[Michel_80]

Hi,

Since they kept the G4 Towers, I was wondering whether they will keep the Tibooks as well when the new Al Book will come out.

What do you reckon?

[AssassyN]

Highly doubtful...once the current supply of OS 9 bootable machines fizzels out, they'll never make any new OS 9 bootable machines. Apple has long moved on from OS 9.

[Axo1ot1]

OS 9 is wack. And dead. Get over it.

[Wiskedjak]

People who continue to use OS9 don't purchase new Apple software. Why would Apple want to encourage that?

[fisherKing]

i use classic *sigh* for one or two apps that only exist that way.

but basically, as said above...9 is dead.

and X kicks its ass anyway!

[legionare]

OS 9 lives! Hence I've acquired Mac OS ROM 9.8.1 that will purportedly allow OS 9 booting on supposedly non-OS 9 capable iMacs.

[aapljack]

I believe that the only reason they kept shipping os9 bootable machines, was because Quark wasn't out for osX yet. Now that Quark has been released, there really isn't any reason to keep os9 bootable machines around. For the few odd apps that may need os9, classic works great.

-b

[John123]

Originally posted by legionare:
OS 9 lives! Hence I've acquired Mac OS ROM 9.8.1 that will purportedly allow OS 9 booting on supposedly non-OS 9 capable iMacs.

Are you joking, or are you serious?

I have owned all three of the most recent 15" PowerBooks -- the 550, the 667 DVI, and the 1Ghz SD. But my time using Apple portables has come to an end (at least for a year or so -- until processor speed can overcome OS X's clunky UI) if OS X is my only option.

[David Hagan]

Michel may be onto something. As recently as late-June Apple re-intro'd a G4 tower with an old motherboard design just so they could boot OS 9. This may likely be the strategy with PowerBooks. Perhaps Apple is indeed going to rev the Ti Book once again. We still don't know what Apple will do until they announce it. Personally, I'm hoping for an Al15. I will never get another Ti.

[icruise]

Originally posted by John123:
I have owned all three of the most recent 15" PowerBooks -- the 550, the 667 DVI, and the 1Ghz SD. But my time using Apple portables has come to an end (at least for a year or so -- until processor speed can overcome OS X's clunky UI) if OS X is my only option.

I think we've had this discussion before, but I find it hard to believe you think a 1Ghz Tibook is too slow in OS X (or the other machines, for that matter).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think we've had this discussion before, but I find it hard to believe you think a 1Ghz Tibook is too slow in OS X (or the other machines, for that matter).

I find the 1 GHz TiBook OK, but not a speed daemon. I'd like a faster machine.

[dialo]

There are still a ton of very major audio applications not available in OS X, and seeing as though apple has such a huge interest in the audio market, it would not be a shock for them to continue with an OS 9 powerbook.

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I find the 1 GHz TiBook OK, but not a speed daemon. I'd like a faster machine.

I've had a Ghz powerbook since right after they came out, and I know that the only think I ever wait for is disk access. I use it for intensive tasks ranging from FCP 4 to logic (using primarily NI softsynths and the AS-1) as well as photoshop/illustrator/indesign for various large publications I do for work and dreamweaver for my label. There are only three times I end up waiting for anything: final rendering of video projects, disk access and suitcase to start up with a massive number of fonts (multiple adobe font folios, among others). Video rendering (or encoding with cleaner) isn't worth another upgrade until it is at least twice as fast since both 6 hours and 5 hours is a long ass time (though it is only long with a lot of effects, but it would take forever with any machine available now). Likewise, whether it takes 5 minutes or 2.5 minutes for suitcase to open doesn't matter to me since I still have to go do something else for that time and won't notice the difference.

For everything else, I never ever ever find myself waiting for anything at all. Even photoshop filters run fast and are never annoying to apply on even large images. I also find no major speed differences between this machine and the faster towers in normal usage, other than what has been mentioned above. The only thing annoying during normal operation is waiting for disks to speed up for OS X's virtual memory.

[John123]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think we've had this discussion before, but I find it hard to believe you think a 1Ghz Tibook is too slow in OS X (or the other machines, for that matter).

Yes, I think we have too. Just browse around in the Finder in OS 9, and then do it in X. You'll see the difference. Try opening and closing the same window 50 times. Try using something like FruitMenu to make your Apple menu hierarchical, so you can easily get to your documents which may be three directories down.

I don't delude myself -- most of my time is spent doing tasks that are "putzing" exactly like the ones above.

Similarly, go into Excel and have a formula in C1 that's (100*A1+20*B1). Drag it down 5000 cells. See how long it takes in OS 9...then see how long it takes in OS X.

Point the blame wherever you want....call it bad development on Microsoft's part on this last issue....say that my use of hierarchical menus is "out of date" if you like...but for me, it's the most productive and intuitive way for me to work.

[Kenneth]

Well.. running OS 9 should be wicking fast on future Macs... but I don't think Apple will keep a OS 9 bootable Mac for professional level.

[mattm42]

Originally posted by John123:
Try opening and closing the same window 50 times.

This seems like a very productive use of one's time. Or, at least, productive for someone who needs to bolster an argument that OSX and all its "eye candy" is for losers.

But, you're right. I want to be one of the cool kids - the enlightened, if you will. I will switch to OS9!! My tasks will now load nanoseconds faster (supposedly), while also allowing me to be cool and different and retro, so that I may post about how much I dislike OSX on messageboards. Thank you, sir, for showing me the way.

[Mastrap]

And in addition to the above you'll be able to spend your time figuring out extension conflicts.

You'll be discovering the joys of using the chooser to switch printers.

