[I WAS the One]

For me Tiger is the real first intention of Apple back in March 24, 2003... (I think... maybe it was 2002 I don't remember) If everyone remember how it was with Puma, you all know that Puma was the new era of Mac OS but at the same time it was an ugly experience working with it. Nobody trust Puma to be the first OS of any start up disk, everybody install Puma in another partition because it was full of bugs and errors, I mean I was one of the users that used to have an explotion from the dock stock in my desktop like a tattoo for eight months!! it was a nightmare, for real! but it was new then,ready for sale in retail and everybody knew it wasn't finished yet.
3 years pass by and now I can say Apple bring us the real deal with Tiger, if you install this brand new OS you will find a real user friendly experience, a nice and sharp GUI and a fun way to work around, it is really the first time you get a really complete OS since Mac OS 9.2, and I mean, not everyone is a Nerd around here, so the 55% of Mac users doesn't care about whats under the hood! they want to work fast and feel great... like right know with Tiger! I think that if they make us wait back then with Mac OS 9 until today we will be glad for the transition and happy with the change. I don't know maybe a couple of updates on Mac OS 9 thru Mac OS 9.6 until they finished their next generation OS, I am sure that I woudn't care if Windows was bringing the Luna GUI first, because everybody know that Windows is a bad Xerox copy of Mac OS since the beginning.
I am Happy with this stage of Mac OS X, and I invite everyone to buy the real next generation OS in the history of Apple Computer. So... What do you think? Am I the only one that believe all of this, or you think it was great since Puma?

[Big Mac]

Well, I am glad to read about your good experience with Tiger. I do, however, have to disagree with you concerning which version of OS X was "the real deal." I have been on OS X since 10.0 (although not to the exclusion of OS 8.6 on my 8600 until last June), and while 10.0 was slow and lacked features, it was still usable. In my opinion, 10.1 made OS X ready for prime time, at least for my needs. I have my Tiger box and am eager to install, although I must resist the temptation until Apple fixes the flaws with Mail import.

[THE MAC GOD]

That's why I only use IMAP... Never have issues with importing and all my stuff is everywhere I go.

[powerbook911]

Tiger has been pretty flawless, for me as well. I've noticed a couple little problem, but most of them I have been able to fix. There was no serious error or troubles that I've encountered.

It is a much more enjoyable computing experience, which makes me have more fun, and makes me more productive. I can't ask more than that.

[CharlesS]

For me, the "real deal" was 10.2 - that was the first version of OS X I considered usable enough to start recommending it to novice users. 10.3 kicked ass. 10.4 kicks even more ass.

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

For me, the "real deal" was 10.2 - that was the first version of OS X I considered usable enough to start recommending it to novice users. 10.3 kicked ass. 10.4 kicks even more ass.

But if you put one in front of another I mean 10.3 versus 10.4 you'll realize that 10.3 doesn't offer much for the user... all its greatness is under the hood, the only good stuff is Expos� and believe me it doesn't cost a 129 dollars upgrade.

[OreoCookie]

Panther was a damn good OS already. The first really usable OS was 10.1, it did what I needed it to do.

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Panther was a damn good OS already. The first really usable OS was 10.1, it did what I needed it to do.

10.1 was too complex for OS 9 Users, many people didn't wanted to switch until everything were compatible, for some it was more than switch, I mean, I was the one who changed all my peripherals because the upgrade! and then I wasn't able to comprehend all its bugs and errors! without mentioning that 10.1 it was more understandable for PC users than us (the Mac users) I discover that the first time I try to show off with a friend of mine, he start screaming : "Damn dude! it has a living taskbar and mutant PC windows!! Apple is afraid now man... now who is imitating who?" believe me that piss me off real bad but in some part he was right... now, with 10.4 its a different experience with a lot of attitude.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

10.1 was too complex for OS 9 Users, many people didn't wanted to switch until everything were compatible, for some it was more than switch, I mean, I was the one who changed all my peripherals because the upgrade! and then I wasn't able to comprehend all its bugs and errors! without mentioning that 10.1 it was more understandable for PC users than us (the Mac users) I discover that the first time I try to show off with a friend of mine, he start screaming : "Damn dude! it has a living taskbar and mutant PC windows!! Apple is afraid now man... now who is imitating who?" believe me that piss me off real bad but in some part he was right... now, with 10.4 its a different experience with a lot of attitude.

