[Cipher13]

Spheric:

I don't hate UNIX. Far from it. I love the Terminal; whenever in OSX, I use it as much as possible.

The GUI? I can live with it; it is themeable, I know.

The *ONLY* things stopping me from using OSX are the lack of apps (being remedied), and SPEED!

Give me some freaking speed and I'll move, without a second thought.

START by getting rid of, or making optional, those stupid effects; SECONDLY can come options nav-wise like the Dock (which is a waste of space - I want an Application menu, control strip and popup iwndoes).

But they can come later. Given speed I'll switch.

Apple is putting form over function as always, and that's whats killing it.

I'm really sick and tired of it all to be quite honest; as I'm sick and tired of all of you who don't have a problem with it. Wake up and realise that if you don't bitch about something it won't improve.

Goddamn Apple Apologists.

[driven]

Why bitch if we are happy with it?

There is nothing for us to "wake up" to.

I guess you want us to pretend that we are unhappy so that Apple can do what you like? LOL

[wadesworld]

The *ONLY* things stopping me from using OSX are the lack of apps (being remedied), and SPEED!

Give me some freaking speed and I'll move, without a second thought.

START by getting rid of, or making optional, those stupid effects; SECONDLY can come options nav-wise like the Dock (which is a waste of space - I want an Application menu, control strip and popup iwndoes).

Spoken like a true OS 9 user....

Wake up and realise that if you don't bitch about something it won't improve.

Goddamn Apple Apologists.

What do I need to wake up about? While OS X needs to continue to improve in a few areas, I don't think there's anything that major missing. Does that make me an apologist? Just because I don't miss the control strip, the application menu or popup windows?

Wade
"Give me exactly what I had in OS 9 and I'll switch. Until then, I'll run around telling everyone how much OS X sucks"

I see this all the time in users that haven't made the switch, or those that boot into OS X for a few minutes, get frustrated because it doesn't work exactly like 9, and then boot back to 9. Then they run to the message boards to tell everyone how much they hate OS X.

I use OS X as my primary OS every day. Application menu? Always hated it. Control Strip? Don't miss it. Popup Windows? Were kind of nice, but no big deal.

Speed? I just don't see the big difference. I work in OS X every day, and occassionally work in OS 9 on a different machine that's faster than my OS X machine. Maybe the GUI's a bit slower. But I don't know that it matters because I spend my time being more productive in OS X and using apps I've never had available before, rather than holding a stopwatch to how fast a window resizes.

The interesting thing I've noticed in how many pro-OS 9 people I've seen that complained vehemently about OS X only to later come back and say how much they're enjoying OS X now that they're actually using it for their day-to-day work.

If your apps aren't native, then you should stay in OS 9. But you shouldn't be slamming OS X until you're using it every day.

Wade

[gorgonzola]

Cipher, people don't keep whining about X's speed because it's so blatantly obvious that it's not fast enough and that Apple's working on it. It's not a matter of being okay with the speed, it's a matter of not turning into a broken record with an issue that everyone's already aware of.

Also, for some people, the pros outweigh the cons. That hardly makes them Apple Apologists.

But this is d�j� vu all over again.

*shrug*

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: gorgonzola ]

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>
Well, I must be then, mustn't I?
Actually, re. the multitasking, you must give credit to the creator of Peek-A-Boo. As for the stability, anybody who knows what the hell they're doing can make OS9 as stable as OSX.</STRONG>

Riiiiiiight. Like I really believe that crap. If anyone can make OS9 as stable then I guess Apple just wasted thousands of man hours replacing OS9. Instead of being such an ass why don't you listen to what people are saying. &gt; &gt;90% of Mac users on these forums and most intelligent folks who have reviewed OSX, think OSX is more stable than OS9 and most people with G4s are content with the GUI speed. Either they're all lying or something's wrong with your setup or perceptions.