You'll be jumping with glee when finding that your network settings reside in a whole plethora of control panels.

And to top it all of you'll be discovering that feeling of satisfaction that only comes from having to re-boot your entire system, losing all your unsaved changes, just because one single app is playing up.



OS9 is dead and buried.

[John123]

Originally posted by mattm42:
This seems like a very productive use of one's time. Or, at least, productive for someone who needs to bolster an argument that OSX and all its "eye candy" is for losers.

But, you're right. I want to be one of the cool kids - the enlightened, if you will. I will switch to OS9!! My tasks will now load nanoseconds faster (supposedly), while also allowing me to be cool and different and retro, so that I may post about how much I dislike OSX on messageboards. Thank you, sir, for showing me the way.

It is disappointing that you are incapable of having a discussion without introducing the kind of attitude I expect from teenagers.

Does one open and close 50 windows at one time? Of course not. Does one do it over the course of a period of time -- say, half an hour? Yes. Does that time accumulate? Yes. So for the purposes of benchmarking, doing the same thing 50 times in a row -- and timing the results -- tells you just how much more time you're spending doing it in OS X than in OS 9. Moreover, at the end of your first paragraph you seem to confuse "eye candy," which has to do with aesthetics and appearance, with speed, which is related to productivity.

If you really don't care about speeding up tasks, then why not go get yourself a cheap G3-500 machine, save yourself $1000, and contribute to your kids' college fund with that money?

[John123]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
And in addition to the above you'll be able to spend your time figuring out extension conflicts.

You'll be discovering the joys of using the chooser to switch printers.

You'll be jumping with glee when finding that your network settings reside in a whole plethora of control panels.

And to top it all of you'll be discovering that feeling of satisfaction that only comes from having to re-boot your entire system, losing all your unsaved changes, just because one single app is playing up.



OS9 is dead and buried.

Understanding OS 9 as I do, I don't have extension conflicts. My PowerBook rarely crashes to be honest. Network settings are all in either the TCP/IP control panel or the AppleTalk control panel. And I kinda like the Chooser (not that it's necessary -- you can change between printers on the fly so long as your default uses the LaserWriter8 extension and your other printers do too).

[Simon]

Originally posted by John123:
Understanding OS 9 as I do, I don't have extension conflicts.

<nasty>
Actually, I believe most of the OS X bashers are so fond of OS 9 precisely because of this. They believe they know everything about OS 9 (and some actually do) but they are terribly afraid of OS X because they fear losing control and are not very fond of having to "re-learn" a whole OS. Some actually think they are being degraded from "Pro" to "Beginner" and that really seems to be such a blow to their ego.
</nasty>

OS 9 may be snappy and it was good some years ago, but nowadays it belongs buried and forgotten.

Most of the bitching has to do with people who want to continue working the way they did on the old OS and then think OS X is slow or bad at doing it that way. If they would at least try to understand the new ways the OS supports doing things they would quickly manage to do stuff much faster, but since they are so stubborn...

Apart from people who rely on software that only runs with OS 9 booted or people using a five year old Mac IMHO I think nobody should be avoiding OS X.

It's good that 9 is dead.

[John123]

Originally posted by Simon:
<nasty>
Actually, I believe most of the OS X bashers are so fond of OS 9 precisely because of this. They believe they know everything about OS 9 (and some actually do) but they are terribly afraid of OS X because they fear losing control and are not very fond of having to "re-learn" a whole OS. Some actually think they are being degraded from "Pro" to "Beginner" and that really seems to be such a blow to their ego.
</nasty>

OS 9 may be snappy and it was good some years ago, but nowadays it belongs buried and forgotten.

Most of the bitching has to do with people who want to continue working the way they did on the old OS and then think OS X is slow or bad at doing it that way. If they would at least try to understand the new ways the OS supports doing things they would quickly manage to do stuff much faster, but since they are so stubborn...

Apart from people who rely on software that only runs with OS 9 booted or people using a five year old Mac IMHO I think nobody should be avoiding OS X.

It's good that 9 is dead.

Oh please...it has nothing to do with ego. (Well for some it may, but not me.) OS X is easy enough to navigate in. Can I tool around in UNIX? No. But you don't need any UNIX background to use OS X. Fundamentally, OS X and OS 9 don't "operate" that differently in terms of navigating around the UI....one's just a lot faster than the other.

Simon, you also apparently didn't read the rest of this thread pertaining to the advantages/disadvantages of OS X. I am perfectly happy and willing to recognize OS X's advantage in terms of true preemptive multitasking, but as I noted earlier, I think a minority of the Mac market engages in such truly processor-intensive multitasking. If you're a creative professional and you want to be doing all kinds of renders and filters simultaneously, hey....OS X is probably great for you....but for a more "casual" user such as myself, that's just not what I need to do. More of my time is spent putzing, in pretty low-level apps, and navigating around the Finder...not rendering a film and running a filter at the same time.

[Simon]

John123, a rather strong reaction from somebody who a) wasn't targeted and b) claims to not be targeted.

Strange, isn't it?

Originally posted by John123:
Can I tool around in UNIX? No. But you don't need any UNIX background to use OS X. Fundamentally, they don't "operate" that differently in terms of UI tasks....

No, they don't. Not at all. But some people think that UNIX underspinning means there's an evil daemon in their computer all of a sudden and because of that they start whining and try to go hide behind OS 9...

one's just a lot faster than the other.

That statement is so entirely simplistic it hurts. It just goes to show that you lack the technical understanding necessary to make such a claim in the first place.

How can you say such a thing about an OS that excels at tasks that measure precisely responsivity? Go ask testers about OS X's I/O on a Xserve or ask music professionals about latency. They will tell you that a modern Mac running OS X is the best product in its league.