Well, back then, there was no Photoshop on X, no Quark (obviously), but I didn't need all that. I'm getting more and more into unix, so this was not a downpoint, it was a relief.

But I know what you mean, it was still very, ahem, unfinished. My machine back then (iBook 500) felt slow the moment I bought it! Now, it's alright on my 2.5-year old iBook. The first really smooth version was Panther. Damn, that was a release. I still think Expos� is still THE biggest gui improvement in the last 5-6 years.

So from your point of view, OS X was very unfinished.

[Deimos]

Jaguar was the one for me, the previous releases were like a hooker's worst nightmare.

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by Deimos

Jaguar was the one for me, the previous releases were like a hooker's worst nightmare.

LOL!

[mitchell_pgh]

10.0 was unusable IMHO primarily due to lack of applications. Sure it wasn't fast, but it was solid for the most part. 10.1 was the first usable OS, but it still lacked features. 10.2 was the first OS I would have given to my mother and said "try this, it's easy" and by 10.3, I considered it vastly superior to anything OS 9 ever had. 10.4 is just icing on the cake.

[Weyland-Yutani]

IMO 10.4 is the first version of OS X that I could present as Macintosh.

[d0ubled0wn]

I predict 10.5 will become the ultimate OS of life, the universe, and everything.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

IMO 10.4 is the first version of OS X that I could present as Macintosh.

What did it radically improve upon over 10.3?

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

IMO 10.4 is the first version of OS X that I could present as Macintosh.

thats my point. Its weird that no almost everybody seems to understand this simple fact. no offense.

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

What did it radically improve upon over 10.3?

HA!

Just to answer your question... I have the Mac OS X Bible (Jaguar Version) and Mac OS X Bible (Panther edition) and the only differences are in the last chapter... that by the way starts with Expos�... just to let you know.

[kcmac]

There is probably a couple of ways to answer this one.

For the average consumer, I think Jaguar is where it really started to come together. For the developer, Tiger is probably it.

Tiger is a hard update to describe. If you are somewhat new to the platform, it would seem polished, flexible and secure. Very tempting for potential PC or OS 9 switcher candidates.

Being a user from 10.0, it is just one more kick a$$ progression. Should you upgrade now or wait a bit? Upgrading from 10 to 10.1 was a no brainer. Same for 10.1 to 10.2. Then users started to think a little more from 10.2 and on. Not whether they will upgrade, but when do the scales tip enough to do it?

I have a feeling that this time around, the developers will start to make a bigger difference, rather than just trying to catch up to all of the changes. They say the API's are frozen which is a good thing for them but as a user, I don't know.

Apple has said they will slow down a bit with the next release. I would suspect this means they feel they are finally in the place they had to get to from the beginning. A really incredible feat. A complete rewrite in 4-5 years. The devs should be able to really ramp up the speed from this time forward.

The next year should be pretty exciting for OS X.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

HA!

Just to answer your question... I have the Mac OS X Bible (Jaguar Version) and Mac OS X Bible (Panther edition) and the only differences are in the last chapter... that by the way starts with Expos�... just to let you know.

I'd probably get another book... But I get your drift. Evolutionary.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

For me, the "real deal" was 10.2 - that was the first version of OS X I considered usable enough to start recommending it to novice users. 10.3 kicked ass. 10.4 kicks even more ass.

I switched my (in her 60s) mother with Puma. Then again, I just spent three hours on the phone with her last week walking her through swapping out HDs, changing out jumpers, and installing FreeBSD on a machine, so she's somewhat more cognitively capable than the average novice user.

Sometimes.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

HA!

Just to answer your question... I have the Mac OS X Bible (Jaguar Version) and Mac OS X Bible (Panther edition) and the only differences are in the last chapter... that by the way starts with Expos�... just to let you know.

