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 > Classic is dead. THANK YOU.

Classic is dead. THANK YOU.
Thread Tools
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 03:11 PM
 
I'm so happy I could cry. Well, almost.

Lots of you are finally getting rid of Classic and that is a good thing... developers will finally stop writing software for that Classic crap!

Woohoo.


[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Fully dynamic web site Starting Points.[/FONT]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Carbondale, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 03:18 PM
 
i need two more apps before i go to X.

Media player
and
Real Player

im still in 9, and when i switch i want to go 100% OS X
AIM: bmichel5581
MacBook 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
160GB
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 04:26 PM
 
Crap? Someone is mis-informed here. If your idea of a good OS is a processor hogging, candy coated RAM eater with a bunch of beta programs for it then your a damn fool.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 08:57 PM
 
Re: "I'm so happy I could cry. Well, almost.

Lots of you are finally getting rid of Classic and that is a good thing... developers will finally stop writing software for that Classic crap!'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Did I just hear the words "Trust Fund"?

mw2
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 09:04 PM
 
Yeah well, some of us have a way to go... I have no audio or video card support (apparently never will) in OSX so I'm buggered for a while yet.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 09:50 PM
 
I love X but I do think that saying 9 and Classic is crap is going a bit far...

Although I do get more done in X now than I did in 9 as its more stable and imho its also a lot better to look at.

Cheers Edd
     
-Q-
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 11:17 PM
 
Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>Crap? Someone is mis-informed here. If your idea of a good OS is a processor hogging, candy coated RAM eater with a bunch of beta programs for it then your a damn fool.</STRONG>
Crap? And someone here is misguided. If your idea of a good OS is a fifteen year old, crash prone POS that has been cobbled together with spit and bailing wire, then you're a damn fool.

Does it need improvement? Yes. But calling people names for their opinion is close-minded and petty. Your opinion can easily be called questionable as well.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 11:30 PM
 
Well, if you really want Media Player that badly, a Carbonized version can be found on the Office v.x CD. The reason why Microsoft decided to make Mac users pay while the stupid-ass Windoze users can get it for free is beyone me.
World of Warcraft (Whisperwind - Alliance) <The Eternal Spiral>
Go Dogcows!
     
dvd
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 11:46 PM
 
yeah os 9 sucks, i prefer apps that take forever to load. I can say good bye to faster webpage rendering, who needs it anways when i can stare at a color wheel.
-Athlon XP 1500+, 256 PC2700 DDR RAM, 30 + 60 gig HD.
-Powermac G4 "Digital Audio", 384mb ram, 40gig HD, 16mb rage pro 128
-original iPod 5gig =]
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2001, 11:59 PM
 
Originally posted by -Q-:
<STRONG>

Crap? And someone here is misguided. If your idea of a good OS is a fifteen year old, crash prone POS that has been cobbled together with spit and bailing wire, then you're a damn fool.

Does it need improvement? Yes. But calling people names for their opinion is close-minded and petty. Your opinion can easily be called questionable as well.</STRONG>
Crash prone POS? Cobbled together? You sure you've even used Mac OS 9 before? In which case have you even learned how to use it correctly? Sure its off an old design but OS 9 is a fine peice of software that works just the way it should. X is a slow beta posing as a finished product. Surely you know that.....In the future when X gets it's act together I will wholeheartidly accept and use it. Until then when people play X.1 as their trump card against OS 9 I will call them damn fools.

Make sure you're not making accusations of something without really knowing what you're talking about Q......

(BTW, if X is so crash prone and crappy then why do most who crave productivity still use 9?)
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: here and there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2001, 12:07 AM
 
man, this sucks,
even the mac communinty is splitting apart,
not only is it windoze vs. mac now
but its become X v 9
this sucks guys, cant we all just agree to disagree?
smile like you mean it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2001, 12:14 AM
 
Originally posted by iBabo:
<STRONG>man, this sucks,
even the mac communinty is splitting apart,
not only is it windoze vs. mac now
but its become X v 9
this sucks guys, cant we all just agree to disagree?</STRONG>
I agree with you, I could care less if people prefer to use one OS or the other...its all a case of personal preference. But when people start saying things like "OS9 is crap and I can't wait until it dies!!!" thats when I get irritated. Such un-intelligent comments simply amaze me.

X will have it's place in the future but it is simply not finished yet. Once it becomes finalized then I will gracefully bow out of classic. Until then my productivity is key, and that can only be accomplished without hassle in 9.
     