Just because the OS X Finder GUI doesn't re-size a window quickly enough for you, does by no means authorize you to make such a bold statement as "OS X is slower than OS 9".

Leave those statements to people who have the technical insight to actually back up such claims.

Simon, you also apparently didn't read the rest of this thread pertaining to the advantages/disadvantages of OS X.

You bet I did. I Read the whole thread from beginning to end. And quite frankly, it was a discussion about a OS 9 booting PowerBook remaining in the line until you came along and tried to impress people here (or did you hope deep down inside that Steve would read it and change company plans because of your post?) with meaty statements about Apple's power problems and how you would not buy another PowerBook if it ran only X until they deal with it in a manner you would call apropriate, yadda yadda... (here's the quote btw: "But my time using Apple portables has come to an end (at least for a year or so -- until processor speed can overcome OS X's clunky UI) if OS X is my only option.")

I am well aware of its advantages in terms of true preemptive multitasking (scroll up -- you can do it!), but as I noted earlier, relatively few of us really engage in these kinds of tasks.

That's entirely wrong. How do you come up with "few of us"? What's that based on? It's just pure speculation. There's nothing to back that up. Just speculation disguised as common knowledge.

Let's try to get back to facts.

The way computers are used nowadays people want exactly that. Computers play our music, display movies or DVDs, connect to the internet, download files, run our calendars and reminders, and let us play games. More than ever, computers have to work simultaneously. They should boot w/o problems, run all our stuff with no crashes, run it side by side as well as one after the other and have 100% availability.

OS X has the capabilities to do this and offers the basis for more such functionality in the future. OS 9 does not.

you're a creative professional and you want to be doing all kinds of renders and filters simultaneously, hey....more power to you....but for a more "casual" user such as myself, that's just not what I need to do.

If your use of OS X is so casual that you don't need its advanced features, you can well afford to wait a couple of ms more for a menu to come down or a window to re-size.

Nobody is preventing you from using OS 9. Nobody is taking your OS 9 Mac away from you. You may use the OS you prefer. But Apple has clearly dropped OS 9 in favor of OS X all together and I believe that's fine decision.

But, let me repeat, my original post wasn't aimed at you. You just happened to mention a topic that I replied about. If you chose to feel targeted and argue about that it's solely your decision.

[Agent69]

Originally posted by Simon:
But some people think that UNIX underspinning means there's an evil daemon in their computer

Actually, there's a daemon in their computer.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Agent69:
Actually, there's a daemon in their computer.

Well, I also have several, but none of them are evil.

[Eug Wanker]

There are only three times I end up waiting for anything: final rendering of video projects, disk access and suitcase to start up with a massive number of fonts (multiple adobe font folios, among others). Video rendering (or encoding with cleaner) isn't worth another upgrade until it is at least twice as fast since both 6 hours and 5 hours is a long ass time (though it is only long with a lot of effects, but it would take forever with any machine available now). Likewise, whether it takes 5 minutes or 2.5 minutes for suitcase to open doesn't matter to me since I still have to go do something else for that time and won't notice the difference.

I'm glad you don't mind. Some of us do. When I'm on a deadline, I'd rather be working for that extra 2.5 minutes than twiddling my thumbs.

Rendering takes forever, and you don't mind as a pro? I'm just an iMovie/iDVD user, and the encoding time drives me up the wall.

Ever try just using the auto-thumbnail creation feature of the Finder? It takes forever on my 768 MB GHz TiBook.

Yes, the GHz TiBook, is OK, but I want more speed, and I am willing to pay for it. Double the speed would be nice, but a 60% speed boost would be enough for me to upgrade. I don't think I'd upgrade for a 1.4 GHz though. But I want better memory support. It looks like I'm going to have to wait at least until late 2004, and possibly 2005.

----

As for OS 9, I agree, it's dead.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I'm glad you don't mind. Some of us do. When I'm on a deadline, I'd rather be working for that extra 2.5 minutes than twiddling my thumbs.

Rendering takes forever, and you don't mind as a pro? I'm just an iMovie/iDVD user, and the encoding time drives me up the wall.

Rendering heavy effects has always taken forever. Over the years I've gotten used to the fact that I need to do rendering over night, and chopping just an hour or two off of 6 hours is not going to change that. Any system with good real time abilities, has FCP4 now has, eliminates the time wasted waiting for a bunch of small renders. So really, the only time the processer is slowing me down at all is in that final render when I am not at the machine anyway.

The 2.5 minutes you are talking about is with suitcase, and that only occurs when I am logging in, which happens probably once every week or two weeks.

As for OS 9, I agree, it's dead.

Not for audio it's not. Go take a look at NI, for instance. The fact is that OS X versions of extremely popular audio software simply don't exist yet, and the fact remains that Apple's stake in computer audio is huge. I have no idea whether or not apple will continue with an OS 9 powerbook, but you can bet that musicians will be using OS 9 for an extremely long time. Think about it: here we are seeing 2nd OS X releases of most graphics software (macromedia, apple, adobe) and still don't have intial OS X releases of equally important audio software.

I do use OS X for almost everything (I even use X 11 programs daily), but OS 9 is still very much alive and well for one of the most important group of apple customers.

[dialo]

Originally posted by John123:
Yes, I think we have too. Just browse around in the Finder in OS 9, and then do it in X. You'll see the difference. Try opening and closing the same window 50 times. Try using something like FruitMenu to make your Apple menu hierarchical, so you can easily get to your documents which may be three directories down.

I don't delude myself -- most of my time is spent doing tasks that are "putzing" exactly like the ones above.

