MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Classic Macs and Mac OS (http://forums.macnn.com/classic-macs-and-mac-os/)
-   -   Am I the only one that likes OS 9.x better than OS X? (http://forums.macnn.com/64/classic-macs-and-mac-os/47145/am-i-only-one-likes-os/)

 
RedHerring Jul 16, 2001 10:19 PM
Am I the only one that likes OS 9.x better than OS X?
Just wondering if I'm the only freak out there that likes the look and feel of OS 9.x better than the eye-candy-filled OS X?
 
yoyo52 Jul 17, 2001 01:17 AM
You sure have an appropriate name ;)
 
Steve Jul 17, 2001 03:02 AM
Just talk to Cipher13....... :rolleyes:

I think that he might.....
:rolleyes:
 
RedHerring Jul 17, 2001 03:16 AM
appropriate name, huh? hahaha :D

Should I take that as a good thing or a bad thing? ;)
 
Mac Guru Jul 17, 2001 05:24 PM
i love OS 9. I seem to be the only one on my AIM Buddy List that doesn't have OS X running on ANY of my macs... (all 8 of em).

It's just too new and practically everything I own runs in 9 and not native in X so it's pretty much pointless to run X. I don't see myself booting into OS X until about a year from now.

Mac Guru
 
Randycat2001 Jul 17, 2001 09:29 PM
I must say, OS9.x is at the top of its game with all its widgets and UI helpers and such. Add in endless variation with Kaleidoscope functionality and considering something else that (for now) has 1 fixed scheme is a real sticking point (for a casual user, that is). I've been cycling Kaleidoscope schemes for so long, the Platinum look has almost no meaning to me (nor do I look toward going back to it).
 
Evangellydonut Jul 18, 2001 08:24 PM
ONLY time I use OS X is telnet/ssh to my school's computer clusters when doing CS programming...the transparent command line kicks major a$$ :-) (something Linux has long ago though) Otherwise, 9.x is better than X.x in almost everything else...at least IMHO...maybe I'm just thick-headed and still living in the "old times". I don't see anything wrong with it until OS X.5 or later...
 
Korv Jul 18, 2001 09:13 PM
I won't touch X until its fast and resposive. I went OS X only, but waiting and waiting for OS X got too annoying. I'm OS 9 only until: (1) OSX is fast and responsive and (2) does DVD.

No flames about "throwing away OSX just 'cuz of DVD support" please. DVD playback happens to be the major reason I bought this computer, so its a personal fetish and I won't go X without it. I think a lot of folks will agree with me about the spped/responsivness however.
 
Cipher13 Jul 19, 2001 07:51 AM
OSX is the most overrated, underpowered, blown-up piece of crap to ever "grace" the boot sectors of a Macintosh HD.

Absolute garbage.

9.04 all the way!
 
RedHerring Jul 19, 2001 01:58 PM
Well, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it garbage. But I'm just not impressed so far.

For a moment, let's assume that OS X isn't slow and missing features. It still doesn't "feel" right to me. I'm not sure how to describe it. I like the white-ish window backgrounds. And, unlike some people, I actually like the dock. I had to shrink it of course....because the default size is way too big. I think it's all the glassy-looking parts that bother me. I don't think it looks very professional. And why that might not be a concern for some people, I have a hard time taking anything seriously if looks "childish" to me. Judging from screen shots from some programs I've seen for MacOS X, and on some of the programs that are already out for it, I think it's impossible to get away from this "childish" look. The colorful, glass-like buttons and widgets don't integrate into professional programs very well.

Some of the best things about OS 9 are missing from OS X, forever I'm assuming. Like the spring-loaded folders. Great idea, IMO. As an ex-Windows user, I was used to the Windows Explorer approach to file management (you know...two pane exlporer, with folder hiearchy on one side and folder content on the other side). At first, I thought this type of approach was something Mac OS needed badly. But once I learned about, and got used to, spring-loaded folders, I decided I liked that approach even better! And what about pop-up folders and "click-and-a-half"??!?! Great, great ideas. Where are they in MacOS X? Are they there and I just missed them? I think Apple should seriously re-consider dropping these kinds of unique, INNOVATIVE, features of MacOS.

