[TheTraveller]

Someone said a while back in this thread (the guy who started it?) that nobody complained about OS 9. Huh? I did. OS 9 sucked. So did OS 8, and somewhere around 8.5 I bought my first PC, and worked on Windows NT, primarily, for about 3 years there, or however long it was until the first DP over OS X came out.

OS X is, under the hood, a much more complicated operating system than OS 9, so yeah, you can't just dive into the system folder and start pulling stuff out willy-nilly. You couldn't really do that on OS 9, either, but I'll grant you OS 9 was easier to put back together.

However, I have had much, MUCH less hassle with my Macs running OS X than I ever had with OS 9 and its predecessors. Less hassle = simpler to use. Different, yes - if you stop expecting your OS X machine to work like an OS 9 machine, you'll be much better off. As with much of life, learn to accept things the way they are and you'll be a much more contented person.

[osxrules]

I can't believe people still complain about OS X. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say the constant whining is getting tiresome. If OS X has so many problems, then try finding a better system rather than request Apple build a new one to your own spec. Admittedly, it didn't go well to begin with but things have drastically improved since then. Panther is the best system I have ever used out of Linux Redhat, Win 3.1,95,98,2000,XP, Mac system 7,8,9. Nothing comes close to the ease of use and stability.

It doesn't run brilliantly on slow hardware but my dad runs 10.2 on his old beige g3 233MHz and it does what he needs. Without OS X, think of all the great software we would never get.

I don't miss OS 9 for 1 second and if there were indeo codecs for OS X, I would probably delete the classic environment because I use it so rarely. It was so unstable - I even managed to break the system by running a tiny program I compiled for a university project. Another point though minor is that old Apple icon was hideous.

OS X was not an excuse to make money, nor is it deliberately buggy to ensure people buy upgrades - are we forgetting it's open source? Think how big an operating system is and how difficult it is to ensure that every single thing works in many configurations of hardware as well as keeping up with new technologies. What Apple have achieved is phenomenal - almost the holy grail of computing: to produce an industrial strength system that a kid can use. Many variants of unix have been around for years and still haven't reached that level.

The system is not to blame, it's just users who don't take the time to learn it. When you started driving, did you get in a car and head straight into heavy traffic screaming that it's not quite the same experience as going for a walk, then screech to a halt, burn the car and vow to walk everywhere just like the old days? Or did you take months under expert tuition before you were able to learn (not even master) the basics of driving?

[PSST]

I think I need to CLARIFY some things here...

First off, I don't want Apple to make an OS 9 for OS X....

Second I don't hate OS X or Unix, that's just ignorant and stupid.

I was looking to discuss why I had the problems that I had with OS X.

THANK YOU CPAC for showing me in a easier way some of the ways to do things in OS X.

That's what I needed and was looking for in this post.

I'm actually thinking of getting a copy of OS X and trying it out.

Let me pose this question is it easier for Windows users to use OS X?

Also, when you have to delete a program in OS X, is it easy to do?

But, I just wanted to know if Apple made something like MAC OS X SERVER 1.2 like a previous poster pointed out, It was the OS 9 UI on top of a mach/bsd kernel-then why move to something so radically different?

I'm NOT shouting here: BUT MY ORIGINAL REASON FOR CREATING THIS POST WAS, IF APPLE ENDS UP BEING SO SUCCESSFUL WITH THE IPOD, IPOD MINI, MAC MINI etc, WOULDN'T IT STAND TO REASON THAT OS X OR ANY FUTURE MAC WILL GET EASIER TO USE AND UNDERSTAND???

Please again understand, that I want to learn OS X, I was wondering why I had so many problems with it.

I've also tried to read that 9/X conversion book and got completely lost.

Please no more BASHING against me, especially for the people who don't know what the hell they are talking about, like the comments I made to Millenium the moderator, that was between myself and the moderator.

Wade, I don't know you but thanks for being rude to me.... I won't even respond to your COMMENTS, just know that I give as good as I get, and please leave it at that.

As for being intelligent, what about the comments that Jef Raskin and WoZ made about OS X being difficult to understand, and wasn't the fundamental basis for why the Macintosh System was created for in the first place? Answer that one for me please?

[PSST]

By the By MILLENIUM no need to apologize... But thanks... I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by PSST:
Let me pose this question is it easier for Windows users to use OS X?

Yes.

Also, when you have to delete a program in OS X, is it easy to do?