This is disk access, and a faster processor is not going to help much if at all. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that the biggest hold up I ever experience is the disk.

Originally posted by John123:
Does one open and close 50 windows at one time? Of course not. Does one do it over the course of a period of time -- say, half an hour? Yes. Does that time accumulate? Yes. So for the purposes of benchmarking, doing the same thing 50 times in a row -- and timing the results -- tells you just how much more time you're spending doing it in OS X than in OS 9. Moreover, at the end of your first paragraph you seem to confuse "eye candy," which has to do with aesthetics and appearance, with speed, which is related to productivity.

I call BS on this one. windows in OS X open faster than you can respond to them. I work fast as hell and can't respond as fast as windows open and close.

Now if you are referring to waiting in contextual menus or the finder again, I agree. But I don't see how a faster processor is going to help with spinning my disk up faster.

The problem you are facing is apparently the way OS X uses virtual memory. And I agree. But the benefits of OS X greatly overshadow this problem.

However, I totally agree with you that I want to to be fixed. Why should I have to wait for a CD to spin up when I am right clicking on a totally unrelated file on my system drive?

[John123]

Originally posted by Simon:
John123, a rather strong reaction from somebody who a) wasn't targeted and b) claims to not be targeted.

Strange, isn't it?


"Wasn't targeted"? When you quote someone, including creating the cute little <nasty> X </nasty> section, how can you contend you weren't targeting me? Puh-lease.....


That statement is so entirely simplistic it hurts. It just goes to show that you lack the technical understanding necessary to make such a claim in the first place.

How can you say such a thing about an OS that excels at tasks that measure precisely responsivity? Go ask testers about OS X's I/O on a Xserve or ask music professionals about latency. They will tell you that a modern Mac running OS X is the best product in its league.

Just because the OS X Finder GUI doesn't re-size a window quickly enough for you, does by no means authorize you to make such a bold statement as "OS X is slower than OS 9".

Leave those statements to people who have the technical insight to actually back up such claims.

As if there was any doubt that your original caustic comment was "targeted" at me, I think you've set that question rest....

Simon, you seem to have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension. I have consistently referred to the speed of the UI. That's the Finder GUI. I have also consistently acknowledged that OS X has specific advantages...they just aren't the ones that I really care about on my Mac.

Incidentally, as for my "technical insight," that's cute but once again inaccurate. First of all, no "technical insight" is required to do simple benchmarking. Anyone can do it. Second, I'm the IT guy where I work, so apparently, my technical savvy is good enough. (Spare us the snyde remark that I know you're itching to make.)


That's entirely wrong. How do you come up with "few of us"? What's that based on? It's just pure speculation. There's nothing to back that up. Just speculation disguised as common knowledge.

You accuse me of "pure speculation" and yet start off the paragraph saying, "That's entirely wrong." Thanks for defining "hypocrisy" for us.


The way computers are used nowadays people want exactly that. Computers play our music, display movies or DVDs, connect to the internet, download files, run our calendars and reminders, and let us play games. More than ever, computers have to work simultaneously. They should boot w/o problems, run all our stuff with no crashes, run it side by side as well as one after the other and have 100% availability.

OS X has the capabilities to do this and offers the basis for more such functionality in the future. OS 9 does not.

I do this sort of stuff every day. In OS 9. With relatively few crashes. I'm truly sorry your experience with OS 9 was so bad.


If your use of OS X is so casual that you don't need its advanced features, you can well afford to wait a couple of ms more for a menu to come down or a window to re-size.

And you are who exactly to tell me when I can and can't "afford to wait"?


But, let me repeat, my original post wasn't aimed at you. You just happened to mention a topic that I replied about. If you chose to feel targeted and argue about that it's solely your decision.

Very amusing way to end a very sneering post. Good job.

[John123]

Originally posted by dialo:
This is disk access, and a faster processor is not going to help much if at all. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that the biggest hold up I ever experience is the disk.

Yes and no. Partly yes, it is related to disk access. But partly it's the UI. The proof lies in the pudding: do the same set of tasks in OS 9 and OS X. If it were all or even mostly disk access, they'd both go at comparable speeds. But they don't.

In any event, the windows thing was an example. I frankly would enjoy seeing them open up as fast as they do in OS 9, but no it's not a big deal. The hierarchical and contextual menus do drive me nuts with their slowness, however. (And I'd rather not have antialiased fonts too, but yeech, this thread has gotten bad enough as it is).

[Commodus]

Although I've used the Macs before X (System 7 was *the* Mac OS I knew back in high school, for example), my first experience in actually owning a Mac was with OS X 10.2, so I think I have a difference experience than what most of the people here do.

I know that OS 9 is more responsive in terms of its GUI, but that's practically a given. It's much more simple visually and has a small footprint on the hard drive. Because it doesn't truly multitask, it focusses on whatever particular app you're running with all its energy. In a sense, I almost wish that I'd been able to use OS 9 in earnest.

But to me, X has advantages that override anything 9 might have to offer. True multitasking is the first. I couldn't stand it if I couldn't have multiple apps running smoothly at the same time.

Second: memory. Who wants to deal with unprotected memory? I know I don't!

And lastly, the UI visuals and interface tricks that have become available in X are worth it. Apple definitely didn't have a strong case for X in 2001, but with speed and UI tweaks it's a lot more palatable. I can't imagine doing a lot of things without antialiased fonts, or high-res icons, and so on.

Having said all that, I think that Apple is treating the titanium 15" PowerBook like it is the remaining PowerMac G4s: it's a model for the holdouts until its stock runs out, and then it's gone. With OS X 10.3 (which is supposed to be considerably faster than Jaguar) responsiveness is probably going to be eliminated entirely as an argument for staying with OS 9.

