX only apps, getting developers excited, making it the default boot OS etc. You see, they have no other choice, they have to be aggressive in the marketing or else they run the risk of failure, it's an all or nothing proposition. Until *ALL* the important apps are there and until the user experience is sufficient with OSX they will not have succedded in making that natural transition. Just the same way there was a transition from OS 6 to 7 and from the old chip to the PPC chip.

Maybe I'm missing your point but I just don't see what all the hulabuloo is about. OSX=future, OS9=past, but just not quite yet.



[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Technicolor ]
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Millersville, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 02:05 PM
 
I always enjoyed how OS X Server 1.0 implemented Classic, as it ran full-screen classic OS with pretty good performance. Something like that could very well be the final implementation of Classic in X at which time further development to Classic will be axed and devs will begin to work on one unified codebase.
F = ma
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 02:19 PM
 
I cannot see why apple would do this.

I can think of a reason for a machine not to be able to boot into OS9.

Basically Apple will definatally suport OS 9 on current chipsets. The G5 is a new chipset and when that is released IF it needs major changes to OS 9 then maybe OS 9 will not boot but that will not happen IMHO.

OS 9 Has still got developers working on it it will be afew years yet till OS 9 booting is not available or needed.

Also cipher I would be new machines only which would have this feature Apple would make sure that they are so fast that OS 9 was not needed in native mode. (Also all major apps had been ported)

Cheers Edd
     
<GorillaintheShell>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:01 PM
 
If your worried about the look of aqua switch it out with a theme.
And what exactly are all of your jobs? If your a graphic designer, animator, sequential artist, writer, or any one of the many creative professional's the new operating system has you covered. I've seen alot more popular and decent applications come out now than i've seen in the past. Even the game's for macintosh are better supported. I doubt apple will drop classic into a hole of oblivion but their focus is on the "digital hub". Most people here are jaded by the fact that steve jobs has succeded in his vision and that they aren't in control of the Mac OS system. Honesly, this is the next mac os and im happy to own it. But do what you want and if your apps still run on Mac OS 9 use that computer. I still have an imac dv 400 and im not replacing it anytime soon. But it's good i can switch back to OS 8.6 if i wished.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:27 PM
 
It's an all or nothing proposition. Until *ALL* the important apps are there and until the user experience is sufficient with OSX they will not have succedded in making that natural transition. Just the same way there was a transition from OS 6 to 7 and from the old chip to the PPC chip.Maybe I'm missing your point but I just don't see what all the hulabuloo is about.
Yes, but none of the above transitions required new applications to replace all the apps that you own because they no longer run on the new OS or new machines.

PPC ran non-native apps. and continued to do that faster and faster until now. And OS 7 apps can run on my current Mac. Even Windows is like that.

This is just like getting BeOs dressed up to look cool and saying: All the great apps are now available so here's the new Mac! Enjoy it. Oh, by the way it won't run anything written for Mac OS 6 through OS 9. Hey, but things evolve....


[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Macalong ]
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oakland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 04:34 PM
 
PPC ran non-native apps. and continued to do that faster and faster until now. And OS 7 apps can run on my current Mac. Even Windows is like that.
It did? As a non-PPC owning Mac user at the time I remember pretty vividly not being able to run most of the new apps that were coming out at the time because I didn't have a PPC machine. OS 7 apps? I can't really see there being that many of those still around that are useful, but if there are, you can still run them in Classic in OSX.

This is just like getting BeOs dressed up to look cool and saying: All the great apps are now available so here's the new Mac! Enjoy it. Oh, by the way it won't run anything written for Mac OS 6 through OS 9. Hey, but things evolve...
BeOS? I don't get the comparison. Yes, the new apps are coming, probably sooner instead of later. I'm all for things evolving..even OSX. What other choice is there? Even Microsoft knows that.

Oh, by the way it won't run anything written for Mac OS 6 through OS 9.
This is news to me. I appear to be running OS9 apps fine in Classic. Hmmm.

     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 05:43 PM
 
As a non-PPC owning Mac user at the time I remember pretty vividly not being able to run most of the new apps that were coming out at the time because I didn't have a PPC machine.

You've reversed it. I was saying that if you bought a PPC you could run non-PPC native apps.through on board emulation. It ran faster than on the pre PPC Mac before long.

Yes you can run classic now but how about you next Mac if its an X only Box.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 04:03 AM
 
OSX is not the Mac OS.

It's NeXT, refurnished, and exploiting the name and userbase of the Mac OS.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 07:23 AM
 
Cipher,

You've hit the nail right on the head!
     
<TriPhaze>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 05:26 PM
 
"If your worried about the look of aqua switch it out with a theme."

Trouble is most of the current themes available are total and utter crap. Aqua looks much better than the themes. The bigger question is, why was development on Kaleidoscope stopped? I was a Kaleidoscope beta tester and about this time last year, we received an e-mail informing us that the author, was determined to get his code running on OS X. Then nothing for months and months. Then, all of a sudden, a short note from Arlo Rose informing everyone that development on Kaleidoscope has ceased. My questions is why? Did Apple pressure them not to port this wonderful application to OS X because Stevie couldn't have his "wonderful" Aqua modified? Personally, if Apple had made a Mac OS 9 Platinum theme for OS X, many more people would make the jump. As it is now, I would rather run Linux, at least you can load up KDE or Gnome and use a different GUI.
     
<TriPhaze>
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 05:31 PM
 
"OSX is not the Mac OS.

It's NeXT, refurnished, and exploiting the name and userbase of the Mac OS."

AMEN Cipher!

As far as I'm concerned, Mac OS is dead. I think my next computer will be a PC running Linux. As long as I can run UT, do e-mail and browse, I'll be happy :-)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2002, 07:48 PM
 
At the moment, "X default" means both OS 9 and OS X on the machine, and the machine comes from the factory set to boot in OS X when you turn it on. You can still boot in Classic, but you have to manually do it yourself.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 03:37 AM
 
Originally posted by pdot:
<STRONG> When you see a stop sign, you think stop. When you see a sign that says stop, you read stop, then you think stop.</STRONG>
Actually, no. There is a whole sub-division of Psychology that studies this exact assumption you made. According to many theories of language aquisition, we actually "read/recognize" a word we are so familair with (such as 'stop') the same as we would read/recognize a symbol. In other words, the four letters "s", "t", "o", "p" register together as a symbol. This is a viable theory because the word is small enough to be recognized in it's entirety on first glance.

In other words, this is a bad example (the stop sign, that is). If I wanted to get very technical I would argue that unfamilar symbols can make the "visual" (as you put it) OS infact less effective.

"Sing it again, rookie beyach."
My website
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2002, 06:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Miniryu:
<STRONG>

Actually, no. There is a whole sub-division of Psychology that studies this exact assumption you made. According to many theories of language aquisition, we actually "read/recognize" a word we are so familair with (such as 'stop') the same as we would read/recognize a symbol. In other words, the four letters "s", "t", "o", "p" register together as a symbol. This is a viable theory because the word is small enough to be recognized in it's entirety on first glance.

In other words, this is a bad example (the stop sign, that is). If I wanted to get very technical I would argue that unfamilar symbols can make the "visual" (as you put it) OS infact less effective.</STRONG>
Indeed; it is MUCH easier to define a word than some symbols. Words are far less ambiguous; "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Very true.

Now, even if that wasn't the case, and the argument WAS valid, we go into how some people react to audito better than vision; and how some people, when they see a sign, translate it to words; and others, vice versa.

Lets not being using this argument, because there is no set answer.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2