Yes (drag to Trash).

But, I just wanted to know if Apple made something like MAC OS X SERVER 1.2 like a previous poster pointed out, It was the OS 9 UI on top of a mach/bsd kernel-then why move to something so radically different?

Because they realized that the OS 9 interface was getting old and could be improved. Most of the changes in OS X's interface are either to make it more logical (why should Quit be in the File menu, anyway?) or to make things easier for novices/switchers (the Dock).

I'm NOT shouting here: BUT MY ORIGINAL REASON FOR CREATING THIS POST WAS, IF APPLE ENDS UP BEING SO SUCCESSFUL WITH THE IPOD, IPOD MINI, MAC MINI etc, WOULDN'T IT STAND TO REASON THAT OS X OR ANY FUTURE MAC WILL GET EASIER TO USE AND UNDERSTAND???

Please try a version of OS X later than 10.1. It is easier to use and understand than OS 9 was.

Please again understand, that I want to learn OS X, I was wondering why I had so many problems with it.

As has been pointed out many times, you logged in as root. That is a mistake, which is why the option to do so is so hidden.

As for being intelligent, what about the comments that Jef Raskin and WoZ made about OS X being difficult to understand, and wasn't the fundamental basis for why the Macintosh System was created for in the first place? Answer that one for me please?

Who cares? Try a recent, decent version of OS X yourself, and make up your own mind, rather than letting those people make it for you.

[rjenkinson]

-r.

[strokemouth]

Originally posted by PSST:

Let me pose this question is it easier for Windows users to use OS X?

Like any transition, it will take getting used. Learning the differences between the way you do things in each system takes time and patience. I'd say it's much harder for a Mac user to use Windows than vice-versa (my girlfriend, for example, had a terrible time trying to learn the quirks of XP).

Originally posted by PSST:

Also, when you have to delete a program in OS X, is it easy to do?

90% of the time, it's just trashing the app in the Applications folder. A few others have uninstallers. Still, easy to use.

Originally posted by PSST:

But, I just wanted to know if Apple made something like MAC OS X SERVER 1.2 like a previous poster pointed out, It was the OS 9 UI on top of a mach/bsd kernel-then why move to something so radically different?

I think this has a lot to do with human psychology. I've run into the same type of question at my job. We are developing a new version of our software that accomplishes the same basic tasks as current versions, but we are adding a lot of performance enhancements and features. One of the things being changed is the overall look of the system. When I asked why, the answer was because "people will accept difficulties in transitioning if it LOOKS new." I may not necessarily agree with that, but I can see the point. As far as OSX goes, I'd say the overall look-and-feel is much nicer than OS9. Other things, such as column-view in the Finder, make it a much better experience overall ,IMHO.

Originally posted by PSST:

I'm NOT shouting here: BUT MY ORIGINAL REASON FOR CREATING THIS POST WAS, IF APPLE ENDS UP BEING SO SUCCESSFUL WITH THE IPOD, IPOD MINI, MAC MINI etc, WOULDN'T IT STAND TO REASON THAT OS X OR ANY FUTURE MAC WILL GET EASIER TO USE AND UNDERSTAND???

I'd say that's relative to what you are comparing it to. Easier to understand than current releases of OS X? Most definitely. Additions such as Spotlight and Automator will assuredly make it easier to use. As far as understanding it, that could be your own limitations.

Originally posted by PSST:

Please again understand, that I want to learn OS X, I was wondering why I had so many problems with it.

Give it time. Like all transitions, diving right in usually does not give the best results. Take time to explore, read about stuff online, and don't be afraid to break stuff. That's how I learned Linux. After staring at a flashing "grub>" prompt for two days, I finally learned what I should have done and what I should not have done!

(Just make sure you don't lose anything too important).

Good luck, and try not to take what people say here too personally. I mean, we Mac users aren't called "elitists" for nothing!

EDIT: JUST beaten by CharlesS

[chris v]

PSST: If I read you posts correctly, you gave OS X all of two hours before you nuked it. Read up, follow directions, tread carefully while you learn, and you'll come to appreciate the fact that it really is superior, despite the differences.

Mistakes will be made. I had to nuke and pave a couple of times due to user error, but I chalked it up to learning. Now, I've got it wired and haven't looked back in quite a while.

Keep away from generalizations, IE "When will OS X be as good as OS 9?" and we'll keep away from making sweeping generalizations about your attitude, too. Try to ask SPECIFIC questions, and we'll (most of us, anyway) try to help as much as possible.