[Michel_80]

What I meant with my original thread is that are we going to see Tibooks still being sold when the new PB's are released (Like the 1.25 G4 Towers)? Maybe at a cheaper price as well.

[Simon]

Originally posted by John123:
"Wasn't targeted"? When you quote someone, including creating the cute little <nasty> X </nasty> section, how can you contend you weren't targeting me? Puh-lease.....

Tell me, do I know what I mean, or do you know it better?

If I tell you I wasn't pointing at you, then I wasn't.

You mentioned your understanding of OS 9 and that you don't have extension conflicts. That happened to remind me of the way some people argue. I made a nasty remark about those people.

I didn't imply anything you should have said or did not say. I didn't care if you belong to that group of people or not. It didn't matter.

Now you want to make a big fuss about it because in your opinion your ego has suffered. Well, OK, then you shall have it.

As if there was any doubt that your original caustic comment was "targeted" at me, I think you've set that question rest....

As I said, there was no reason for you to feel pointed at in the first place. But you decided to start advocating stuff that IMHO is baloney and therefor I will argue with you. You wanted it, you got it. I didn't force you into this debate.

Simon, you seem to have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension.

Oh yes, please lecture me on my reading comprehension capabilities. My academic career is in danger due to my "reading comprehension". I'm glad you mentioned it, because nobody else ever has.

I have consistently referred to the speed of the UI. That's the Finder GUI. I have also consistently acknowledged that OS X has specific advantages...they just aren't the ones that I really care about on my Mac.

No, that's BS.

First, you said OS 9 was faster than OS X. And that's crap. If you meant Finder GUI responsivity then you better say so, because those are two very different things.

Secondly, it wan't that you said you didn't care about "some specific advantages", but you tried to make people believe that a large majority of people doesn't need them, that (and I quote here) "few of us really engage in these kinds of tasks".

Now, look here. Isn't that a difference? So please, argue as much as you want, but don't say something and then when I tell you that it's bullshit try to re-phrase it. Everybody is capable of going back and reading what you originally wrote. Do you really take me for that dumb?

Incidentally, as for my "technical insight," that's cute but once again inaccurate.

The only inaccurate thing here is your wording when it comes to the comparisson between OS 9 and X. Get that fixed, and then we'll see how "cute" I am. OK?

First of all, no "technical insight" is required to do simple benchmarking. Anyone can do it.

To some extent that's true. But to make conclusions from those measurements you obviously need more insight. Because saying OS X is slower than OS 9 by looking at the Finder GUI speed is definitely rather stupid.

Second, I'm the IT guy where I work, so apparently, my technical savvy is good enough. (Spare us the snyde remark that I know you're itching to make.)

I'm not at all impressed. There are not many fields other than IT where people claim to be so proficient even though they are at the best mediocre.

I'm a research scientist and I work for one of the worlds best universities. Nevertheless you felt the need to criticize my reading skills. So don't dare tell me to respect your OS X judgement because you happen to be somebody's "IT guy".

You accuse me of "pure speculation" and yet start off the paragraph saying, "That's entirely wrong." Thanks for defining "hypocrisy" for us.

Again you twist. Speculation is entirely wrong here. I stand by that.

Go read other threads on this board. Try to find one single other person that claims OS X is way over the top. Then come back here and tell me "relatively few of us really engage in these kinds of tasks".

Come and show me proof for "relatively few of us really engage in these kinds of tasks". Until then I will claim you're full of it.

And you are who exactly to tell me when I can and can't "afford to wait"?

It's not me, it's Apple.

And btw, they're the same guys telling you to take it or leave it. If you don't want X, don't take it. It's their policy not mine. But I agree 100% with them.

If you want to convince me, you better find some hard facts to prove your statements. Just a little hand-waving is by far not enough.

Try harder.

[John123]

This is really pointless. I could continue to do the line-by-line debate with you but it's a waste of my time. It ought to be a waste of yours.

In my *VERY FIRST POST* I said the following:
<<I have owned all three of the most recent 15" PowerBooks -- the 550, the 667 DVI, and the 1Ghz SD. But my time using Apple portables has come to an end (at least for a year or so -- until processor speed can overcome OS X's clunky UI) if OS X is my only option.>>

You see the letters "UI" in there? That makes it really clear that I was talking about the GUI.

You just want to argue, but once again, based on your poor reading comprehension, I'd recommend you spend a little more time on your "academic career."

(Incidentally, are you sure you aren't confusing research "scientist" with research "assistant"? Methinks thou dost protest too much....)

[icruise]

Before this gets locked or moved, just let me make my point. The question is NOT whether the OS 9 GUI is faster than the OS X GUI (it is, because it is much simpler). The question is, does the marginally slower OS X GUI get in the way of your work? I just can't see how an extra millisecond opening a window or a menu can have that great an effect on your work. (When calculating how fast OS 9 is, don't forget to include the time spent rebooting, or waiting for programs to finish what they are doing before moving on to something else -- I think you'll find that OS X may actually have the advantage).

If OS X were just a pretty version of OS 9, you might have a point, but it has so many other advantages over the old system it's not even funny (and I used to love OS 9). It's still not perfect by any means, but I am finding I am much more productive than I was on OS 9, and this is on comparatively slow machines.

[John123]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Before this gets locked or moved, just let me make my point. The question is NOT whether the OS 9 GUI is faster than the OS X GUI (it is, because it is much simpler). The question is, does the marginally slower OS X GUI get in the way of your work? I just can't see how an extra millisecond opening a window or a menu can have that great an effect on your work. (When calculating how fast OS 9 is, don't forget to include the time spent rebooting, or waiting for programs to finish what they are doing before moving on to something else -- I think you'll find that OS X may actually have the advantage).