-Q-
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2001, 12:29 PM
 
Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>

Crash prone POS? Cobbled together? You sure you've even used Mac OS 9 before? In which case have you even learned how to use it correctly? Sure its off an old design but OS 9 is a fine peice of software that works just the way it should. X is a slow beta posing as a finished product. Surely you know that.....In the future when X gets it's act together I will wholeheartidly accept and use it. Until then when people play X.1 as their trump card against OS 9 I will call them damn fools.</STRONG>
Glad to see you're so secure in what you think is right. Just because something doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for someone else. My office is running X.1 and loving every minute of it. Maybe you're the one who hasn't learned how to use X correctly? At least you're open-minded enough to realize 9 is on its way out.

Thanks being said, 'allow me to retort'.

OS 9 is a cobbled together excuse for an OS. It was great for its day. But day after day, after my customers' macs running 9 have crashed b/c of an 'extension conflict' (direct patches to the OS = bad idea), I'm glad it's gone. I haven't rebooted my personal machine for 62 days. I know you can't say the same. My customers using 9 can't claim 6 hours worth of uptime.

My opinion of crash-prone comes from daily experience telling my customers that because one of their applications can't behave itself, so it brought their whole system crashing down. That is not good behavior for an OS.

The fact that OS 9 uses a poor memory management system (why should I have to teach someone how much memory to allocate to an application? Why do they care? Shouldn't the application and the system be able to figure it out between themselves?) is apparent. Now, if you want to debate the usability features of OS 9, or the relative easy of trouble-shooting, then you have something. But to claim that 9 is a 'fine piece of software that works the way it should' is delusional.

Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>
Make sure you're not making accusations of something without really knowing what you're talking about Q......</STRONG>
I know exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to have the trouble with being open-minded about it.

Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>
(BTW, if X is so crash prone and crappy then why do most who crave productivity still use 9?)</STRONG>
I assume you mean 9. Maybe they use 9 because their applications haven't been ported yet and are forced to? As I move more and more clients to X, they wonder why I left them in 9 for so long. It's certainly not for productivity.

This is a redux of the same debate when System 7 came out. All the Sytem 6 people felt 7 was too slow, 6 worked great, etc. etc.

Am I saying X is perfect? No. But 9 is far from perfect also and they had 15 years to get that right. Apple has made more progress in making X the best usable OS in 15 months than they did in 15 years with Classic.

I have no problem with people preferring to use 9. I have a problem with people who dump on others (i.e. - 'damn fool') for expressing their opinion.

So using our circular logic, we're both damn fools.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2001, 12:40 PM
 
Originally posted by -Q-:
<STRONG>


So using our circular logic, we're both damn fools. </STRONG>
Hehe, yes we are. By the way, that stat about 6 hours of uptime in OS9 is ridiculous. I alone have had my computer one for the last two weeks, and only because I had to restart due to software install two weeks ago. When set up properly 9.2 is an incredibly stable OS. Burning a CD while doing work in Illustrator and Photoshop while listening to some Mp3's barely makes 9 break a sweat, and I know mostly everyone else who has a properly installed 9 has had the same experience (well maybe just 9.2 people).

I have used X alot too and I still hate it. I know how to use it fine, just that what it does "better" than 9 isn't compelling enough for me to switch, and it doesn't do everything 9 does yet either.

In conclusion, for some people X is fine for them now, but for the bulk of the proffesional Mac populous is still too beta-ish and not supported enough by the apps they all know and love. Therefore, it is not the perfect OS and 9 will be around for some time until X does everything 9 does now, and much much more.

Thank you and good night, er, I mean good day.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2001, 01:28 PM
 
I had to laugh at the "cobbled together" statement. I really like Unix but I think "cobbled together" defines Unix just as well as MacOS 9. And although MacOS X is great, stable, and multitasks well, there are some areas where MacOS 9 is the better OS.

I say choose what's best for your needs.

Agent69
Agent69
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2001, 03:26 PM
 
This amuses me greatly...

That is, the fact that some people find it realistic to work in OSX; wow. You people must need all the speed you can get, 'ey?

Also, amusing is the fact that some of you consider OSX to be more than what it really is - a toy; a game; something to do when you're bored; something to gaze at when you're phased.

For anything not involving UNIX, Mac OS 9 can do whatever you want faster and better.