The difference is huge -- usable rules based sorting in Mail, Expos�, inclusion of bash and updating of the userland to FreeBSD 5 (so I could test my scripts for FreeBSD on my Mac ), burning in the Finder, a vastly improved Finder (I mean that I could use it, don't get me started on Jaguar's Finder -- worst. finder. ever.), ... iChat AV (although I think a beta of that ran on Jaguar, too) helped me keep in touch with friends while living abroad, ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Moose

I switched my (in her 60s) mother with Puma. Then again, I just spent three hours on the phone with her last week walking her through swapping out HDs, changing out jumpers, and installing FreeBSD on a machine, so she's somewhat more cognitively capable than the average novice user.

Sometimes.

And it worked?!! Wow. (No sarcasm.)

I once tried to walk my ex gf through taking out a hd (coz her stupid brother insisted on getting it) and she ended up ... well, let's say, her computer didn't work anymore. Cables from various switches were dangling everywhere.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

And it worked?!! Wow. (No sarcasm.)

I once tried to walk my ex gf through taking out a hd (coz her stupid brother insisted on getting it) and she ended up ... well, let's say, her computer didn't work anymore. Cables from various switches were dangling everywhere.

It was slow, but you need two things:

1) Somebody who can explain things well without looking at them.
2) Somebody who can listen to instructions and do exactly what is instructed.

It's definitely not something I'd try with just anybody.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Moose

It was slow, but you need two things:

1) Somebody who can explain things well without looking at them.
2) Somebody who can listen to instructions and do exactly what is instructed.

It's definitely not something I'd try with just anybody.

She had a difference of understanding what the side was. It was all remote, I tried to orient her first (back = cables, front = drives). But in step where she was supposed to remove the side, she removed the front of the computer.

I had no idea what she did until it dawned me about five minutes later ... I was carefully asking: was the cover you've removed made of metal or of plastic ...? -- Plastic ...

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by kcmac

Apple has said they will slow down a bit with the next release. I would suspect this means they feel they are finally in the place they had to get to from the beginning..

EXACTLY! That means Tiger is Apple truly First Evolution OS in 5 years!
I'm not mad with that, I'm happy, 'cause it really means they did it at last. now, I hope they stop improving in mid terms and just offer us a great improvement in the next OS, and no more internal adjustments cause we have to buy upgrades for stuff we didn't see, and thats not fare for average users, for us, the ones that are always pushing the envelope on a Mac its fine, but for beginners is a bad move. I am hoping a couple of updates and a far new upgrade that really impress me at the end.

I always been a Mac user, since the beginning, I never used a PC for personal use in my live. just browse the net at work because I have to. but I believe that Mac is more powerful than any PC today, in the past and in the future. I am one of those users that not see the Mac as a tool, but as a extraordinary machine that involve our personality and grow in us like a part of our senses. I mean, if you like cars, and you have one that make you feel great and you really dont know why..you will understand my feelings for a Mac. PC switchers will be switching tools, and never will feel the same we do. so... I am just happy for the finished product. and I will be waiting for the next one...

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I think looking back it was important to get OSX out the door regardless because of "transition" issues. Getting developers on board and etc. was very difficult and took a lot of time. Looking back, now we are free of transition and OS9 is truly dead. If 10.0 came out a year later, we would not be where we are now becuase Apple was still learning from it's own mistakes with the OS.

Even if Longhorn comes out they are behind by even more years transition wise. They have a ton of stuff to worry about too because they cater to 90% of the market. If Longhorn is delayed, Apple should try to come out with a monster OS 11 update and a sexy product* aimed for switching and catch up turning that corner.


*[even sexier than the mac mini because in 2006-2007, the technology should be better for them to come up with even better stuff)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

But if you put one in front of another I mean 10.3 versus 10.4 you'll realize that 10.3 doesn't offer much for the user... all its greatness is under the hood, the only good stuff is Expos� and believe me it doesn't cost a 129 dollars upgrade.