If OS X were just a pretty version of OS 9, you might have a point, but it has so many other advantages over the old system it's not even funny (and I used to love OS 9). It's still not perfect by any means, but I am finding I am much more productive than I was on OS 9, and this is on comparatively slow machines.

Fair enough. There seem to be a lot of folks who love OS X and who feel that it makes them more productive. That really and truly is awesome...I wish I were among their ranks.

[legionare]

OS X: Powerful? Maybe. Easy to use? Not by a long shot, compared to OS 9.

Here are some of my gripes with OS X:

1. How do you duplicate an existing Network location in OS X? In OS 9, I can choose "duplicate" in the TCP/IP control panel. How do you do that in OS X, huh?

1.1 I can import/export TCP/IP settings in OS 9. In OS X, I have to dig into /private/var/db/SystemConfiguration/preferences.xml.

1.2 OS X's proxy setting doesn't send proxy password encrypted (like Netscape/Mozilla does) so it doesn't work with MS proxy.

2. I had this source code folder that I was compiling squid web proxy from when my Pismo kernel-panicked. After reboot, the folder couldn't even be deleted in single user mode by root! "It's in use"! How'd you resolve that?

3. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...30219105312899

4. Try deleting/moving something to the order of 5,000 files in a Finder window. Instant spinning beachball for 10s of minutes.

[Eug]

...here we are seeing 2nd OS X releases of most graphics software (macromedia, apple, adobe) and still don't have intial OS X releases of equally important audio software.

Logic. Anyways, I agree that in the audio arena, OS 9 is more alive. Same could be said for Quark. However, the OS itself is an anachronism. If Apple were still on OS 9, I would have never bought a Mac. OS 9 just plain sucks IMO. Those companies who don't bring their apps to OS X deserve to lose the business.

Any system with good real time abilities, has FCP4 now has, eliminates the time wasted waiting for a bunch of small renders. So really, the only time the processer is slowing me down at all is in that final render when I am not at the machine anyway.

I don't use FCP (although I may be buying FCE soon), but my understanding was that the faster the CPU, the more real-time effects, and that the number of real-time previews was fairly limited on a GHz TiBook. So, indeed, a current TiBook WOULD slow you down in terms of small renders compared to say a 1.6 GHz machine. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And it seems odd that you wouldn't care if a render decreased from say 6 hours to 4 hours.

I personally would love it if my jumpy iDVD project previews became less jumpy (when doing other stuff), and if my encode times were cut by 40%. Instead of waiting for say 1.5 hours for a short DVD before I could use my computer again, I might only wait 65 minutes. (My TiBook burns DVD-R at 2X by the way, so a short DVD might take only 90 minutes to burn including encoding time.)

ie. If you don't need the speed, don't assume everyone else doesn't need it either. Many of us are willing to pay for the speed upgrade.

(Where it matters though, I agree that OS 9 doesn't mean faster speed. Even if it is faster, the speed bonus is lost because the OS itself sucks and is unstable.)

[Commodus]

legionaire:

Careful, because it's not too hard to provide counterpoints.

For example, I work at the software level of ISP support. Something we're occasionally asked to do is repair TCP/IP if it looks like it may have broken.

How to do it in OS 9:

1. Go to the System Folder and find the preferences.

2. Trash the TCP/IP preferences.

3. Go to the TCP/IP control panel and reestablish your settings.

And the same for OS X:

1. Restart the computer.

Also, #3 in your list is a bit dubious, because (as far as I know) Samba isn't an option with OS 9. Certainly not modern incarnations of it. Of course you won't have the problem if the service isn't an option in the first place, right?

We're diverging way off-topic here though. It's turning into more of a MacOS X thread than PowerBook one. I still think that Apple has been keeping the PowerBook around for the same reason that the PowerMac G4s are still available. There's leftover stock, and it caters to the OS 9 people who need an anchor of familiarity before they move to X.

[Simon]

Originally posted by John123:
This is really pointless. I could continue to do the line-by-line debate with you but it's a waste of my time. It ought to be a waste of yours.

Oh interesting! Now suddenly when forced to explain your contradictions it's a waste of time.

I'll let that speak for itself.

You just want to argue

You bet. I was really anxious to see how you would try to pull yourself out of this mess. I didn't think it was going to be such a cheap retreat. But, we know why, don't we.

Incidentally, are you sure you aren't confusing research "scientist" with research "assistant"? Methinks thou dost protest too much....)

Wow, what a lame attempt to discredit me. I didn't think you would fall so far. I hate to blow your bubble, that's what it says on my contract. And it has been saying that for quite some time already.

So, take the "methinks" bullshit and stick it.

I pity you seriously. Asked to back up your claims all you can do is go for some mud-wrestling. Very low.


--------


Back on topic:

I believe if an OS 9 PowerBook will remain in the line-up it would be the current Ti. I can't imagine Apple increase the clock on the old board again.

How long is Apple going to keep the OS 9 PowerMac around? Now that Quark for X is here, do they really need to keep this PowerMac? If they drop it, I suppose the Ti will be dropped as soon as the 15" Al gets here.

On the other hand, if the Ti were here to stay for another while, why would supplies be so low as they are now? It really looks like the Ti is soon going to be history.

It would be hard to imagine a new 15" Al PowerBook with all the 17" goodies that still boots OS 9...