But hey... you use what you want, and I'll use what I want. The difference is, I'm the one sitting back and enjoying the ride, while laughing at all of you, and getting my work done faster
     
-Q-
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2001, 04:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>But hey... you use what you want, and I'll use what I want. The difference is, I'm the one sitting back and enjoying the ride, while laughing at all of you, and getting my work done faster </STRONG>

As always Cipher, it's a matter of opinion. And in this case, I laugh at all the 9 users when they have to reboot their system when some beta you've downloaded has killed your system.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rotterdam,Holland.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2001, 09:58 AM
 
Originally posted by zerologic:
<STRONG>I'm so happy I could cry. Well, almost.

Lots of you are finally getting rid of Classic and that is a good thing... developers will finally stop writing software for that Classic crap!

Woohoo.

</STRONG>
Woohoo.....

What would we all laugh when MS brought out XP and still had ME shipped with it to be able to use your computer....
I like OS-X,but I still feel it was a HUGE mistake for Apple to bring out for sale when you still have to get back in classic for a lot of applications.

I'm sure I'm going to switch to X one day,but not when I still need another OS on my HD to be able to use my Mac.

Sorry,plain stupid move from Apple imho.....

Not nice to use your clients as Beta testers with software they have to pay for.
MOSTLY HARMLESS

http://www.macfreak.nl
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rotterdam,Holland.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2001, 10:04 AM
 
OS 9 is a cobbled together excuse for an OS. It was great for its day. But day after day, after my customers' macs running 9 have crashed b/c of an 'extension conflict' (direct patches to the OS = bad idea), I'm glad it's gone. I haven't rebooted my personal machine for 62 days. I know you can't say the same. My customers using 9 can't claim 6 hours worth of uptime.

I'm not sure what youre customers are doing in OS-9,but crashing every 6 hours?
Better fix their systems or learn them how to use it......
MOSTLY HARMLESS

http://www.macfreak.nl
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2001, 07:39 PM
 
I was working in OS10 exclusively until a couple of weeks ago when I wanted to play Diablo and for some reason couldn't boot into OS9 at all. After spending hours hoping Startup Disk would boot into OS9 I whipped out my handy dandy OS9 boot CD and was able to finally get into 9. I've since removed OS10 from my system. I did this after realizing how responsive OS9 was on my Lombard PowerBook and how little trouble it gave me doing just about anything. I was tired of running in 16-bit colour mode just to have adequate response from dropdown menus and not being able to play any games because they either wren't ported to OS10 or didn't recognize my fossilized excuse for a 3D accelerator. I miss the BSD subsystem (since I actually know how to use it it is very useful for me to have around) and the ability to better control what apps were used to open certain filetypes but that's about all I was offered over OS9.

After using OS9 again for a week I remembered how much I liked it. Sure OS10 has a better memory manager but the scheduler is still a bit iffy on the G3. With 9.2 I have 3D performance once more, I can play games, my G3 doesn't feel like a 68k, and 256MB of RAM is actually enough to run lots of things concurrently. Well lots of things being listening to MP3s and using IE at the same time. Maybe when I grab myself a G4 tower or portable and I have little choice I'll switch back to OS10. I really like the design of OS10. Architecturally it is a very solid system but asthetically I think it still has a way to go for me at least. An investment in something as expensive as a Mac ought to be respected by the vendor of said Mac and thus should not be easily phased out by a new OS. For those of us running older hardware I think we ought to have the option of a lighter graphical subsystem and better sheduling services and (for portable users) more control over conservation/performance settings.

Quartz is simply too intensive for older systems to handle well and it can't be easily accelerated in hardware. It wouldn't be much to replace it since you're just replace the Quartz module with say maybe a QuickDraw module that supported all of the NS widget calls. Aqua is just a toolkit on top of Quartz, it isn't like it is hardwired into CoreGraphics or anything. As for the scheduler I think Apple's spent too much time optimizing performance on the G4 to sell more of them rather than supporting the people who already shelled out their several thousand dollars for their Mac. The G4 was designed to handle more concurrent processes than the G3 as well as switch context better. A G3 optimized sheduler service ought to be an option so as too maximize the processing capability of the G3. It'd definitely increase OS10 performance on older G3 systems as well as make the newer G3 based systems something to be reconed with in OS10. As for power stuff, in 10 I missed the ability to alter my "conservation" settings. In 9 I can modify the specifics of conservation settings in regards to the processor, just not tell the hard drive and LCD to turn off at specific times. OS10 I AFAIK automatically lowers the clock and cycles the power on the processor in order to maximize battery life when set to conservation mode. This is bad for older processors having to deal with the obscene prosessing demands of several of OS10's subsystems.

