MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Classic Macs and Mac OS (http://forums.macnn.com/classic-macs-and-mac-os/)
-   -   Has everyone gone X? (http://forums.macnn.com/64/classic-macs-and-mac-os/43657/has-everyone-gone-x/)

 
rhino_g3 Jan 19, 2002 11:12 PM
Has everyone gone X?
Just noticed that the threads here in the Classic Mac OS section here at MacNN doesn't see much action anymore. Everyone must be moving to OS X. This is a good thing. OS X is the future.

rhino_g3
 
jcadam Jan 19, 2002 11:39 PM
I switched from PCs to macs BECAUSE of OS X. I can do my UNIX hacking/programming and use MS Office on the same OS.

Once Unreal Tournament is fully ported to OS X, I'll have no reason to use OS 9 at all anymore.
 
rhino_g3 Jan 20, 2002 01:36 AM
Great jcadam! The more converts the better.
 
Dogma Jan 20, 2002 02:18 AM
Well, after Propellerheads' announcement, I've only got a couple of Apps to go before the big OSX change. (say it out loud - you'll get it)

Audio -
Recycle, Reason, Rebirth, Logic Audio Platinum.

Design -
Freehand, InDesign, Acrobat, Dreamweaver, Photoshop

Work -
MS Office, Virtual PC, Stuffit Deluxe, Toast

Occasional Use -
After Effects, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Media Cleaner, Poser, Bryce, Cinema 4D, Route 66, Earth Browser, UltraLingua, MiniTab, GAMES!, Virtual Game Station, Fontographer.

I think I've got the bigger percentage of that covered, the only thing really holding me back is the Audio, Dreamweaver and Photoshop. The rest if not already native, I can run in Classic or just do without.

Here's hoping we all have a good X.
 
Jerommeke Jan 20, 2002 02:22 AM
my brother still uses os 9. he thinks os x is too slow :p

(he tried os 9 with 10.0.4 :p)
 
MikeM32 Jan 20, 2002 03:22 AM
I'm still using OS 9.x mainly because of my hardware (Beige G3/266). Whenever I decide to get a new system I'll probably start using OSX more. It's just too damned slow even using Classic compared to just running *pure* OS 9.x

Mike
 
MikeM32 Jan 20, 2002 03:24 AM
I'm still using OS 9.x mainly because of my hardware (Beige G3/266). Whenever I decide to get a new system I'll probably start using OSX more. It's just too damned slow even using Classic compared to just running *pure* OS 9.x

Mike
 
petoria Jan 20, 2002 03:47 AM
I'm still using 8.6. It fits my needs well. I'm planning on kepping my rev d on 8.6 until I get a Harmoni somethine this summer. I think I'll get X to go along with it.
 
MÓlum Jan 20, 2002 04:13 AM
Yep, I try to use just X. The only problem is (and a rather strange one) that Toast 5.1.1 doesn't see my Firewire burner in X, but it does in 9.
So now and then I have to go back to 9.
 
Kestral Jan 20, 2002 05:18 AM
Nope, I've gone back to 9 in fact. I just got back into music again, writing songs, and I need Logic Audio Platinum, which only works in 9. Logic 5, which is OS X compatible, is coming out in about a month, but I doubt it'll run decently on my iBook 500. Of course one can hope.
 
willed Jan 20, 2002 09:55 AM
I've just deleted virtually all my OS 9 apps. I'm only keeping my ancient version of Photoshop LE. I've used X full time since 10.1
 
tomra Jan 20, 2002 10:10 AM
Hi.

I`m still using OS.9.x, but i do have OSX 10.0.4 installed on my Tibook, mainly to get familiar with the bells and whistles. OS.9.x just seems so much faster and "cleaner" to move around in for me. Never tried OSX 10.1 though, so i guess my opinion might change soon.

Tom.
 
rhino_g3 Jan 20, 2002 10:47 AM
Quote
I'm still using 8.6. It fits my needs well. I'm planning on kepping my rev d on 8.6 until I get a Harmoni somethine this summer. I think I'll get X to go along with it.
petoria, I am using a rev. d iMac right now. It too originally came with 8.6 which was a very good OS. I am now running 10.1 on it with 160mg ram and it seems fine to me. It is slower then OS 9.1 but not that bad in my opinion. The speed increase in 10.1 really made the difference for me. If you do run OS X on your rev. d in the future I say max out the ram and go for it. It may surprise you.

tomra, you need to upgrade to 10.1. It will make a big difference in performance. If you can get a hold of a free update CD (not the full version) like I did it would make it easier on the pocket book. If not, the $20 bucks Apple is asking for the full version doesn't seem to bad now that I see the improvements.