[fisherKing]

i'm trying to follow all this...
i moved from 9 to x. reluctantly, six months ago...and will never go back.

x sometimes moves slower for me (on my pismo), but i wouldn't trade it's stability, logic, multitasking, etc for anything.

there are now apps just for x, and everything is moving forward, like photoshop, etc etc...just for X.

why 9? why not run 8.6, or 7.5??

hardware & software keep evolving, and i for one don't want to miss out on anything

(future 12" pb owner!)

[LfGrdMike]

OS9 is dead you can still use classic though.

[icruise]

Originally posted by fisherKing:
why 9? why not run 8.6, or 7.5??

The main reason is that modern hardware (that is, things made in the last couple of years) won't run anything but 9. And the earlier versions are missing some key features. But 7.5.5 does have a certain minimalist charm (I started using the Mac on a PowerMac 9600 with 7.5.5...)

[dialo]

Originally posted by Eug:
Logic. Anyways, I agree that in the audio arena, OS 9 is more alive. Same could be said for Quark. However, the OS itself is an anachronism. If Apple were still on OS 9, I would have never bought a Mac. OS 9 just plain sucks IMO. Those companies who don't bring their apps to OS X deserve to lose the business.

I have been using Logic since version 4 (in fact, I still use version 4 as my primary sequencer since it does everything very well, with the exception of the cumbersome automation). As I said, go look at Native Instruments. Major audio software is not available for OS X. Other software, such as waves, only came out recently.

The fact is that they won't lose their business, since they all do what they do best. For instance, there is no good alternative for the FM7.

It annoys me as mych as the next guy, but, as you know, the fact is that it's real difficult to move to only OS X at this point if widely-used software you are dependent upon is only available is 9.

And very, very important is the fact that audio software simply will not run in classic. So the option to use classic doesn't even exist.

I don't use FCP (although I may be buying FCE soon), but my understanding was that the faster the CPU, the more real-time effects, and that the number of real-time previews was fairly limited on a GHz TiBook. So, indeed, a current TiBook WOULD slow you down in terms of small renders compared to say a 1.6 GHz machine. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are in fact wrong. I really have to pile on the effects to hit the ceiling when 'unlimited rt' is checked.

And it seems odd that you wouldn't care if a render decreased from say 6 hours to 4 hours.

I personally would love it if my jumpy iDVD project previews became less jumpy (when doing other stuff), and if my encode times were cut by 40%. Instead of waiting for say 1.5 hours for a short DVD before I could use my computer again, I might only wait 65 minutes. (My TiBook burns DVD-R at 2X by the way, so a short DVD might take only 90 minutes to burn including encoding time.)

That's fine that you want that, but the time, energy and money wasted by buying a new machine (and installing software and getting rid of the old one) that doesn't do anything significantly better is not worth it to me.

whether it's 90 minutes or 65 minutes doesn't matter to me since I have to get up and go do something else either way, unless it's a program that can run in the background like cinema 4D renders. Cinema 4D is another example, since the difference between a 10 hour render and an 8 hour render is irrelevant, since both are a long ass time. Hence, no desire for a 1.3 Ghz powerbook here.

The only thing that forced me to upgrade before was that normal operations stopped my work-flow, like adding plug-ins in logic or FCP (before RT came around) renders, or lack of VRAM with a second monitor, or not enough power to convert files in quicktime quickly. The Ghz powerbook handles any audio work I throw at it, and FCP's RT engine eliminated the need for a bunch of little renders that add up.

The fact that the biggest slow-down is just big renders is something pretty cool in itself, and exactly the point that I am making. In the past we have always wanted faster processors just to have normal operations work better. These days, the processor isn't the weak link. Some of us might want more speed for certain tasks, but really the hold up is the result of mechanical storage.

Certainly software will continue to require more and more power, but that same software is also reaching the point that its functionality is fairly complete. I don't know about you, but there are less and less instances where I am frustrated by a feature not existing. That's why I am still on logic 4, for instance. The new features simply don't justify the money yet (though I will probably get logic 7 when it is released).

ie. If you don't need the speed, don't assume everyone else doesn't need it either. Many of us are willing to pay for the speed upgrade.

Go right ahead. It gives apple more money with which to make better products for when I want to upgrade in the future. So I thank you for buying the latest and greatest.

[Eug]

You are in fact wrong. I really have to pile on the effects to hit the ceiling when 'unlimited rt' is checked.

OK, I'll take your word for it, and that does bode well for my future FCE purchase. However, the reason I made that point is that I've read posts before from pros who warn about real-time on a PowerBook. ie. Expect usable real-time effects, but nowhere near the real-time functionality of say a dual 1.42 GHz G4, for obvious reasons.

That's fine that you want that, but the time, energy and money wasted by buying a new machine (and installing software and getting rid of the old one) that doesn't do anything significantly better is not worth it to me.

whether it's 90 minutes or 65 minutes doesn't matter to me

Well, it matters to a lot of people, or we wouldn't have benchmarks in the first place. Considering it only takes a couple of hours to install the software, it's time well spent for a lot of people, if it means getting a faster computer for use every day. And of course, time is money.

Hence, no desire for a 1.3 Ghz powerbook here.

Me neither actually. I'd buy a 1.6 with DDR support though. It's too bad we're stuck at hoping for a 1.25 GHz PB though. (I bought my TiBook 9 months ago, and the exact same TiBook is still being sold. And the fastest product in the lineup is no faster.)

Go right ahead. It gives apple more money with which to make better products for when I want to upgrade in the future. So I thank you for buying the latest and greatest.

Which was my point all along. Don't chastise those for wanting more speed (which they're willing to pay for) just because you don't.