I guess I'm glad Classic isn't quite dead yet since I don't have the cash to go out and get myself a new Mac anytime soon. I wanted to get a G4 PB after MWSF but I don't know if that isnt going to work out . Here's hoping Apple will fix OS10 so those of use without a super computer in our backpack or on our desk can actually use it.

2GHz 15" MacBook Pro, 120GB 5400rpm HD, 2GB RAM
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Springfield, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2001, 09:36 PM
 
Originally posted by pete.z:
<STRONG>I'm not sure what youre customers are doing in OS-9,but crashing every 6 hours?
Better fix their systems or learn them how to use it...... </STRONG>
I don't know pete, you make it seem as if OS 9 is hard to crash or something. I had a clean system in my OS 9 days (wow, over a year ago). I knew every extension in the System Folder and (the few) all served a purpose. There was no extraneous cruft in there. Regardless I was always crashing. At least twice a day.

Most of the time the crashes were while using Internet Explorer. It always crashed at random times during the day. Real Player also was trouble. It must have been designed to crash. It brought my system down almost every time I used it. So why the constant crashes? Because simply put, OS 9's architecture is exactly as stated by -Q-. The system had no memory protection. Any program that wanted to could clobber the system memory space and then your screwed. This is not an opinion, this is not a myth. This is a fact, and it is why so many people had so many problems with OS 9 crashing. I can't understand how some people apparently got lucky and had no such problems. Maybe you didn't ever try beta software. Maybe you didn't ever use IE. Maybe it was just karma. Who knows, but for a sizable portion of the users crashing was a daily thing.

Enter OS X, I had a few (still countable on 1 hand) crashes in the early days, but since then the system is rock solid. I can run any crappy, beta software that I want and it doesn't matter. The OS protects itself and the other programs, so the most a bit of deranged code can do is make a dramatic exit. Us classic mac users, like Windows users were brainwashed into thinking that it was acceptable for the operating system to crash every so often. It is not. Now, I don't even know where my trusty paper clip is (you know, the reboot button one). Good riddance, who needs it.

Finally us Mac users have a powerful architecture. The interface and all the rest on top is not perfect, but that will come. Give it time, but I don't believe that we will need nearly the full 15 years that OS 9 took to get to it's current level of interface perfection. In the meantime, I have more then all I need to stay productive, as a developer.

P.S. I do agree with Graymalkin to some extent. OS X is slow on my partially supported iMac, and it is a pain when compiling takes 3 times longer if I'm listening to an mp3 or even a cd, however there are so many things that I just can't do in OS 9, so there's no way I can switch. Coding c in OS 9 is especially frustrating when a stray pointer kills your system instead of just a seg fault.

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Mactoid ]
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
-- Radiohead, Exit Music (for a film)
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA, US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2001, 10:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>This amuses me greatly...

That is, the fact that some people find it realistic to work in OSX; wow. You people must need all the speed you can get, 'ey?

Also, amusing is the fact that some of you consider OSX to be more than what it really is - a toy; a game; something to do when you're bored; something to gaze at when you're phased.

For anything not involving UNIX, Mac OS 9 can do whatever you want faster and better.

But hey... you use what you want, and I'll use what I want. The difference is, I'm the one sitting back and enjoying the ride, while laughing at all of you, and getting my work done faster </STRONG>

Well, not really...I program in WebObjects (which doesn't run under OS 9), and given the choice between programming under Windows 2000 Professional (no speed demon either, even on a 2GHz P4--XP is worse) or under OS X, I'll take OS X every time. Let's not forget that even though graphics and multimedia professionals seem to be the Mac's core constituency (along with education), other types of professionals use Macs too.

However, I do object the the flame-baiting subject of the topic. Right now we should be thankful for Classic and the ability to boot back into 9; I'm glad that Apple has given people a choice during this trying transition.

I happen to prefer (note the verb, "prefer") OS X's interface, and the speed is useable; fortunately, all the software I need is available for OS X, so since I got my TiBook, I have *never* booted back into 9 or used Classic. I like it. But to each his or her own. Vive la choice!

Mark
TiBook 667MHz/512Mb/30Gb/DVD
Macs for work and play; Windows for...work and play. Oh. Never mind. Whatever.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2001, 04:00 AM
 
OS 9.1 or even 9.04 (and 8.6 - Borg) for stalwarts works, so it seems, great for aproximately 90% of its users.