[cpac]

Originally posted by PSST:
THANK YOU CPAC for showing me in a easier way some of the ways to do things in OS X.

That's what I needed and was looking for in this post.

I'm actually thinking of getting a copy of OS X and trying it out.

Glad I could help.
Trying OS X (for a few hours, without enabling the root user) is the best way to get comfortable with it. We're here if and when you have a specific question or problem.

Let me pose this question is it easier for Windows users to use OS X?

Yes. And it's easier for many first-time computer users also (clicking an icon that looks like a pen a paper in the dock to launch TextEdit is a lot more intuitive than double-clicking a hard drive icon, and then navigating to the desired application in OS 9)

As for being intelligent, what about the comments that Jef Raskin and WoZ made about OS X being difficult to understand, and wasn't the fundamental basis for why the Macintosh System was created for in the first place? Answer that one for me please?

They may have some valid theoretical points. There's something intuitive about a truely spacial finder (e.g.). However, having things like column view (which is one thing that breaks the spacial finder), are sufficiently more powerful to outweigh any detriment by losing the spatial finder.

(The OS in general is moving away from a need to navigate the file system at all - with Tiger's Spotlight, for example, you'll just go to the upper right corner, type a few letters, and be able to find/open pretty much anything on your computer - all without navigating the file system at all. (iTunes and iPhoto have functioned as more specialized versions of file-system replacements for some time now).)

My point essentially is that their criticisms, while possibly valid on some levels, assume things about people that aren't true anymore such as that they aren't used to computer GUIs (most people have used a computer, and most of them have used Windows, something far less intuitive and rule-breaking than OS X), that organizing and navigating a file structure is one of the primary things you do with an OS (see above re: Spotlight), etc.

[Brass]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
I cringe every time I see a Mac running OS 9 or older. I don't know how I was able to put up with the constant crashing, extension conflicts, and overbloated apps for years.

We all put up with it, because the other main alternative (Windows) crashed just as frequently, until at least WinNT, and the Mac OS was much nicer to use. We put up with some horrible technology unlerlying the OS to have a superior user experience overall.

[Brass]

Originally posted by Millennium:
the dream of a 9-like-X is dead, a technological impossibility.

Not impossible, but it's not likely to ever happen. As somebody else has already posted, the first full release of OS X (OS X server actually) did indeed have the Mac OS 9 interface. Combine this with having only one user on the machine, and automatic login, and you've got something very very similar to Mac OS 9. No reason why it couldn't be made even more like Mac OS 9 if you really wanted to, but there's no good reason to do so, and it'll never happen.

[Sydney Tsai]

If you have 10.3 or 10.2, you can go to Finder's Help Menu.
Click on "new the mac os x" there is a section for os 9 users.

[- - e r i k - -]

I can relate to this very much (although I laugh about it years afterwards). I got burnt badly by installing the Mac OS X PB and didn't switch to OS X until 10.1. Transistioning from OS 9 took some serious brainpower to unlearn old habits and learn new ones. I was / am young and could cope even though I had habits reaching back from system 6. But do not look down upon those who have yet to gather enough energy to do this shift, it is a bit of a chore and understanding the benefits for doing it (and there are plenty) can be hard to see before you've gone through it.

Yes, some comments are misguided, but I'd rather give him a chance to formulate better and then help him instead of chastizing him right away. Give the guy a break, haven't most of you been in his place before?

[z|gzag]

What's lacking is interface consistency, more than anything else!

[MartiNZ]

That's true but then again I'd say it's more consistent than most. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any move to improve on it, seeing as how they've got another new interface for Mail and so on in Tiger and the totally different one for widgets! In that respect, I think 10.1 was probably better than what we've got now, with just the iApps and Quicktime in brushed metal and all else proper aqua.

At least now brushed metal is more standardised as an interface than it was before, but I'd rather just have one!

[Devin Lane]

I remember using OS X for the first time. At first, I thought "what the **** did apple DO???'

After a bit, I realized that this new OS was INCREDIBLY powerful! There was so much you could do! It was organized and designed in a way as to be so friggin modular! Everything was dynamic, real time, etc. And, as an added benefit, no crashing!