Panther included plenty for the user. Almost every aspect of the interface had an "ah... that's nicer" feel to it. Plus, features like Expos�, the improved Finder, iChat AV, Fast User Switching, FileVault, the Mail junk filter, labels, faxing, and being able to open Word documents in TextEdit (!) are definitely end-user features. Sure, if you compare all the changes in Panther over Jaguar, a majority of them are under-the-hood tweaks, but if you look at Tiger, the ratio is even more weighted in favor of under-the-hood changes. I mean look at it - CoreData, CoreImage, the BSD tools respecting resource forks, DOM exposed in WebKit, launchd, ksh, etc. Tiger is a developer's dream.

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

I think looking back it was important to get OSX out the door regardless because of "transition" issues. Getting developers on board and etc. was very difficult and took a lot of time. Looking back, now we are free of transition and OS9 is truly dead. If 10.0 came out a year later, we would not be where we are now becuase Apple was still learning from it's own mistakes with the OS.

Even if Longhorn comes out they are behind by even more years transition wise. They have a ton of stuff to worry about too because they cater to 90% of the market. If Longhorn is delayed, Apple should try to come out with a monster OS 11 update and a sexy product* aimed for switching and catch up turning that corner.


*[even sexier than the mac mini because in 2006-2007, the technology should be better for them to come up with even better stuff)

good point...

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Panther included plenty for the user. Almost every aspect of the interface had an "ah... that's nicer" feel to it. Plus, features like Expos�, the improved Finder, iChat AV, Fast User Switching, FileVault, the Mail junk filter, labels, faxing, and being able to open Word documents in TextEdit (!) are definitely end-user features. Sure, if you compare all the changes in Panther over Jaguar, a majority of them are under-the-hood tweaks, but if you look at Tiger, the ratio is even more weighted in favor of under-the-hood changes. I mean look at it - CoreData, CoreImage, the BSD tools respecting resource forks, DOM exposed in WebKit, launchd, ksh, etc. Tiger is a developer's dream.

I'm talking about transition here, not evolution... forget panther, and just visualize from 9.1 to 10.4.. now that you have that picture in your head try to compare one to another and you will find that it is a really great movement. the upgrades in between are results of mistakes and it was unfair making people pay for their not so finished job.

I mean, if they just make updates from OS 9 and I mean essential updates (like I don't know USB compatibility, Firewire and all that) but in the main time they were working with 10.1 without telling anybody, I asure you that they kick ass anyway but with a great OS with the first Shot. and we didn't pay for the mistakes, get my point?

[mAxximo]

Tiger is what 10.0 should have been back in 2001. Unfinished, yes, but promising, as opposed to unfinished and frightening like Puma and the rest. While most X-men were more than happy with the features, speed, responsiveness and functionality of previous versions, Tiger �as buggy as hell as it is� is what I can start looking at without thinking �I have to get a PC�. This is what I would have expected back in 2001 to be a worthy replacement for the Mac. So basically we are four years behind my high hopes of a better platform. Not that I'm complaining...

[Chuckit]

Max, you said the same thing about Panther. You need to get a new tune.

[MartiNZ]

Have to say I don't really get what people saw as being 'unusable' or 'unrecommendable' in Puma. I came to OS X at 10.1.3 and thought it was great - this was after not having used a Mac OS since System 7. Everything was as intuitive as I expected from a Mac OS and it did everything that I needed. IE wasn't great but it had some really nice features and there was nothing to compare it against then. 10.1.5 added the quartz antialiasing and was really nice and stable. It took until about 10.2.4 before I preferred Jaguar to Puma!

IMO everything since then has been about building a whole lot of stuff into the system, which could previously have been done with other software (at least in Puma after the release of Office v.X). And as in other threads, people can see this as 'bloat' - it's interesting that here the changes are being hailed as revolutionary/evolutionary.

I do like the new diagnostic-type features in Tiger though, like when you open Safari offline and it tells you: "You are not connected to the Internet!" It's nice spoon-feeding novice users - a shame about those millions that won't even know about its (Tiger's) existence, having bought their machines with Jaguar/Panther. But I don't consider that stuff necessary for 'usability'.

I miss the simple days, consistent interface and good looks of 10.1.5, come to think of it. Basically the more they add, the more can go wrong. And seeing as they haven't added any functionality to Expos� in Tiger, I guess Dashboard and Spotlight will still not be quite as I want them, for quite some time. Never mind, it is great having them - I would have to agree on calling Spotlight, at least, revolutionary/evolutionary.