Call me crazy, but I just like the simple, grey look of MacOS 9.x.
 
Chuck_star Jul 24, 2001 10:34 PM
RedHerring
You have some good points regarding the interface(never looked at it that way). I like to use a combo of 9.0.4 and 9.1. Both work great for me.
Regarding OS X missing a lot of good features of 9.x. I was under the impression they were on their way back. Hope so, cuz I miss the old apple menu. The dock is nice in its own way, but hardly replaces my apple menu!
 
GetSome681 Jul 24, 2001 11:19 PM
OS X definitely has its problems at the moment, but I think that as most all of us are aware, it won't be long before we will be receiving all that we wish for from X.....for the mean time, I must agree though that 9.x is much more productive, and faster. I can have a million things open at once, and not have any problems with anything, especially switching between windows and applications and just how things run. But...I can only hope and pray for X...b/c I want a reason to get a dual G4!!! ;)
 
Raman Jul 24, 2001 11:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by RedHerring:
<STRONG>Just wondering if I'm the only freak out there that likes the look and feel of OS 9.x better than the eye-candy-filled OS X?</STRONG>
If liking OS9 better than OSX is freaky then count me in! LONG LIVE IX!!!!
 
applenut1 Jul 25, 2001 01:52 AM
I think the interface for OS 9 is years ahead of Aqua.

What I would have like to seen is a quartz enabled Platinum OS X. I think Apple could have really created something cool.


Just wondering, everyone thought the imac was the most amazingly cool design ever when it was released. Now people think its boring, played, and old. What happens when the same happens to Aqua?
 
Cipher13 Jul 25, 2001 05:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>I think the interface for OS 9 is years ahead of Aqua.

What I would have like to seen is a quartz enabled Platinum OS X. I think Apple could have really created something cool.


Just wondering, everyone thought the imac was the most amazingly cool design ever when it was released. Now people think its boring, played, and old. What happens when the same happens to Aqua?</STRONG>
I think Quartz is one of the problems - its so SLOW. Packed full of useless garbage.

Exactly - Platinum is timeless! Just like a platinum/beige G3 Tower. And beautiful in their own ways.
 
seanyepez Jul 25, 2001 05:42 AM
Seriously, OS X blows chunks right now.

Superior, easier... bull****. Slower. Much slower. That's all it is. I hate all the eyecandy. It doesn't make my life easier.

I cannot believe how slow OS X is for opening folders and such. The wait time is atrocious. Milliseconds they may be, but Mac OS 9 and Windows Explorer don't have those kind of wait times.

I wish Windows had 9-ish folders, though. I think that was one of the biggest mistakes OS X has. Too much eyecandy, too little functionality.

Why should I use OS X if it's not as fast as OS 9? Even if it has a superior kernel, I get my **** done faster in 9 than X.
 
- - e r i k - - Jul 25, 2001 06:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>I think the interface for OS 9 is years ahead of Aqua.</STRONG>
Of course it's years ahead of Aqua.... The platinium interface has been evolving since the original macintosh.

Aqua, while not starting from ground zero, certainly has trown away a lot of hard-earned knowledge for something...well, different. Not all of it are for the better, but some are truly innovative, like sheets. Other ideas are good, but poorly implemented. Give aqua some time to evolve on it's own. User feedback helps Apple to improve it, and it will improve. Trust me.

Quote
Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>Just wondering, everyone thought the imac was the most amazingly cool design ever when it was released. Now people think its boring, played, and old. What happens when the same happens to Aqua?</STRONG>
Good point. There will be a Kaleidoscope or similar coming to OS X sooner or later. People just want to customize, and especially mac-users.

Widespread use of theming proves that people can even tire of platinium.