I can see what is holding some of you back yet and it is the lack of software. It is getting there. I personally only use my computer for e-mail, surfing, occassional game, and digital pictures. That is why X works for me.

rhino_g3
 
KidRed Jan 20, 2002 10:57 PM
I'm still with 9, X is too slow. I think the X boards are live because of the X users and people like me that want to go to X and want to see all the threads. I want to be prepared when I can fianlly boot into X like what # OW to get, when X.2 is coming out, any new hacks etc.
 
--Helen-- Jan 20, 2002 11:24 PM
I'm xercising my options in going X. It's kind of like running toward the water. Dipping your toe into the water. The water is too cold. Run back. Repeat every couple of minutes.

However, with apps appearing left and right for X, not to mention ordering a new iMac, going X forever will happen soon.

http://www.centralcarolina.org/image...n/Helen_53.jpg
 
Agent69 Jan 20, 2002 11:24 PM
I am mostly using 9 right now because it still does what I need it to. I don't have the moola for the OfficeX upgrade and I don't like running Office:2001 in Classic.


Agent69 :)
 
Woggle Jan 21, 2002 12:43 AM
I'm still on 9, but then when you have a 96M first gen iBook, what else you going to run?

Now, once I get that new iMac('bout the time I become a millionaire) I'll have to find new software for it, replacing the following:
Muck client
email
newsgroup(hopefully a good all in one program for these two)
browser
text editor

That's all I need really.
 
lenkman Jan 21, 2002 01:09 AM
Still using 9 here, for a number of reasons.

1. My hardware - lombard 333. No ATI RageLT Pro support, no X (this doesn't refer to "speed" - this is another issue.
2. Apps aren't there yet - I do a fair amount of graphic editing here at college, and frequently use Photoshop and Pagemaker. Until there is an X native Pagemaker (not indesign - my school isn't going to make that change, and forget about Quark) and Photoshop, i will stay in 9.
3. I find it harder to do system maintenance in X than 9. While Unix is a great thing, I would rather have some sort of a GUI capability to poke around in the system, a la extension manager is 9. I don't think I should need to learn unix in order to see why my computer is acting up for day to day problems. Macs have always been easy to do system maintenance, until the arrival of X.
4. I have some nagging issues with aqua - nothing that couldn't be fixed, but they are still rather annoying to me.
5. Speed, speed, speed. I have run X.1 on a Quicksilver, and it still doesn't cut it for me. Maybe a G5 will be adequately fast, but I have not seen a G4 that is, and don't really expect to. (I'd like to be wrong, though).

Anyway, once the annoucement was made that X will not support my graphics card, I wiped the X partition and haven't looked back.
 
slider Jan 21, 2002 10:39 AM
I'm in X as well. Work still uses 9.1 and will hold there for awhile. They need to upgrade their hardware.
 
xyber233 Jan 21, 2002 12:50 PM
I still have a rev. b iMac. I am not using X because of my Ragepro and voodoo2. I am looking into buying a new iMac. If I get it, the only reason for booting into 9 would be UT.
 
Cipher13 Jan 21, 2002 08:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by rhino_g3:
<STRONG>Just noticed that the threads here in the Classic Mac OS section here at MacNN doesn't see much action anymore. Everyone must be moving to OS X. This is a good thing. OS X is the future.

rhino_g3</STRONG>
Yeah, goes to show how few people use their systems for hardcore work... heh.

(hardcore not defined as programming but video, graphics, etc).
 
<iloveappleee> Feb 8, 2002 05:25 AM
i got a pbook g4 (400mhz, 256ram) when they first came out. my 2nd apple (the first was an apple iic)...

OS 9 is great. and beautiful! however, i'm a developer and needed to write some code. SO i bought os x

MY GOD, OS X was just TOO SLOW for me. I don't understand these people that claim "OS X flys on my G3/266!". I think they're in denial. *And* aqua is UGLY, IMHO. The 10.1 upgrade improved things a little, but it was still sluggish at best.

Then i tried linux. And it was good, as it usually is. But linux on the desktop is still lacking, and linux on a ppc is lacking even more.

these days i've found a more comfortable solution. I'm running OS 9.1 and i telnet into an x86 linux box sitting right next to it... i'm happy :) for now...

-a
:cool:
 
sek929 Feb 8, 2002 05:42 AM
Just refer to my sig, I'm sure that says it all.

Right now all the apps I use aren't ported to X, my Umax scanner will never get X drivers written for it, and X feels more sluggish on my G4 than 9.2.