I find myself to be much more productive in OS X than I was in OS 9. I cannot imaging going back, not even for a minute. Dealing with the "one thing at a time" philosophy of OS 9 is just soo annoying! I like to be able to do 20 things at once -- I often have 10-20 progs running, switching back and forth between them and it is much more handy then having all those model apps where you couldn't do anything else until you dismissed a dialog.

Long live OS X!!!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Devin Lane:
I remember using OS X for the first time. At first, I thought "what the **** did apple DO???'

After a bit, I realized that this new OS was INCREDIBLY powerful! There was so much you could do! It was organized and designed in a way as to be so friggin modular! Everything was dynamic, real time, etc. And, as an added benefit, no crashing!

Exactly! And just because this guy isn't there yet, you all treat him like a troll instead of giving him the gentle push he obviously needs? I'm not turning into wdlove here, but sometimes you need to think before you post.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Brass:
Not impossible, but it's not likely to ever happen. As somebody else has already posted, the first full release of OS X (OS X server actually) did indeed have the Mac OS 9 interface.

No, it had a Platinum interface: only the most superficial aspect of OS9. Most of the things which people are really complaining about -spatial orientation, spring-loaded folders, tabbed folders, and such- did not exist even in Rhapsody. Then there's the problem that Rhapsody only allowed aliases to exist on the Desktop. There were plans to cripple OSX's Desktop in this way as well. The uproar over that was impressive, to say the least.

Combine this with having only one user on the machine, and automatic login, and you've got something very very similar to Mac OS 9.

No, actually, you don't. You still have to deal with permissions and the folder hierarchy and such, because the simple fact is that there is no machine with only one user. There may be a machine with only one human, but there are many automated users which work behind the scenes. The fact that most people don't even realize these users exist stands testament to the efforts Apple has made to ensure that it all Just Works. In time, further refinements will come, but odds are that it will move away from OS9, not towards it.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by PSST:
IF APPLE ENDS UP BEING SO SUCCESSFUL WITH THE IPOD, IPOD MINI, MAC MINI etc, WOULDN'T IT STAND TO REASON THAT OS X OR ANY FUTURE MAC WILL GET EASIER TO USE AND UNDERSTAND???

Mwahahaha

Did it ever occur to you that OS X already is Apple's most successful OS ever ?

-t

[Millennium]

Originally posted by PSST:
IF APPLE ENDS UP BEING SO SUCCESSFUL WITH THE IPOD, IPOD MINI, MAC MINI etc, WOULDN'T IT STAND TO REASON THAT OS X OR ANY FUTURE MAC WILL GET EASIER TO USE AND UNDERSTAND???

It stands to reason, yes. However, that does not necessarily mean that it will move towards OS9-like functionality.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by PSST:
Specifically you can't move something out of a root folder or your library folder.... Things go crazy.
---
Plus, I understand loging in, is secure for X and 9, I do it now, but once, I had a root and admin account mix up between the two so badly, that I had to reformat a 60 GB imac and start over..... and I said goodbye to OS X...

but what if you didn't want to keep doing that....

Essentially your question is:

Why is it, that when I log in as a computer god without any restrictions, move stuff around, delete random files, and generally cause havoc (all the while, not knowing anything about what I'm doing, and I've gone the extra step to log in as root, I should mention) does my computer not work correctly?

These questions are put in the same category as: when I hit my face with a hammer, why does it break?

Come on dude.

[clarkgoble]

To be fair, as others pointed out, he did apparently try 10.0. In my opinion OSX wasn't ready for prime time until 10.2. Even then I found 10.3 a breath of fresh air.

What's amazing to me is that someone is still using Sys9 for serious work. How on earth do you browse the web, for instance? Aren't most of the browsers for Sys9 horribly out of date?

Regarding Sys8 and Sys9, like someone else said, they sucked (IMO). I was a long time Apple devotee but the problems in Sys8 made me switch to Windows. I didn't come back until 10.2 was available. I'd played around with 10.0 and 10.1 but found them very frustrating. Now with a few minor quibbles, I find OSX vastly better than everything else out there.

Realistically with OSX you shouldn't ever have to touch the terminal or to touch any of the system folders. I'm not sure why you were even in there. I've no idea what you were doing, but being a power user in OSX is very different than Sys9. So yes, a lot of power user skills will be lost. But to just be a user you shouldn't have any problem with the conversion.

The only frustrations I can see would be with some interface inconsistency (although that was present in Sys9 in Quicktime and iTunes) and then getting used to the different Finder.