While a lot of things have stopped me from upgrading to OS X (my main applications are not ported yet + responsiveness issues), I do run the AquaX III Graphite scheme by Maury McGown (http://www.railheaddesign.com), simply because I actually prefer the look and feel of aqua, despise the usability problems of grouped and blank buttons. I'm just as productive as I was before, simply because users adapt. The muscle-memory I've built up is just as effective as before, but mainly because I use keyboard shortcuts like command-w to close windows.

On another note, I'm really glad I didn't buy OS X 1.0.x seeing that they're charging for the first usable (for me) update.

The advantage of not living on the cutting edge all the time is that you won't bleed that much.
 
Mottad Jul 25, 2001 05:34 PM
Thank you! Someone finally said that. I was so sick of everyone drooling over Acqua, honestly. I think it's too big, too ugly and that it gets really old, really fast. It's all too.. cute for me. Call me a living Howard Roarke, but the amount of **** that went into the Aqua design sickened me after some four-odd hours of using X for the first time.

I like 9 a lot better. The dock is nice, except I don't think it works as both a sort of storage place for program shortcuts AND the place where minimized windows go. I think it's an attempt at creating a Windows-like "programs" menu.

And everything Apple said should be better about X--speed, usage, etc--really isn't. The standard Apple menu is much better than the one X has (I think apple just threw something together because users were complaining about not having one at all) and it's incomparably faster. The only thing that saves X, IMO, is it's control panel, which I thought had a better interface. But then again, it took upwards of five seconds to open any control panel on my cube.

So I'm keeping 9, unless software development for 9 stops completely.
 
-Q- Jul 25, 2001 06:12 PM
Glad to hear that 0S 9 is working for people. I for one, however, am bloody sick and tired of having one application bring my machine down. That destroys more of my productivity than the somewhat unresponsiveness of Aqua.

Timelessness in a Beige G3 design? Timelessly boring perhaps. But to each their own...

I like Aqua. I like OS 9. But the 'under the hood' stuff of X is what makes me stay there.

The original MacOS certainly wasn't perfect when it first shipped. Even with all the GUI research Apple did in developing it (and future updates). MacOS X will have the benefit of the same evolution.

And I certainly get more 'wows' from my iBook2 running OS X than I do with it running 9....

Q
 
Mottad Jul 25, 2001 07:04 PM
I get a lot more Wows on my iBook2 running X too, but I didn't buy a computer to amuse other people. If I did, I'd get the iBook1, which is certainly more visually impressive, despite the fact it weighs twice as much and looks like a Tele-tubby purse.

Bottom line is that X is slow and Aqua is sickening after a while. Blue tones generally work like that. I wish Apple would develop an option that removed Aqua from the upcoming and hopefully faster-than-9 version of X.
 
Bugs Bunny Jul 25, 2001 09:12 PM
Wows, schmows, don't really care what people think. I get all my work done in 9 period. But who knows what I'll be using 6 months from now. Don't have the time to experiment with a new OS, yet. Eye candy doesn't pay the bills.
 
el chupacabra Jul 25, 2001 09:22 PM
To os 10's defence,


Dont get me wrong I dont use os x either and like 9 better for all the reasons listed above (although I do like aqua so long as it can be fast) and I will mock os x but that will have to wait for another day in another thread..for now someone needs to get your spirits up.

So heres a little os x story that really impressed me though maybe not all of you. So i had my computer on the other day in was in a rather good mood so decided to see if i could crash os x. I only have 64 mb of ram on an imac so I figured it would be easy. Anyway I also recently purchased the sims. this program is an extreme ram hog (105 MB) and has crashed os 9 a many times (though it doesnt take much to crash os 9) as well as complain about memory when it doesnt crash (the next test will be elite force). I wanted to see what would happen if i opend the sims in classic in os x (remember it only has 64 ram). It took forever about 7 minutes to open the sims in classic, BUT not only did it not crash it didnt complain about memory even once. And although it played slower than it would have in os 9 it only a very slight difference in resposiveness. for someone thats used to crashing their computer many times a day over little things this made me very very happy.