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Max, you said the same thing about Panther. You need to get a new tune.

LOL!

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by MartiNZ

Have to say I don't really get what people saw as being 'unusable' or 'unrecommendable' in Puma. I came to OS X at 10.1.3 and thought it was great - this was after not having used a Mac OS since System 7. Everything was as intuitive as I expected from a Mac OS and it did everything that I needed. IE wasn't great but it had some really nice features and there was nothing to compare it against then. 10.1.5 added the quartz antialiasing and was really nice and stable. It took until about 10.2.4 before I preferred Jaguar to Puma!

IMO everything since then has been about building a whole lot of stuff into the system, which could previously have been done with other software (at least in Puma after the release of Office v.X). And as in other threads, people can see this as 'bloat' - it's interesting that here the changes are being hailed as revolutionary/evolutionary.

I do like the new diagnostic-type features in Tiger though, like when you open Safari offline and it tells you: "You are not connected to the Internet!" It's nice spoon-feeding novice users - a shame about those millions that won't even know about its (Tiger's) existence, having bought their machines with Jaguar/Panther. But I don't consider that stuff necessary for 'usability'.

I miss the simple days, consistent interface and good looks of 10.1.5, come to think of it. Basically the more they add, the more can go wrong. And seeing as they haven't added any functionality to Expos� in Tiger, I guess Dashboard and Spotlight will still not be quite as I want them, for quite some time. Never mind, it is great having them - I would have to agree on calling Spotlight, at least, revolutionary/evolutionary.

I'm with U in a 50%... because I enjoyed Puma, but it wasn't the last Coke of the arabian sands!

[chris v]

I've been using the OS since 10.1. I've been happy and productive since 10.2. 10.3 was the cake, and 10.4 is the icing.

So far, this has been BY FAR the smoothest transition in terms of ease of upgrading/stuff breaking. The CCC authentication issue seems to be the only incompatibility I've got in my regular work flow. (well, still gotta see how it prints to the laser printers at work)

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Max, you said the same thing about Panther. You need to get a new tune.

Errr, no...I didn't say anything close to that about Panther here or at any other internet forum. You don't seem to be following.

[real]

Asssome.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

I'm talking about transition here, not evolution... forget panther, and just visualize from 9.1 to 10.4.. now that you have that picture in your head try to compare one to another and you will find that it is a really great movement. the upgrades in between are results of mistakes and it was unfair making people pay for their not so finished job.

I mean, if they just make updates from OS 9 and I mean essential updates (like I don't know USB compatibility, Firewire and all that) but in the main time they were working with 10.1 without telling anybody, I asure you that they kick ass anyway but with a great OS with the first Shot. and we didn't pay for the mistakes, get my point?

If Apple did as you proposed, it would be dead. Nothing of what Steve Jobs did (and despite all the mistakes he's made, that's one thing he does like nobody else), pushing Cocoa, iApps, integration of features into the system so that everything works seamlessly together, would be impossible with OS 9, no matter how much you soup it up. OS 9 was already a souped-up beyond anything OS 8. And OS 8 was a desperate attempt do bring out some form of update after the death of Copland.

The biggest problem of OS X in the early days was not its lack of features, but it's lack of applications. Just try to find out how many years it took Quark to bring out a flavor of QE that runs on OS X ... if Tiger was the first one and you carefully add that number, hmmm, it would be what, 2008, 2009

The upgrades were not something to fix mistakes, OS X was ready for prime time since 10.2.

[The Godfather]

Panther:Tiger :: Win2k:WinXP

[I WAS the One]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If Apple did as you proposed, it would be dead. Nothing of what Steve Jobs did (and despite all the mistakes he's made, that's one thing he does like nobody else), pushing Cocoa, iApps, integration of features into the system so that everything works seamlessly together, would be impossible with OS 9, no matter how much you soup it up. OS 9 was already a souped-up beyond anything OS 8. And OS 8 was a desperate attempt do bring out some form of update after the death of Copland.