The rush for the new, to break something that works, deride and despise it, tells me that there's a lot of frustrated computer programmers who can't fix it better, coupled with Steve's un-medicated state forbodes a serious Chapter 13 in the future for Apple. Their rush to promote a beta, and yes, it'll be beta for years for it takes so much time to provide the refinement OS 9.1 took (uh, years folks)...where was I?

Yes, his strange urge, coupled by his outstanding volunteer sheeplike promoters (you know, those nice "putz' who payed to be testers, unreal people) will cripple the company. Old time users will jump ship and move to the Dark Side. And OX.9999 will still be a beta and nobody will buy Apple anymore, for they were arrogant enough not to allow OS 9 to boot up anymore for of course, OS X... was fine enough. Remember, it takes yrs. to have a system nicely tuned, refined. What's this in a year stuff. Who really believes it? Nobody, in their heart of hearts.

Sell your stocks now. There's another Enron in the making here, albeit on a smaller scale, in Cupertino. Steve will then have proper psychiatric care, thankgod; afterwards.

Cheeers!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2001, 04:17 AM
 
But when people start saying things like "OS9 is crap and I can't wait until it dies!!!" thats when I get irritated. Such un-intelligent comments simply amaze me.
The thing Ifind appauling is would you all be flipping out if there WAS no thing as OS X? I think not... someone comes along and says OS 9 is shit a year or two ago and we're like, well it does 100% of what I need it to etc... the SECOND we have a new OS it's DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!! Get a damn life.. OS 9 works for me... and I TOTALLY agree with Cipher for once... when I want to play around in something different than 9, I boot X... after I'm done playing... I get back to work in 9.

Mac Guru
"The young people of America need be taught that the only pride they may properly hold is in the content of their character, and the achievements they make. There is no legitimate pride or moral credit to be gained by virtue of sharing the same race with a great and admirable individual. "

My Website
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2001, 05:49 AM
 
I love X. The only thing I ever boot into 9 for anymore is an occasional game of Marathon.

However, I don't wish Classic dead, and I've never understood why so many people do. Why abandon my library of old software? Unless Apple can find a better way to get old software working in X, the Classic environment is going to stay around. It has to.

Also, I'm glad that Macs still have the ability to dual-boot 9. I hope it stays this way for a long time. Remember, choice is good! And there is still some old software that doesn't work well in Classic (Marathon for example. Do you really want me to give up Marathon? Never!).

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2001, 07:13 PM
 
I applaud those not so brainwashed as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is: to enjoy OS 9.1 for it is a very refined sytems w/hardly any bugs that I can find. And if it crashes, so what? It's easy to fix: reset the PRAM, trash certain Preferences, use Tech Tool Pro and if you desire, Disk Warrior and/or Norton Utilities. Or worse: re-initialize the disk (which OS X vets are happy to do) and reinstall system hardware. There you go, neat, clean, takes some time but certainly is not buggy.

This is not to say that OS X... has great potential. However, it's commands, format are so alien to the veteran Mac user and some are so busy they don't have the time to re-learn a buggy system - and yes it'll have "bugs" for years folks, that's development. And what of costs? Having to purchase (or burn if you like) entirely new and expensive programs what the word? carbonized for OS X. And let's face it, it'll be years if ever that OS 9 apps will run smoothly in OS X; it's like forcing a camel and a giraffe to mate. It ain't in the cards.

So Steve's smartest move, which obviously he can't see, and I wish the idiot would pay me, is to sell both systems, saying that we have OS 9, a system that old-time Mac users have been happy with that LACK certain features of our new OS X. If he doesn't, many will jump ship and I'll bet Evil Bill knows this and will finally put out an OS that is barely palatable, yet usable to Mac users, disgusting as it seems.

But watch Steve; his unparalled arrogance by not permitting OS 9 on newer machines will cause great damage to his company. And imagine, if Apple goes under, unless he's fired for doing this mistake, then the chipper OS X users will have no support, they'll be like pathological refugees in a sea of madness. At best.

So let's hope for all, and there is room for everyone, that Steve sells not exclusivity but options, unlike any other game in town. This way he'll cover himself too and not get fired again, someting I'll see to right away (uh don't know how but it seems justified).

Rant.