some other cool things about aqua are how u dont have to open a picture to see what it is, also all the unix hacks you can do to the ui are pretty cool. The lay out of Aqua really is more efficient too. I like having the finder menu where it is among other things, the apple menu is a real mess in os 9, its just something to get used too once it all speeds up.

off topic: whats with Apple charging 20 frickin bucks for an upgrade? if they charged 4 theyed make profit.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: el chupacabra ]
 
PeteL999 Jul 25, 2001 10:14 PM
dude, it's no contest. I love 9.1 it's so responsive & stable when I'm not using internet explorer 5 which needs to die of a bad disease and go far away :mad: but for all of my 4 applications that run at once - AIM, netscape, itunes, and limewire (which I only use by itself because of that stallin crap it does, god it pisses me off)
 
hamnchz Jul 27, 2001 12:08 PM
Bought a new iMac with 9.1 installed (3 weeks before price drop...DOH!), and I can say I miss 9.0.4.

9.1 IS slower than 9.0.4. I have sped up performance slightly by downloading the latest CarbonLib.
(I think)

I have OSX in my hand, but I can't say I'm in a hurry to install it, for reasons mentioned in this thread.

I do like the dock feature. OS9 fans could try A-Dock (http://jerome.foucher.free.fr/ADock.html).

And yes PeteL, Limewire is a pain-in-the-arse.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hamnchz ]

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hamnchz ]

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hamnchz ]
 
pkjackson Jul 27, 2001 01:49 PM
OS X feels like you are running in windoz.....the responsiveness of the mouse is horrible. Everything seems very slow!

OS 9.1 is what I am running now on my iBook and my G4.

There is no way that I am going to make the switch to OS X until Apple can implament the same smooth and polished feel that they have with OS 9
 
Knof8 Jul 27, 2001 04:17 PM
I'm just curious if Kalidescope is going to have on it for OS X a version that will make it look like OS 9 :p
 
fisherKing Jul 27, 2001 06:06 PM
funny how we all have these different experiences...
for me, 9.1 is the fastest, most stable (mac) OS i've ever used (started at 7.5..!)

i'm running a LOT of apps, custom control panels & extensions,
& it's all good (well, IE is a bit cranky..)

when i can do my WORK in X, i'll be there. there's no place to go but the future!

until then, 9.1
 
mr. natural Jul 27, 2001 07:13 PM
I have to second what fisherKing sez. 9.1 has been very stable for me, fast, and while running multiple apps. no crashes!

I've got a G4 dual 450, and -- beside the fact that my peripherals are lacking in drivers to work in osX -- unless 10.1 fixes the huge modem internet connect pot-hole which plagues us MP users, it will remain a pretty useless gal to take anywhere.

I'm guessing that Apple is working their butts off to finally NAIL this frigging pot-hole so that when they start shipping the dual 800's they will work with 10.1. This is major egg on their face along with tweaking speed, hence the 10.1 delay.
 
chris v Jul 27, 2001 11:56 PM
I'm in no hurry to switch to X.

I've got 9.1 set just the way I like it, (actually, i found an "osx" theme on the web somewhere, and it looks pretty nifty in 9) with pop-up folders, and aliases of my hard drives in the apple menu, and I'll take my nice little floating application switcher over the bulky Dock any day.
At home, it's very stable-- I don't think uptimes of 1-2 weeks is much to complain about, so I'm pretty happy here.

At work, however, 9.1 is a little less stable when we work hard in Illustrator, so I am actually looking forward to the Unix stability that should come with 10.1, that is, if i can still print to my imagesetter (a BIG if) and run Adobe apps. Until then, I'll just restart now and then, and stay happy.

I've been running Macs since 7.1, I think, (it's been a looong time) and the classic OS gets better and better.

CV
 
-Q- Jul 28, 2001 12:40 PM
This whole debate has been settled by the activities of this morning. My OS X box (a beige G3) has been up for 33 days straight w/out a reboot. I've had to reboot my iBook twice this morning b/c IE brought the whole system down.