Just for laughs, put your money where your mouth is. Give us your extension set in OS9, so that we can duplicate your success with OS9. I'll get it to crash within 10 minutes.

Peek-A-Boo might make multitasking in OS9 better, but this just adds another layer of manual manipulation (like assigning memory to apps) that should be the OS responsibility, not mine. No thanks

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG> Um, okay, just booted without extensions on my 5500, and it's still faster than Aqua on my G4... your point lies where? I don't see it... wait, is that it over there? Dammit, nope, that's just a pile of sh!t. Damn dogs.</STRONG>

Running what? OS 7.5.1?

Again, something's wrong with your setup or perceptions. Booting without extensions on my Dual 500mhz G4 and 1.5gb of RAM makes the OS9 GUI plane suck. Stick with OS9 and I'll stick with OSX. That way we can both remain productive in our own environments.

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Toyin ]

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
<STRONG>Cipher, people don't keep whining about X's speed because it's so blatantly obvious that it's not fast enough and that Apple's working on it. It's not a matter of being okay with the speed, it's a matter of not turning into a broken record with an issue that everyone's already aware of.

Also, for some people, the pros outweigh the cons. That hardly makes them Apple Apologists.

But this is d�j� vu all over again.

*shrug*

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: gorgonzola ]</STRONG>

IF Apple were actually attempting to alleviate the problem would we have translucent menus and live window resizing? I think not

That'd be a start to achieving a snappier-feeling GUI.

So blatently obvious? As ridiculous as it seems, many people claim OSX feels just as fast as OS9...

Originally posted by Toyin:
<STRONG>Riiiiiiight. Like I really believe that crap. If anyone can make OS9 as stable then I guess Apple just wasted thousands of man hours replacing OS9. Instead of being such an ass why don't you listen to what people are saying. &gt; &gt;90% of Mac users on these forums and most intelligent folks who have reviewed OSX, think OSX is more stable than OS9 and most people with G4s are content with the GUI speed. Either they're all lying or something's wrong with your setup or perceptions.

Just for laughs, put your money where your mouth is. Give us your extension set in OS9, so that we can duplicate your success with OS9. I'll get it to crash within 10 minutes.

Peek-A-Boo might make multitasking in OS9 better, but this just adds another layer of manual manipulation (like assigning memory to apps) that should be the OS responsibility, not mine. No thanks</STRONG>

I'm not gonna argue with that; of course it looks like I'm wrong to anyone not using this system. But, I'm not. Quite simple really.

You want me to put my money where my mouth is? I'd be freakin' glad to. I'll make a ****ing disk image of my system folder (sans-prefs) and you can install it yourself; hows that sound? I'll warn you in advance that it's part-US, part international, and part 9.04, part 9.1 and part 9.2, and the System File itself has been customised.

Are you willing to put YOUR money where your mouth is? I sure am.

It adds another step, yes; but I prefer having control over memory allocations and whatnot. That's just how I do it.

<STRONG>Running what? OS 7.5.1?

Again, something's wrong with your setup or perceptions. Booting without extensions on my Dual 500mhz G4 and 1.5gb of RAM makes the OS9 GUI plane suck. Stick with OS9 and I'll stick with OSX. That way we can both remain productive in our own environments.</STRONG>

Perhaps my expectations are too high
I mean, why should a replacement be able to match its predecessor?

That was a 250 MHz PPC603ev running OS 9.1.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

The point I was really trying to make - and I KNOW that you disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong - is that *I* VASTLY prefer a system that may not be as snappy as David Garibaldi's drumming, but that keeps on chugging at that same level regardless of what I'm doing. (Hint: interpret the little story about OS 9 as a counterexample, to illustrate the behavior I so despise about OS 9. It will explain how OS 9 can become *totally* UN-responsive when the system is working on routine tasks.)