9.2 almost never freezes on me, the apps run quicker (start, scroll, etc...) the Finder itself is far snappier and, gal-der-it, I am very used to it and really have no need to make the switch just yet.
 
andi*pandi Feb 8, 2002 05:48 AM
if it ain't broke, don't fix it...

although after I install my harmoni card, I'll probably be able to run X on my rev b imac, not sure if I bother. I think I'll wait for work to upgrade, so I can train on their macs and they'll work out bugs for me. ;)
 
goatnet Feb 8, 2002 07:15 AM
I actually wiped my HDD of OSX until it natively supports my scanner and some more applications come out. It's bad enough scanning some huge ass picture, it's even worse to wait for classic to load just so I can access my scanner.

Plus I like my themes :)
 
Rainy Day Feb 9, 2002 01:35 PM
Still using 9.1, mainly because whenever i use MacOS X, i feel like i've had a stroke, and have been teleported into a dark room: I find it very hard to navigate my HD without my beloved Apple menu and BeHierarchic. (No, dropping a folder in the dock or FruitMenu just doesn't cut it for me; it's not nearly as good). MacOS X has a few other rough edges too.

Almost since day one, every app i use daily was Carbonized (except for my Dictionary app). I'd really like to use MacOS X full-time, since i like having UNIX options.

Quote
Originally posted by &lt;iloveappleee&gt;:
<STRONG>MY GOD, OS X was just TOO SLOW for me. I don't understand these people that claim "OS X flys on my G3/266!". I think they're in denial. *And* aqua is UGLY, IMHO. The 10.1 upgrade improved things a little, but it was still sluggish at best.
</STRONG>
Well i'm one of those people who has a 266 MHz G3 (and without graphics acceleration support too), but i just don't find MacOS X to be "sluggish." Yes, some of the menu drawing isn't quite as snappy as i might like, and so that is a bit sluggish, but even the folks with G4's were complaining about that, so i know i'm not alone there. And 10.1 fixed most of that, anyhow. The fact of the matter is that many of my carbon app's launch faster in MacOS X than in 9.1. And number crunching doesn't appear to take longer. But i should mention that i do have lots of RAM, and i upgraded my HD to a faster drive (MacOS X is very disk intensive). These two factors are much more important than mere CPU MHz. It doesn't matter how fast you can count (or add) if you're slow opening and reading files, you're going to have a slow experience in MacOS X. It opens and reads thousands of files.

I'm not avoiding MacOS X for speed issues nor lack of software... merely for lack of a good user interface. What was Apple thinking when they took away the Apple menu and gave us that crappy ol' dock instead? I'd be complaining about a lack of an Application menu too if it weren't for ASM.

Okay, so there's my two cents worth. YMMV.
 
PowerCube Feb 9, 2002 11:48 PM
Working about 95% OSX.1.2 two weeks after initial install,and using OS9 less and less every minute. :D It performs very well on my system, except for the slower screen draws/jumpy window expansion issue, but I can live with it. Maybe it is the Rage128 card I made the mistake of not changing. Anybody out there have any experience in going from a Rage128 to a GeForce 2 or 3 in X and getting better screen peformance? I am planning on changing, as soon as I can find a card somewhere! :rolleyes: Then it will be on to the Sonnet Encore Duet Hack.......Whooo Hoooo! Just got my big fat bonus check, so that is not far behind either, as soon as I can find one......ahem :( I also LOVE being able to poke around under the hood, and with OSX / Unix I can do just that. I love the new OS. ;)
 
ARENA Feb 10, 2002 12:50 AM
I am absolutely 100% Mac OS X since March (or even before, with the first Cheetah betas).
I love it, and it runs very nice in my Pismo.

the '9 days' are just memories from a remote past. ;)
 
johann Feb 11, 2002 01:26 AM
i'm a computer guy and only got into macs seriously because of OSX. I started with the PB and now 10.1.2, but i just installed 9.1 on dual USB iBook because i couldn't take it.. IT WAS WAY TO SLOW. out of my three macs (G4 400, rev A iMac, iBook), the iBook is the one i use the most (surfing the web while watching TV (airport)). I would spend most of my time fighting to get any sort satisfying user experience using X to web browse. If the only computer you had was a rev A iMac and you liked your unix and mac OS, OSX would be a god send. But i have serveral unix boxen, running serveral unix OS's, so i don't need the unix part of OSX. I just said, screw it, lemme be able to type a URL into a web browser without it lagging :rolleyes: ... OSX is weak slow, everyone knows it, but some people have accepted it, and others need to get some work done...
 
Bobby Apr 12, 2002 06:48 PM
I've not gone OS X. I still spend around 98% of my time in Classic.

I love my Classic, and won't give it up any time soon...