That's what's made my decision easiest. I can get my work done w/out worrying about antiquated memory issues (that I shouldn't have to worry about in the first place). Which is why I find the discussion of productivity ironic. :)

9 had it's place. But it's time is done in my life.
 
fisherKing Jul 28, 2001 03:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by -Q-:
<STRONG>This whole debate has been settled by the activities of this morning. My OS X box (a beige G3) has been up for 33 days straight w/out a reboot. I've had to reboot my iBook twice this morning b/c IE brought the whole system down.

That's what's made my decision easiest. I can get my work done w/out worrying about antiquated memory issues (that I shouldn't have to worry about in the first place). Which is why I find the discussion of productivity ironic. :)

9 had it's place. But it's time is done in my life.</STRONG>
that's nice. i HATE rebooting. but it's a small price to pay to have an OS that runs ALL MY APPS...! until enough of them are ported over to X, i'll stay with 9.1.

the OS is just that, an operating system.
it's the apps that matter most!
 
FERRO Jul 28, 2001 03:52 PM
I love 9.x and think that OS X has to growing to do before I use it...
I dont expect 9.2 and beyond to be a perticularly good update other than making it easier for integration into OS X....

I think Apple is kind of abandoning 9.x for OS X which is thier decision to make, But pre-X operating systems are in my blood and I know them by heart....

I think many people will continue 9.x into further personal development...
 
sbheifetz Jul 31, 2001 12:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by hamnchz:
<STRONG>Bought a new iMac with 9.1 installed (3 weeks before price drop...DOH!), and I can say I miss 9.0.4.

9.1 IS slower than 9.0.4. I have sped up performance slightly by downloading the latest CarbonLib.
(I think)

I have OSX in my hand, but I can't say I'm in a hurry to install it, for reasons mentioned in this thread.

I do like the dock feature. OS9 fans could try A-Dock (http://jerome.foucher.free.fr/ADock.html).

And yes PeteL, Limewire is a pain-in-the-arse.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hamnchz ]

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hamnchz ]

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hamnchz ]</STRONG>
I am about to install 9.1 in place of 9.04. How much agreement is there that 9.1 is slower than 9.04?
 
- - e r i k - - Jul 31, 2001 06:18 AM
I disagree. Don't see much difference if at all in OS 9.1 vs. 9.0.4, speedwise.
 
smileyq Aug 5, 2001 04:34 AM
I'm curious to see if anybody that claims that OS X is so unproduction has used it for a week or heck even 3 days in a row with now OS 9. If you are a System Admin/Network Enginner like myself you can take full advantage of the beauty that OS X offers us finally. While OS 9.1 was great for most things it was just simply to hard to work from in the field much less at home when you were trying to fix a problem. Now dont' get me wrong I don't dislike OS 9.1 at all I actually love it very much.. but people just give OS X a chance trust me you will like what you see in the end once you get used to it. Things will all turn around. Good luck guys.
 
Cipher13 Aug 5, 2001 07:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by -Q-:
<STRONG>This whole debate has been settled by the activities of this morning. My OS X box (a beige G3) has been up for 33 days straight w/out a reboot. I've had to reboot my iBook twice this morning b/c IE brought the whole system down.

That's what's made my decision easiest. I can get my work done w/out worrying about antiquated memory issues (that I shouldn't have to worry about in the first place). Which is why I find the discussion of productivity ironic. :)

9 had it's place. But it's time is done in my life.</STRONG>
Yeah, my OS9 will for weeks when there are no apps available to crash it ;)

As it is, this OS9.04 machine has been up 1 day, 3 hrs and 51 minutes, and I've been using the likes of Photoshop, IE, and Netscape heavily. Its also running AIM, ICQ, Hotline, Carracho, HL server and Carracho server. Oh, and Audion and the dnet client...

Smileyq - You're saying that "in the field" an OS with no apps available, that needs a min of 256 RAM on its own, thats sluggish even with nothing running... is better than OS9?

Um... how about no...

As for the OS9 argument, in my experience, 9.04 is much faster and much more stable, as stated before...
 