So, let's try this again, shall we:
It is my conviction that a system I can actually USE will always get things done faster than a system which is entirely unusable for hours on end while performing what should be routine chores.
It is my conviction that a system which doesn't force me through the process of rebooting, opening all my apps and documents, and probably having to re-do lost work is inherently faster than one that does. Even if it seems a little slower for some tasks.

It is my conviction that a slower, but stabler system with true multitasking will ALWAYS come out on top in terms of work done.

"Slow and steady wins the race."

But frankly, someone who has explained elsewhere how he spends painstaking hours honing his system(s), only updates certain extensions, using aliases to other versions, and who has Macsbug installed to save his ass when his machine crashes, has very little credibility at all in my eyes when talking about the stability of the system in general.

-chris.</STRONG>

i have to agree. i was working every day on my b&w g3 450 w/ os x, (and also my laptop) and now im at my parents house on their imac 500 mhz w/ os 9.1. the things that made os x slow make ths computer unusable. for instance, mounting my firewire hard drive takes forever on os 9, but it doesn't do this in x. doing things like switching applications, transfering files, all of it is easier in x, because I can do other stuff at the same time. also, as far as stability, i've already commented in other threads the GREAT stability im getting on my ibook - 23 days uptime this time (still running)

however, i do miss having photoshop and golive, which i did use a lot. golive is a little slow in classic. oh well.

[wadesworld]

It adds another step, yes; but I prefer having control over memory allocations and whatnot. That's just how I do it.

Now *that's* ridiculous. You're just trying to justify yourself.

I suppose there are people who prefered editing config.sys files to load their drivers in HiMem too, huh?

Wade

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by wadesworld:
<STRONG>

Now *that's* ridiculous. You're just trying to justify yourself.

I suppose there are people who prefered editing config.sys files to load their drivers in HiMem too, huh?

Wade</STRONG>

Who are you to decide that?
Why ELSE would I run Peek-A-Boo if I didn't *want* to do that?

Don't bother retorting with "well, who are YOU to decide how good OSX is?" - because my CHOICE of controlling this aspect of my system was just that. A choice. Funilly enough, Apple doens't give us the CHOICE to run OSX as we want it in all respects.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

I'm not gonna argue with that; of course it looks like I'm wrong to anyone not using this system. But, I'm not. Quite simple really.

You want me to put my money where my mouth is? I'd be freakin' glad to. I'll make a ****ing disk image of my system folder (sans-prefs) and you can install it yourself; hows that sound? I'll warn you in advance that it's part-US, part international, and part 9.04, part 9.1 and part 9.2, and the System File itself has been customised.

Are you willing to put YOUR money where your mouth is? I sure am.

</STRONG>

Post the disk image. I've got 5 partitions and I'll gladly install your version of 9 and test it. Including speed tests and live video of tasks being performed on both systems (to eliminate the CPU differences with snap proz). Upload the system folder so several people can try it.

And another issue. Translucency in menus offers minimal if no speed hit in OSX and Quartz. A translucent terminal is a different story.

[Toyin]

Oh and you mentioned earlier that any idiot could make OS9 stable. Yet your ultra-stable installation requires 3 different versions of OS9 of which some have international and US versions. That's intuitive and easy to manage I'm sure

[wadesworld]

Funilly enough, Apple doens't give us the CHOICE to run OSX as we want it in all respects.

"Funilly" enough, it was us (Mac users overall) who demanded that a more modern memory manager be adopted - one that didn't require something like setting partitions for each application.

You may have preferred setting your application's partitions, but the majority of Mac users did not.

But it isn't just setting partitions that OS X freed us from. It freed us from a brain-dead VM system in OS 9.