[Brass]

Originally posted by PSST:
like a previous poster pointed out, It was the OS 9 UI on top of a mach/bsd kernel-then why move to something so radically different?

NB: The first version of OS X server was NOT an OS 9 UI on top of a mach/bsd kernel. It was OS X with an OS 9 skin/appearance/whatever. The difference may not seem like much to the user, but the difference is, in fact huge. Just because the windows, buttons, etc used the same skin/theme as OS 9 (ie, "platinum") does not mean it was the same user interface. The menu commands and functionality of the UI (ie, the UI itself) was completely different to OS 9.

Using the same skin as OS 9 might make it look more familiar to OS 9 users, but it is not the same thing as using the same UI as OS 9.

The new UI is much improved, and so is the new skin/theme ("aqua"). Using the OS 9 UI would be a disaster. However, there is no reason why you could not use the OS 9 "platinum" theme is OS X. In fact, I'm sure you could download it and install it yourself, using one of the 3rd party theming utilities for OS X.

This might make it look a little more familiar to you, and my help your transition.

[wadesworld]

Wade, I don't know you but thanks for being rude to me.... I won't even respond to your COMMENTS, just know that I give as good as I get, and please leave it at that.

PSST,

I wasn't rude to you. I told you to quit getting all indignant because we didn't see things your way.

I then told you that to have a productive discussion, you needed to tell us in what ways OS 9 enhanced your work that OS X doesn't.

Once again, you responded by getting all indignant.

People here are trying to help you, and your only response is "why can't it be different than what it is?"

It's not going to change - period, end of story. So if you truly want help, talk to us about what you want to do or what you like about OS 9 that you'd like to duplicate on OS X, other than just wanting the interface to be the same. We'll help - we promise.

But if you keep telling us to shutup because we don't agree with you, then you're not going to find a lot of help.

Wade

[Theodour]

I was still using MacOS 9 at work until my job disappeared last week. At home, I'm OS X all the way (except for 1 scsi scanner with non-SANE drivers.)

I don't hate OS 9, but I won't ever work with it anymore unless I have no choice.

It crashes too much -- especially when working with QuarkXPress (4).

I felt OS X was ominously complicated when I first started using it, and I can understand anyones trepidation when faced with it.

Here is why OS X worked for me:
a) I always missed having a command line for doing things, having come from the DOS and VAX world before moving to Macs in '95.
b) I like computers, and the more mysterious they seem, the more I want to learn about them.
c) The legacy Mac community seemed eager to make this new, complicated OS as "cuddly" and unintimidating as the old one. As a former MacAddict subscriber, I always enjoyed how they gave cool tips and digs to help you get familiar with it.

Regarding the wildly varied responses to the call for discourse: these forums are not the best place to have a fireside chat about anything. I come here periodically for help, but know that anything I enter here is just as easlily misunderstood and flamed as it is shared and evaluated.

That being said, a search usually gives you your answer, allowing you to bypass the wild-card responses you'll likely get.

[tkmd]

Perhaps if you really wanted to you could try a more mature version of rhapsody ( I think its called mac OS X server). It has essentially the interface of 9 but the unix backbone. In fact, theres a group trying to rewrite rhapsody http://www.rhapsody-project.tk/ . But its a long ways off.

[goMac]

Originally posted by tkmd:
Perhaps if you really wanted to you could try a more mature version of rhapsody ( I think its called mac OS X server). It has essentially the interface of 9 but the unix backbone. In fact, theres a group trying to rewrite rhapsody http://www.rhapsody-project.tk/ . But its a long ways off.

Having used Rhapsody/admined OS X server 1.2, I don't see why anybody would ever want to clone it.

Edit: Whats with that site? Rhapsody wasn't halted. It was renamed to OS X. They act like Rhapsody is some long lost project. Rhapsody is OS X. sheesh... Sounds like a bunch of PC users trying to recreate Rhapsody x86.

[memyselfandimac]

Get a copy of 10.3, Get a copy of iLife 05 and install them both and update to 10.3.7. Then drag a link of the Applications folder into the dock beside the trash can on the right side. You can then click hold/right click on Apps folder and get easy access to your apps.

Just worry about using all the fun stuff, not about how the system folders and hidden root folder are organized etc. The goings on behind the scene is really meant to be out of the way of the basic user. Create your user account as admin and you can muck around in library folder and such but don't go moving apps out of applications folder or moving anything until you understand the system better.