MikeM32 Aug 5, 2001 03:42 PM
I've gotta vote on OS 9.x myself. Mainly because everything I use at home and work doesn't run on OSX. Classic mode isn't the best compromise either, and OSX 10.0.4 is dead slow on anything short of a G3-450 from my own observations between work and home.

I have OSX 10.0.4 here on my Beige G3/266 Desktop 352 MB RAM, and while I know it's my hardware, OS 9.1 is where I'm still the most productive. I'll probably keep-up with OSX 10.1 just for the benefit of "knowing" the way it works, but I'm sure it won't be a "vast" improvement over it's current state on my current hardware here at home.

The lack of native apps is really gonna hurt Apple unless these companies start churning out something soon. I mean as I recall from this past January expo, Steve mentionned we'd see a huge amount of App's this summer.

Well? Where the heck are they?

Okay to be reasonable I do know there's some titles out right now, but where the heck is Adobe? Adobe has practically carried Apple over the years. Then what if thier OSX versions simply don't work as well?

People will be forced to migrate to PC's. Especially businesses that rely heavily on specific applications and need them to run well. I told my the "powers that be" at my job about OSX in my research. I also said it would be about 1 year before we saw any "need" to upgrade to it. I'm starting to believe it'll be alot longer than that.

OS 9.x simply gets the job done for me, and that's what I need.

Mike
 
clebin Aug 8, 2001 05:06 PM
Hmm... this is an interesting scenario for an "OS X Man" :D

+I think OS X is really great.

+I get sick of OS 9 users coming to the OS X forum and bitching about it. It just goes ON AND ON AND ON AND ON - SO BORING! (see http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=3&t=006941 )

+I get sick of misinformation about multitasking, memory protection, multithreading and stuff which OS 9 patently needs but can't have... OS 9 more stable than OS X? I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my whole life! Actually, I have. iBabo said "OS 9 is virtually uncrashable" Now that's delusion for you.


So what do I do? Do I say "look everybody! Let's go and swamp the MacOS forum like all the OS 9 whingers do over here!" But I won't do that... I'm glad you're happy, I really am. Just don't come to OS X - General Discussion and get all aggressive, alright??

I used OS 8 or 9 for years and I still like it, though recognising many drawbacks (see link - it's meant to be a bit lighthearted) In the end, I just grew out of it.

Some people are just too impatient to see what's really happening - that bugs are being fixed, that 10.1 is faster and with more features, that apps are trickling through (Painter this week, an excellent VirtualPC demo last week).

Use OS 9 for as long as you want. It's a nice operating system: fast, elegant and with that magic Mac-ness that I can't put my finger on.

But OS X is Fantastic! :) Sweet dreams,

Chris
 
Cipher13 Aug 8, 2001 09:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by clebin:
<STRONG>Hmm... this is an interesting scenario for an "OS X Man" :D

+I think OS X is really great.

+I get sick of OS 9 users coming to the OS X forum and bitching about it. It just goes ON AND ON AND ON AND ON - SO BORING! (see http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=3&t=006941 )

+I get sick of misinformation about multitasking, memory protection, multithreading and stuff which OS 9 patently needs but can't have... OS 9 more stable than OS X? I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my whole life! Actually, I have. iBabo said "OS 9 is virtually uncrashable" Now that's delusion for you.


So what do I do? Do I say "look everybody! Let's go and swamp the MacOS forum like all the OS 9 whingers do over here!" But I won't do that... I'm glad you're happy, I really am. Just don't come to OS X - General Discussion and get all aggressive, alright??

I used OS 8 or 9 for years and I still like it, though recognising many drawbacks (see link - it's meant to be a bit lighthearted) In the end, I just grew out of it.

Some people are just too impatient to see what's really happening - that bugs are being fixed, that 10.1 is faster and with more features, that apps are trickling through (Painter this week, an excellent VirtualPC demo last week).

Use OS 9 for as long as you want. It's a nice operating system: fast, elegant and with that magic Mac-ness that I can't put my finger on.