Wonder if we can get apple to make Classic open source, so we can keep developing it!!! :p
 
<chris.p> Apr 12, 2002 07:58 PM
ive just gone full time 9 (x still o disk tho) after 2 months of trying to be x since i bought my dual800 2 months ago- x just aint there... quark please. atm deluxe please. photoshop please (almost). speed please. eye candy off please...
 
driven Apr 14, 2002 03:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by jcadam:
<STRONG>I switched from PCs to macs BECAUSE of OS X. I can do my UNIX hacking/programming and use MS Office on the same OS.

Once Unreal Tournament is fully ported to OS X, I'll have no reason to use OS 9 at all anymore.</STRONG>
Same here. (The reason I came to macs is because of OS X)

The only OS 9 app I currently use is Yahoo Messenger, but I'd prefer not to load it. (And I boot back to OS 9 to import into iMovie because the sound gets choppy when I import under OS X)
 
iKevin Apr 14, 2002 03:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by jcadam:
<STRONG>I switched from PCs to macs BECAUSE of OS X. I can do my UNIX hacking/programming and use MS Office on the same OS.

Once Unreal Tournament is fully ported to OS X, I'll have no reason to use OS 9 at all anymore.</STRONG>
Ditto! Unreal Tournament is my last OS9 holdout
 
omac Apr 14, 2002 04:53 PM
x may be the future , but here and now - ie: the present 9 is more than good enough - fast , stable & intuitive

x is slow , hard to navigate & incompatible

one day , X WILL ROCK YOU but not just yet... ;)

WWDC looks promising.. !!!
 
MikeM32 Apr 14, 2002 06:11 PM
I just had someone send me the 10.1 upgrade and it's still "so-so" on my Beige G3/266 Desktop. I will admit it's noticeably faster than 10.0.4 was, but the intitial "thrill" of running it has sort of worn-off, and I'm back on 9.2.2 (again).

The majority of the software I run is OS 9.X and I think that's my main reason for sticking with 9.X. I do have Illustrator 10 and that's about it in terms of carbonized app's. My job still uses OS 9.x or 8.6 so there's another factor. Using 9 keeps me "sharper" in terms of what I'm using at home and at work.

Honestly there's not much I see OSX can do that OS 9 can't, and there's my reasoning for sticking with 9.X for now. The fact that OSX offers symmetric multi-tasking and isn't "supposed" to crash just isn't "enough" here. I rarely crash on OS 9.X, in-fact I'm currently doing an experiment in "up-time" with my Beige box to see how long it'll run before requiring a re-boot. I just started yesterday though, so I'll have to keep you posted. It's sort of not by choice really as I've been having some weird start-up issues since I upped to 10.1 (even though I'm booting in 9.2.2).

I'm probably going to hold off on using OSX full-time until I really have no choice, or at least some newer hardware to run it on. Like I said my job still uses 9.X or 8.6 and it'll likely be a while before the graphics industry (my field of work) makes the big switch.

Mike
 
xyber233 Apr 15, 2002 11:52 PM
I can't :(. I have a 466mhz rev.b iMac. Neither of my graphics cards are supported which makes X useless.
 
<V Roller> Apr 16, 2002 12:20 AM
I wonder what kennethmac200 has to say now. In the thread I started, concerning a problem with OS9.2.1 and seasonal time change, kennethmac2000 answered with a statement that nobody but me was having the problem because "everyone else is using OSX".
 
Cipher13 Apr 16, 2002 05:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by --Helen--:
<STRONG>I'm xercising my options in going X. It's kind of like running toward the water. Dipping your toe into the water. The water is too cold. Run back. Repeat every couple of minutes.

However, with apps appearing left and right for X, not to mention ordering a new iMac, going X forever will happen soon.

http://www.centralcarolina.org/image...n/Helen_53.jpg </STRONG>
Funny you should use that analogy... it seems the longer you stay in cold water, the less cold it feels, as your body goes numb... and eventually, you can't at all tell it's cold.

The longer one stays in OSX, the less they realise how fast OS9 was... and it seems normal.

:)
 
MikeMarco14 Apr 17, 2002 03:17 PM
I'm in transition (or *was* in transition, poke around the iMac discussion boards or search my user name if you want to know more). I've been running both OS 9 and X for quite some time, but only poked my head in OS X for certain tasks (like downloading songs from Audiogalaxy via Sputnix). But when more apps began to come out for OS X (like Office v. X, which I love), I decided to make the switch. I run (or ran) OS X full-time.

I'm sure you can get a Beige G3/266 to run OS X decently, given some strategic upgrades. Ideally, more RAM (lots more, max out the motherboard if you can), a bigger hard drive and a new PCI video card would do the trick nicely. But if you want to do serious work in OS X for years to come, it might be better to go with a G4.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2