Learn how to do the basic stuff like repair permissions etc before and after doing system updates. Learn how to use something like Yasu or applejack (you can find them on versiontracker.com) to do basic repairing/maintenace if problems should arise. Learn the system prefs. If in doubt about anything there is a wealth of info on the net.

But mostly, except for the basic stuff I just mentioned, "The System" doesn't really require any attention from you. Just learn the prefs, how to install pref panes. Get to know Safari, Mail, iPhoto, iTunes etc.

Download some fun free stuff, try Clutter, allows you to have images of album art of CD/songs you have loaded in iTunes laying around on your desktop, then just double click them to play that album.

I was like "what the heck" when I tried 10.1, but 10.2 sealed it for me, 10.3 just put icing on the cake. Believe me the changes in OS X worth it in the long run. The interface is a little slower, but thats all because of the eye candy like dropshadows etc. But as of right now I can't stand to look at OS 9 anymore, OS X is beautiful. OS 9 was lightning fast compared to 10.0-10.2, since 10.3 haven't real cared any about that anymore. Took me about a full year before I really, truly understood OS X compared to OS 9.

Just have fun and learn it slowly, it's really the most stable, usable, friendly OS in existance.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by PSST:
Umm..... I thought these forums were open to free speech and opinions, I'm not trying to offend or be offended. I was trying to have a thoughtful discussion, and learn something and be educated about both 9 and X. Millenium, your comments surprise me. I hope that the Apple Macintosh community is not as splintered and fragmented. Besides overall, we are Apple users, and believe in a System and way of doing things different, and choices over Windows.

I'm sorry but I'm sadden to know that a moderator could send me away to some evanglists site for no reason.

Mac OS 9 was a nice OS. I'd take it over WinMe/2000 any-day. BUT... it was getting dated. Not just the core, either. The way the System and Users were organized made use as a business machine very difficult, and Mac OS 9 also lacked proper troubleshooting, customization, and standards compliance. Mac OS 9 was almost 100% proprietary, from the core, to the APIs (Classic, Carbon,) to AppleScript, to the UI (Mac OS 9 UI, Mac OS 9 Finder.) Almost everything in Mac OS X is open-source or has an open-source equivalent (i.e. Cocoa is closed, but not Darwin-code or Gtk+ code or whatever, plus AppleScript vs. Perl and Aqua vs. X11, and Finder vs. Konqueror.)

[mitchell_pgh]

The ONLY think I miss is the perceived responsiveness. It felt faster...

And that's it....

[Andrew Stephens]

Pardon my two pennies worth but...

First I think I DO have some sympathy for the attitude that OS9 has virtues over X. As a designer I spent many happy years using 7, 8 and 9. It felt friendly, was easy to get to grips with the basics and run Ok most of the time. Many of the things that a busy design studio needed to do were easy and intuitive in 9 (sharing files for one example)

Then along came x, it was flashy and complex. In some ways the eye candy obscures the good parts, it's much more stable (but not as good as Apple or some try to tell us), memory management is much better too!

However it is complex. Much harder to learn beyond the basics and confusing to someone that uses a computer to produce work. For most the OS is simply the step before the application. While the OS may stay up more, individual apps still go down pretty regularly and file sharing is complex and delicate.

In short while X may be a giant advance in the programmer art it may well represent a backward step in the human interface stakes. Like PSST I long for an invisible OS, one that is just THEIR. Sadly I think Tiger will be more of the same.

Just imagine how fast I could work if my cpu did not have to carry all the overheads that OSX brings. For a while it looked like OpenDoc would be the future but for the next decade it looks like it's going to be OS bloatware all the way!

[PurpleGiant]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
Many of the things that a busy design studio needed to do were easy and intuitive in 9 (sharing files for one example)

<snip>

and file sharing is complex and delicate.

Just wondering, which part of sharing files is harder in OS X than OS 9? Assuming you mean over a network, this is how I remember it:

OS 9:
1) Turn on AppleTalk in AppleTalk Control Panel
2) Turn on File Sharing in File Sharing Control Panel
3) Setup users in Users and Groups control panel
4) To connect to another Mac, go into the Chooser, and navigate to the correct one.

OS X:
1) Turn on "Macintosh File Sharing" in the Sharing Preference Pane
2) To connect to another Mac, click on 'Network' in the Finder and navigate to the correct Mac. (use any username and password on that machine to see that users files)

[ApeInTheShell]

You're getting negative responses because there have been A LOT of threads just like this one asking the same thing. Time and time again we have explained the differences between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X and people don't seem to get it. Now explaining the differences to switchers from Linux and Windows is a little higher on the priorities list.