But OS X is Fantastic! :) Sweet dreams,

Chris</STRONG>
Give me a Finder equivalent to OS9's in speed and features, Adobe apps, and I'll switch :)

I'm in 5F24 at the moment and I really like it, but the speed is still majorly lacking compared to OS9.

OS9 is very damn stable. Before I booted into OSX my uptime was at 62 hours with 18 processes running (IE, NS, ICQ, AIM, MSN, PhotoShop, ImageReady, WebSTAR, Hotline Server, Hotline Client and several others), and it was fine. With 128 megs of RAM. Lets see OSX do that.

At the moment I have Terminal, ICQ, OmniWeb and QuickTime player open, and its sluggish... the live drawing just doesn't work for me. Simply scrolling in OmniWeb is slooow...

Theres still a long way to go.
 
Arnold Farran Aug 9, 2001 04:31 AM
OS X has evan caused Apple stock to drop!!!!
Can't fool wall street, only hipe folks like us.....
X = DOG, or maybe thats not fair too dogs.
 
clebin Aug 9, 2001 09:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Arnold Farran:
<STRONG>OS X has evan caused Apple stock to drop!!!!
Can't fool wall street, only hipe folks like us.....
X = DOG, or maybe thats not fair too dogs.</STRONG>
OS X has not caused Apple's stock to drop - that's rubbish and the truth is quite the opposite. Wall St sees OS X as Apple's great hope. A couple of unprofitable quarters and a downturn in the tech industry (or has that escaped you?) mean that Apple's stock is doing what everyone else's is doing.

Chris
 
clebin Aug 9, 2001 09:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Give me a Finder equivalent to OS9's in speed and features, Adobe apps, and I'll switch :)

I'm in 5F24 at the moment and I really like it, but the speed is still majorly lacking compared to OS9.
</STRONG>
I'm glad you like it, Cipher - I'd keep that quiet in the other forum. :) I'm can't believe some people get so much uptime with OS 9 - last time I used it, my workmate visited a website in IE with a different alphabet and it froze. Good demo, not! And back into X I went...

You know, speed in OS 8.5 was pretty chronic on 603e I remember (I expected the PPC-native code to speed it up). It's the price of progress, although maybe we're still paying too high a price.

Chris
 
scaught Aug 9, 2001 09:27 AM
i bought my imac right after OSX was released, and ordered it with a copy of the software to install and whatnot. got home, setup partitions (wondered endlessly how i should do it) and whatnot, loaded some programs, and didnt like OSX at all cause of the speed. so i unpartitioned and reloaded OS9.1 straight up. ill keep it that way until i can make a permanent move to OSX knowing its fast and good and has programs.
 
Arnold Farran Aug 9, 2001 07:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by clebin:
<STRONG>

OS X has not caused Apple's stock to drop - that's rubbish and the truth is quite the opposite. Wall St sees OS X as Apple's great hope. A couple of unprofitable quarters and a downturn in the tech industry (or has that escaped you?) mean that Apple's stock is doing what everyone else's is doing.

Chris</STRONG>
All others are up S&P's for example, and are still moving up... If Apples hope is on OS X, they better get on the stick, a better one. This is all coming from a mac freak for 15 yrs., no sour grapes here.
 
Cipher13 Aug 10, 2001 05:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by clebin:
<STRONG>

I'm glad you like it, Cipher - I'd keep that quiet in the other forum. :) I'm can't believe some people get so much uptime with OS 9 - last time I used it, my workmate visited a website in IE with a different alphabet and it froze. Good demo, not! And back into X I went...

You know, speed in OS 8.5 was pretty chronic on 603e I remember (I expected the PPC-native code to speed it up). It's the price of progress, although maybe we're still paying too high a price.

Chris</STRONG>
Hmm... I run OS9 on a 603e(v), and its nice and fast... 250MHz (PM5500)... 64 RAM, and its sweet...

As for uptime, my System has been customised and trimmed right down to deleting resources from the System File... and it just doesn't crash.
I run Macsbug 6.63, and when it does crash - that saves me 95% of the time...
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2