The biggest problem of OS X in the early days was not its lack of features, but it's lack of applications. Just try to find out how many years it took Quark to bring out a flavor of QE that runs on OS X ... if Tiger was the first one and you carefully add that number, hmmm, it would be what, 2008, 2009

The upgrades were not something to fix mistakes, OS X was ready for prime time since 10.2.

OS 9 wasn't dead... it was an incredible OS with absolute NO SUPPORT...
remember who is supporting OS X now... just think.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

OS 9 wasn't dead... it was an incredible OS with absolute NO SUPPORT...
remember who is supporting OS X now... just think.

Technically, it was dead. Dead end dead. No chance for features like meaningful multi-processing capabilities, multitasking or memory protection. You still had to choose the amount of memory an app would need manually (MS got away with that with the introduction of Windows 95!).

Apple had plans for years to replace the underlying technology, all for good reasons. So Apple was desperate and went shopping for a new OS. Two companies were making themselves ready for a takeover -- Be and NeXT. While we could argue for a long time which one was suited better to be the next OS for the Mac, the point is clear. OS 7 was supposed to be replaced and Apple souped it up so they could wait with the transition just a few years longer.

[jyvin563]

I have been using Mac OS since version 9. I hated 9... with a passion. I knew Mac OS X was coming though so I bought the computer any way. When OS X (10.0) came out, I was on top of it. I remember not knowing which I liked better 10.0 or 9. 9 was so unstable it drove me nuts, however 10.0 was much more stable but very slow. Let's face it, 10.0 was still a Mac OS X beta, seriously. 10.1 is was the first OS X release to me. This was a useable, although unpolished, OS. The other OS release have just been more refined, in my opinion. 10.1 was the foundation of OS X releases with 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 just being good, old-fashioned, innovation. They have continued to bring new ideas to the OS and I dig it!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The upgrades were not something to fix mistakes, OS X was ready for prime time since 10.2.

No way.

It is ready now. Yes Apple had to release OS X in 2001 and it wasn't ready but that didn't matter. It was ready enough. It took Apple 4 years to make OS X from NeXT and it took them another 4 years (under incredible beta-testing mind you) to make OS X smooth and solid.

Anything less than smooth and solid is not Macintosh and therefore I can't agree that OS X was ready for prime time before 10.4.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I can't agree that OS X was ready for prime time before 10.4.

One can make arguments about Jaguar but Panther was a very solid and very usable OS.

[mitchell_pgh]

I agree that Tiger is the first version that Developers are going to love, but I wouldn't say 10.2 wasn't unusable.

[typoon]

So far I think OS X 10.4 is the BEST version of OS X so far. It's fast, Has some amazing features and is the way OS X should be. 10.4 is what Windows wants to be but can't.

[JMII]

10.2 Jag - was the first version of OSX I could actually "use" because enough applications were available for it. In fact our xServe is still running Jag... cause if it ain't broken don't fix it right?

10.3 Panther - was the first version I actually felt comfortable with, enough so that I could install it on other machines (like my parents) and provide support/trouble shooting for it.

10.4 Tiger - will be the first version we run at work on all our machines without any Classsic support. So with this release the OSX has finally come of age, thus OS9 is truely and offically dead.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by jyvin563

I have been using Mac OS since version 9. I hated 9... with a passion. I knew Mac OS X was coming though so I bought the computer any way. When OS X (10.0) came out, I was on top of it. I remember not knowing which I liked better 10.0 or 9. 9 was so unstable it drove me nuts, however 10.0 was much more stable but very slow. Let's face it, 10.0 was still a Mac OS X beta, seriously. 10.1 is was the first OS X release to me. This was a useable, although unpolished, OS. The other OS release have just been more refined, in my opinion. 10.1 was the foundation of OS X releases with 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 just being good, old-fashioned, innovation. They have continued to bring new ideas to the OS and I dig it!

Off topic: This is a prime example of a troll.

Let's dissect his short and troll-like post. <Ahem>

Originally Posted by jyvin563

I have been using Mac OS since version 9. I hated 9... with a passion.