Repairing Mac OS 9 is just a matter of knowing what extensions to download and where to move them. If you had error codes you can look them up and troubleshoot. The MultiFinder was a good effort but multitasking was not effective in Mac OS 9 at all. Not having to set up your DSL/Cable: priceless. Plus Virtual PC 5 runs faster in Mac OS 9 if you need its services.

If you think Mac OS X is difficult to use you might try Windows XP. I heard it has a large user base and is a cross between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
Pardon my two pennies worth but...

..snip..

Then along came x, it was flashy and complex. In some ways the eye candy obscures the good parts, it's much more stable (but not as good as Apple or some try to tell us), memory management is much better too!

However it is complex. Much harder to learn beyond the basics and confusing to someone that uses a computer to produce work. For most the OS is simply the step before the application. While the OS may stay up more, individual apps still go down pretty regularly and file sharing is complex and delicate.

..snip..

Just imagine how fast I could work if my cpu did not have to carry all the overheads that OSX brings. For a while it looked like OpenDoc would be the future but for the next decade it looks like it's going to be OS bloatware all the way!

Much harder to learn? More complex? "All the overhead" of OS X?

I'm sorry, but I think you're making stuff up.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
Like PSST I long for an invisible OS, one that is just THEIR.

And it is because of this sentence that I think this post is satire.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
And it is because of this sentence that I think this post is satire.

Good point but no. I was just typing too fast and watching TV at the same time! I do do grammar most of the time!

Distilling my post; perhaps what I meant was that OSX, AND Windows, are moving in the wrong direction while OpenDoc was moving in the right direction.

I can see many, mostly marketing, reasons why OpenDoc was doomed. My point was that as the years go by all these OS's will get bigger and bigger and more and more complex. OSX is already much more central to my day to day use of the Mac than 9 was, whereas what I actually want to be central is Photoshop and Illustrator.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
Good point but no. I was just typing too fast and watching TV at the same time! I do do grammar most of the time!

Distilling my post; perhaps what I meant was that OSX, AND Windows, are moving in the wrong direction while OpenDoc was moving in the right direction.

I can see many, mostly marketing, reasons why OpenDoc was doomed. My point was that as the years go by all these OS's will get bigger and bigger and more and more complex. OSX is already much more central to my day to day use of the Mac than 9 was, whereas what I actually want to be central is Photoshop and Illustrator.

The other reason OpenDoc died was that (from what I've heard) the implementation was horrible. Iirc, OLE (the Windows equivalent) is still sortakinda alive, mostly due to office.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
Distilling my post; perhaps what I meant was that OSX, AND Windows, are moving in the wrong direction while OpenDoc was moving in the right direction.

I can see many, mostly marketing, reasons why OpenDoc was doomed. My point was that as the years go by all these OS's will get bigger and bigger and more and more complex. OSX is already much more central to my day to day use of the Mac than 9 was, whereas what I actually want to be central is Photoshop and Illustrator.

But OpenDoc barely had any presence at all, ever, in the classic Mac OS, and I don't remember using any OpenDoc apps with OS 9. So I don't know how you could say that lack of OpenDoc support makes OS X worse than OS 9 � if anything, it makes it exactly the same.

Most of the ways in which the OS is central to my day-to-day use � Expos�, the Dock, Menu Extras � are good for my workflow. So I don't see how better support from the system is a bad thing.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
But OpenDoc barely had any presence at all, ever, in the classic Mac OS, and I don't remember using any OpenDoc apps with OS 9. So I don't know how you could say that lack of OpenDoc support makes OS X worse than OS 9 � if anything, it makes it exactly the same.

Most of the ways in which the OS is central to my day-to-day use � Expos�, the Dock, Menu Extras � are good for my workflow. So I don't see how better support from the system is a bad thing.

Not only was the implementation bad, but from what I remember there wasn't ANYTHING that used it besides the samples that apple provided. And IIRC all you could do was place text and pictures. And sounds. Yay.

I gotta agree with Chuckit on this one. OpenDoc = no actual benefit.

posted by Andrew Stephens
OSX is already much more central to my day to day use of the Mac than 9 was, whereas what I actually want to be central is Photoshop and Illustrator.