I look forward when rendering a final DV project will be many times real time. I recall the time when Fraunhofer MP3 encodes took forever, and now you can expect a current machine to do it at 15X real-time with no problem. Back then I would get similar comments to the ones you're making now about video. "What are you complaining about? I just encode my MP3s overnight." or "I don't care if it takes 1 hour or 1.5 hours, because I have to do something else anyway." Now I encode an entire 70 minute CD in 5 minutes.

Speed is good.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Eug:
Well, it matters to a lot of people, or we wouldn't have benchmarks in the first place. Considering it only takes a couple of hours to install the software, it's time well spent for a lot of people, if it means getting a faster computer for use every day. And of course, time is money.

I still have yet to restore all of my software from when my drive went nuts a month ago. I still can't remember how I got midnight commander to work properly in color (if you know how, fill me in).

I run my renders overnight, and will still have to if I got a 1.5 Ghz. The jump for my old 500Mhz ti to this one was big because it gave me full RT in FCP, allowed me to work in logic without bouncing to disk for headroom, and gave me 64 MB of VRAM to use my projector properly. Those were BIG problems that completely prohibited certain projects from occuring AT ALL. The way I see it, whatever I get from a new speed boost is just luxury, not necessity.

Me neither actually. I'd buy a 1.6 with DDR support though. It's too bad we're stuck at hoping for a 1.25 GHz PB though. (I bought my TiBook 9 months ago, and the exact same TiBook is still being sold. And the fastest product in the lineup is no faster.)

I'm actually sort of with you on every point here. 1.6 with DDR would be tempting. Bump it to 1.8 and I would probably upgrade at some point.

About you second point, I trick myself into thinking about it as if Apple is doing me a favor. It doesn't matter if I want a faster powerbook; they simply don't exist.

I look forward when rendering a final DV project will be many times real time..."What are you complaining about? I just encode my MP3s overnight." or "I don't care if it takes 1 hour or 1.5 hours, because I have to do something else anyway." Now I encode an entire 70 minute CD in 5 minutes.

It's a bit different, though. If you ask me, without RT, video is basically unworkable. See, I'm spoiled, too. Could you imagine how horrible it would be if you had to render every time you did ANYTHING to song you were working on. It would be damn near impossible to work. But as long as I can work on it without stops and starts, I'm perfectly happy. I would care very little if I had to bounce a finished track overnight, so long as I can work on it without stopping and starting. That's how I feel about video.

Anyway, even if it takes an hour I'll generally run it overnight when I'm not using the machine.

I, too, would love to have video be as workable as audio, but even audio has just recently become fairly problem free in terms of speed. At this time last year I was still bouncing tracks all of the time because I'd hit the ceiling. Some day this problem will be fully solved with video, and that is a day that will make me happy.

Maybe it's just a different way of looking at things.

[John123]

Originally posted by Simon:
Oh interesting! Now suddenly when forced to explain your contradictions it's a waste of time.

I'll let that speak for itself.

My last post eloquently and succinctly pointed out that I have been talking about the GUI the entire time. THAT IS THE ONLY CLAIM I HAVE MADE, AND THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS. You glossed over that, and it's plain for anyone with enough time on their hands to read this whole thread to see. That speaks for itself.

You incorrectly read what I had typed, leapt to conclusions, and found youself in a quandary. You remind me of those debaters back in high school who would make five answers to every argument but never address the central argument itself. If you're not saying anything of substance, your ability to carry on a line-by-line debate becomes worthless.

I'm sorry you're so insecure about everything from your operating system to your education. Best of luck in finding a productive avenue to work out your frustrations.

[mattm42]

Originally posted by John123:
My last post eloquently and succinctly pointed out that I have been talking about the GUI the entire time. THAT IS THE ONLY CLAIM I HAVE MADE, AND THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS. You glossed over that, and it's plain for anyone with enough time on their hands to read this whole thread to see. That speaks for itself.

You incorrectly read what I had typed, leapt to conclusions, and found youself in a quandary. You remind me of those debaters back in high school who would make five answers to every argument but never address the central argument itself. If you're not saying anything of substance, your ability to carry on a line-by-line debate becomes worthless.

I'm sorry you're so insecure about everything from your operating system to your education. Best of luck in finding a productive avenue to work out your frustrations.

LOL

[buddy1065]

"

OS 9 lives!"

Actually OS 8 lives to. A teacher asked my help for transferring files from her school system Pismo to a PC laptop. I THINK it was a Pismo. I was shocked to see the Florida school system still used this thing and it only had OS8 on it. First time I ever tried to use a Pismo and I was dumfounded to see it had no USB. Then the teacher showed me a floppy module which I could replace the CD drive with; just slide it in. Wow, how cool! And the Word files transfered over to the PC with ease by floppy. The strangest thing was the black plastic Pismo still looked brand new with no wear or tear anywhere and the screen was bright. This was a 233 Mhz model. How old are we talking here?

[icruise]

Originally posted by buddy1065:
The strangest thing was the black plastic Pismo still looked brand new with no wear or tear anywhere and the screen was bright. This was a 233 Mhz model. How old are we talking here?

That was a Wallstreet (two generations before the pismo circa 1997 or so).

[fisherKing]

not a pismo, a wallstreet maybe (someone will probably correct me on that)

my pismo has 2 usb, 2 firewire ports, ethernet, audio out AND in... and those lovely expansion bays.

perfect condition, no bad pixels...
and X all the way (in keeping with this thread)


great powerbook...until the next 12" comes along

[Eug Wanker]

About you second point, I trick myself into thinking about it as if Apple is doing me a favor. It doesn't matter if I want a faster powerbook; they simply don't exist.

Yeah, too bad for the non-1GHz-TiBook owners.