Here the troll asserts that it hates OS 9 with a passion - putting human emotions to a computer OS - an OS that it yet claims to have bought and used. This makes absoloutly no sense unless one is trolling and trying ot score points with the OS X zealot team. Against the OS 9 zealot team I reckon.

Back in 2000 OS X was vaporware and Windows 2000 was a perfectly viable option. Why didn't the troll just save itselfself the aggrivation of using an OS it hated so much and buy itself a Wintel instead, if it knew OS 9 and knew it hated that OS so much?

Originally Posted by jyvin563

I knew Mac OS X was coming though so I bought the computer any way. When OS X (10.0) came out, I was on top of it.

Yes this is one part that made me laugh out loud. The troll's story gets more and more harebrained. LOL! The troll apparently hating OS 9 with a passion decides to buy a Macintosh before OS X is released. Now there are only two possibilities here. One is that the troll would have had prior knowledge and experience with OS 9 and found that he hated it with a passion and yet decides to buy a Macintosh because Apple is promising a new OS sometime "soon". Right. This makes of course no sense.. Is anyone buying a Wintel because Microsoft will release their new OS sometime soon? I thought not.
Now the other option is that the troll didn't know anything about OS 9 and buys the Macintosh in the hope that Apple delivers its new OS. That seems to be the premise for the purchase. This still doesn't make sense for the same reason above. Why would anyone buy a (reather expensive) niche computer brand solely because one is hoping Apple will release their next generation OS, something they had been promising since the early 90s? Either a liar or fantastically naive and stupid. Let's not pass judgement yet kids.

Originally Posted by jyvin563

I remember not knowing which I liked better 10.0 or 9. 9 was so unstable it drove me nuts, however 10.0 was much more stable but very slow.

Here the troll insinuates that it also hated OS X 10.0 with a passion. It claims it doesn't remember which OS it liked better so that would be a safe assumption. It claims OS 9 was so unstable it was affecting his mental health and OS 10.0 was very slow. But stable.

This is, dear reader, the final clinching proof that this is indeed a troll and it has neither used OS 9 or OS 10.0 at all. At least after becoming a young adult.
Certainly OS 9 did not have memory protection but that did not make it unstable. The OS itself rarely crashed. Applications (programs) running in OS 9 could and would crash taking the system down with them. At least meaning you had to restart. Anoying for sure, but infrequently destructive for the other programs that were running. A program would crash and in most cases the other programs and the system would run to let you save your work and restart the machine. That is a typical experience of someone who used OS 9.
Certainly OS 10.0 was slow but the major issue with OS 10.0 was that there were almost no apps available for it. That is the main reason very few people used it extensively. Developers for sure and it was a UNIX derivative so interested people could try and compile UNIX apps for OS X, but for the great majority this was just a good looking OS that didn't have Office, Photoshop, Quark.. well anything really. No games no DVD player.. That was the main issue with OS 10.0 and certainly the first thing that people remember when thinking back to it. If indeed they ever used it.

Originally Posted by jyvin563

Let's face it, 10.0 was still a Mac OS X beta, seriously. 10.1 is was the first OS X release to me. This was a useable, although unpolished, OS.

Now here is another piece of incriminating slip that the troll makes. Here it certifies that 10.1 was the first OS X release to him. Sure you can read this meaning that it didn't think the other releases before were worth using but everything indicates it never used them anyway. Why make all this up? To be heard. This troll is insecure. It knows the buzzwords around the major OS X releases and OS 9 but never really used the Mac before OS 10.1. Perhaps not even until 10.2.

A troll without relizing it pushing buttons with meaningless buzzwords and made up stories all to be accepted withing this online community of nerds. I truly wish it well and hope that it manages to build up its self esteem in the real world and doesn't come to rely on making up stories on the internet to impress the other nerds.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Randman

One can make arguments about Jaguar but Panther was a very solid and very usable OS.

Yes, indeed 10.3 was solid and usable. 10.4 is more refined and more powerful though and IMHO the first OS X release that fulfills the expectations I have to the Macintosh brand of computers.

[MartiNZ]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Panther:Tiger :: Win2k:WinXP

You're saying the jump is comparable? I sure hope not: I far prefer Win2k to WinXP.