When you are using photoshop on OS X, how is it difference (photoshop features aside) from using photoshop on OS9? This doesn't make much sense to me... are you bitter about preemptive multitasking? If Apple built in animated ducks that flew across your screen and made all sorts of noise, I might agree. However, other than that I'm not following you.

[Andrew Stephens]

I know OpenDoc never took off. I was pointing out that in terms of efficient use of computer rescources it would have been the way to go. Only raw horsepower has allowed OS's like X and XP to work, not efficient programming.

I am also fully aware taht when using Photoshop I am using many OS X features, memory protection, multitasking, quartz, hte Aqua interface etc etc, I was merelt mentioning that outside this I am more aware of OSX than 9.

Given that we are well into the era of bloated operating systems OS X is a better platform than 9. However a document centric system would have been better still, and far more radical. Despite it's sophistication and UNIX underpinninsh, in metaphorical terms it is merely OS 9+

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
If Apple built in animated ducks that flew across your screen and made all sorts of noise, I might agree. However, other than that I'm not following you.

that's a pretty good definition of Expose AND dashboard

[chris v]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
that's a pretty good definition of Expose AND dashboard

Have you actually used Expos�? Compared to window shading, it's a godsend.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
that's a pretty good definition of Expose AND dashboard

oh please - I hope your joking. I should have added "randomly flying across the screen". Expose is not forced on you at all, and I love it.

Want to open up a file that you know is on your desktop? OK..

The old way - switch to the finder, holding down option. That hides all the other apps. Close all finder window, or move them aside. find document. open. make workspace the way you want it again.

new way - hit f11. open. workspace returns to the original setup on it's own.

Exactly what I want.

And I can't wait for dashboard. Web services + dashboard = my dream come true.

[Andrew Stephens]

actually that bit WAS sarcasm!

I don't actually use expose that much as we don't keep files on the desktop at work, although I do use the all windows at once mode more than the others.

Still the basic points good. It's a hell of a lot of programming and cpu grunt to perform a routine OS task.

[Theodour]

I used Cyberdog for email and internet until it it fell too far behind the times. I remember likeing it a lot, and missing it ... by I don't remember why.
I think it was near infinitely drag-and-droppable -- probably its OpenDoc-ness.

I was sad when OpenDoc went ... but I was sad when QuickDrawGX went too.

Once again, I can't even remember why it seemed like the sweetest thing ever ... you could make portable documents with it ... like PDFs, but at the time they were way better--or so I was told. It seemed cool, and lots of companies were gearing up for it to take over. Anybody remember?

I liked Expose at first, but could never make it a habit. Instead, I just use command-tab like crazy. It is infuriating to go back to OS 9, only to be stymied by the lame implementation of app switching. I currently have expose disabled from the function keys, and have one corner active to show the desktop ... but even still I forget about until I accidentally bump the corner.

[irfoton]

OpenDoc actually had a number of application written. I bought a word processor that came with the text editor, graphics, and rudimentary plotting plug ins. I can't remember the name but it had a very clean interface. I liked it a lot but alas OpenDoc was history.

As for easy file sharing. I agree that OS9 was much easier. I could create users and groups without having to create accounts on the computer. it was also easier to make a given folder "shareable'. Now if you want to share with someone you have to add them as an account on your computer. That's crazy. I wish there was a easier way to setup an access list.

irfoton

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by irfoton:
As for easy file sharing. I agree that OS9 was much easier. I could create users and groups without having to create accounts on the computer. it was also easier to make a given folder "shareable'. Now if you want to share with someone you have to add them as an account on your computer. That's crazy. I wish there was a easier way to setup an access list.

Have you ever felt like you had a fairy godmother?

[The DJ]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Have you ever felt like you had a fairy godmother?

Well that works, but you cannot seriously call that application easier can you?

[OtisWild]

.... http://wsmanager.sf.net

If you're a unix pager nut, this is the __BEST__....

[wadesworld]

Now if you want to share with someone you have to add them as an account on your computer. That's crazy. I wish there was a easier way to setup an access list

You guys are missing the point. So OS X has some things which are different. So what? It also has given us apps that NEVER would have appeared on OS 9 or would have gone away.

A VERY incomplete list:

Maya
Wings 3D
VLC
gcc
Shark
OpenGL profiler
Matlab
Renderman
ac3d
FinalCut Pro
Shake
About a million Java apps (Java on OS 9 was horrid)
subversion
etc
etc
etc
etc

Wade