Be of good cheer and really folks, Merry X-Mas and Happy New Year. Forget this divisiveness w/in the Mac community. There is one person who caused it and he won't ruin our computer joys.

Cheers.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2001, 04:25 PM
 
9 may work fine for you, but the faster X is fully supported the better. Apple can concentrate on X fully and we can have some real progress.

Computers aren't JUST about speed (ahem-Cipher…), speed is a big factor if you are doing 3D or something but a little TEMPORARY sluggishness in the name of progress is ok.

Windows AND Macs both needed an overhaul (yes, OS 9 IS a hacked together dinosaur), the time is now. Computer sales are sluggish as hell so the transition is nice and gradual.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2001, 06:44 PM
 
The speed is what we feel though; we interact with a GUI. When a system can't keep up with our interactions (and I'm not talking command line interactions here), there is a major problem. I believe that UI speed is nearly the most important factor in a graphical OS.

Of course, below things such as features and compatibility and so forth, but you know what I mean.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2001, 10:40 PM
 
You know, I was at the point where I hadn't booted classic in over a month, but then Santa brought me a digital camera for Christmas. Sooo, I went to print some 4x6's and found that OS X apparently still doesn't support custom paper sizes.

F********************cccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks to classic it's not the end of the world; I can print these from OS 9 without a problem. However, for me this is a pretty fundamental limitation of Apple's "super modern" OS. I suppose I could understand this feature being absent from the 10.0 release, but c'mon we've had several updates and are now at 10.1.2. Sometimes I wonder WTF the programmers at Apple do with their time.....
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2001, 10:49 PM
 
Originally posted by mrpuny:
<STRONG>Sooo, I went to print some 4x6's and found that OS X apparently still doesn't support custom paper sizes. However, for me this is a pretty fundamental limitation of Apple's "super modern" OS. Sometimes I wonder WTF the programmers at Apple do with their time.....</STRONG>
Ever thought about putting the blame on the idiots that actually have something to do with missing paper sizes? LIKE THE DRIVER DEVELOER! (Say Epson, Canon etc.)?



0

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Fully dynamic web site Starting Points.[/FONT]
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2001, 11:09 PM
 
Originally posted by zerologic:
<STRONG>

Ever thought about putting the blame on the idiots that actually have something to do with missing paper sizes? LIKE THE DRIVER DEVELOER! (Say Epson, Canon etc.)?



0</STRONG>
Yep, I did think about that, but then I found the following info on Apple's own web site (it looks like I can't just post the URL so I'll give the document info - the note I reference is at the end of the document):
------------------------------------------------------------
Article ID: 106490
Title: Mac OS X 10.1: Many Third-Party Ink Jet Printer Drivers Are Included

"Notes

1. Some printing features are not included in Mac OS X 10.1, such as custom paper sizes, banner printing, booklet printing, and watermarks. "
------------------------------------------------------------

So, unless I'm misinterpreting the above, it looks like Apple is saying that the lack of custom paper sizes is a limitation of the printing architecture as currently implemented. If this isn't the case, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know so I redirect my wrath.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2001, 11:43 PM
 
Originally posted by mrpuny:
<STRONG>

------------------------------------------------------------
Article ID: 106490
Title: Mac OS X 10.1: Many Third-Party Ink Jet Printer Drivers Are Included

"Notes

1. Some printing features are not included in Mac OS X 10.1, such as custom paper sizes, banner printing, booklet printing, and watermarks. "
------------------------------------------------------------</STRONG>
I'd still say that the drivers suppied to Apple from Epson and Canon and so on are incomplete and it is therefore their fault, not Apple's.

There are plently of other things Apple deserves blame for, but this isn't one of them. IMHO.

0

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Fully dynamic web site Starting Points.[/FONT]
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2001, 01:00 AM
 
Originally posted by zerologic:
<STRONG>

I'd still say that the drivers suppied to Apple from Epson and Canon and so on are incomplete and it is therefore their fault, not Apple's.

There are plently of other things Apple deserves blame for, but this isn't one of them. IMHO.

0</STRONG>
Well, sorry, but based on the article I quoted earlier and posts on Apple's discussion boards it appears that the blame rests squarely at Apple's feet. Custom paper sizes are apparently not available with any make of printer. Like many things in OS X, it appears that the printing system is not feature complete and simply does not support custom paper sizes. I'd love to be proved wrong on this. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Not to be rude, but opinions are rather meaningless if they're not supported by facts.
     
   
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 02:39 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2