Wade

[real]

hey guys whats up Merry Christmas, I ve been reading al the posts and if seems as thou all of us with work to Do on the mac are kinda frustrated right now. Apple is slow close to having a killer, rock solid OS. BUt it has problems. I think Cipher has a very good point of and great OS shouldn't be slow in the GUI, As MAc users we demand the best we always have.Cipher isn't wrong OS X GUI is slow, and the rest are not wrong either the multitasking is great. Just today i was working in Photoshop in 9.2.2 and all I kept thinking about was I wish I could doing doing something else right now instaed of staring at a progress bar.I dont have a problem with 9.2.2 either it doesn't crash everyday.I dont now where you guys get that from.and even if it does so does every other machine if you push it hard. You push your machine hard it is going to crash bottom line. The only time IE crashes on me in when ihave a tone of windows open and it just can think anymore.I think Cipher is right Apple should give the user the option to turn all those effects off, even if it does only give you a a sec faster times, point is Cipher doesn't like it. We use the mac because we can make things work the way We work we dont have to work the way the machine works.So let us turn it off sounds good to me.
It sounds like we all have work to do with are mac and we all do it in differnet ways.AND THAT IS OK. SOME PEOPLE LIKE OS X SOME DONT THATS OK. LEAVE THEM ALONE they have the right not to like something. IF we didn't have people like Cipher we would be stuck with Sh!t, bullsh!t OS with nothing we like crawling along nothing working. If all of us that have a paaion for the MAC that make it better. Right now we have the makings for a great OS its getting there BUT IT ISN"T THERE YET.BUT IT ONLY GOING TO GET BETTER(I HOPE)
real


Merry Christmas hope eveyone has a good one.

[Sharky K.]

Why I think OS X rules:
because it is much more "clear" than any other OS out there, even OS 9. Little things like: apple menu = computer, application menu = application and the rest are file menus, from big to small. It is so simple.
Where is the desktop? does this file in OS 9 is on this or this hard disk??? (you know what i mean)
The column view is the only view for me , (waiting for spring loading folders and "cut" next to copy and past files).

The dock is great. You can put folders in it so you have x apple menu's (apple need to switch ctrl click and click on folders because that is used more often), when you minimize an omniweb window you will see when the webpage is loaded. You don't have to go to the application to quit it (I think apple should include hide app). The dock will show you how many mail you got and if you got a message and if you are online with adium.

I don't need an apple menu or application menu. but I also don't need a dock in os 9. each OS has it own "how to work with it".

OS 9 and older were also very stable but you had to be carefull like not installing M$ software and checking your system folder after installing software (like Netscape Navigator 4.x) everytime.

Of course Apple should take care of the quartz problem not only because it is slow also because I have running tasks that I don't want to be slowed down by some stupid minimizing window or looking at some menu's.

I hope Apple will put as fast as possible a quartz 2d card on all the computers and release an add-on PCI card for older towers. But also continues to speed up Quartz.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Toyin:
<STRONG>

Post the disk image. I've got 5 partitions and I'll gladly install your version of 9 and test it. Including speed tests and live video of tasks being performed on both systems (to eliminate the CPU differences with snap proz). Upload the system folder so several people can try it.

And another issue. Translucency in menus offers minimal if no speed hit in OSX and Quartz. A translucent terminal is a different story.</STRONG>

Okay. Contact me somehow, and you can download it sme. ICQ, AIM, whatever. I'll host it on Hotline, http or ftp. Whatever you prefer.

I don't care if it slows it down or not; it *feels* slower. Lemme turn off menu blinking at least; that DOES slow things down (the FEEL... thats what counts when we're talking the GUI).

Originally posted by Toyin:
<STRONG>Oh and you mentioned earlier that any idiot could make OS9 stable. Yet your ultra-stable installation requires 3 different versions of OS9 of which some have international and US versions. That's intuitive and easy to manage I'm sure </STRONG>

It doesn't *require* that. It just happens to have that. I have 4 different installations of OS9, each as stable as the other; 3 of which are straight from the installer CD.

Originally posted by wadesworld:
<STRONG>

"Funilly" enough, it was us (Mac users overall) who demanded that a more modern memory manager be adopted - one that didn't require something like setting partitions for each application.

You may have preferred setting your application's partitions, but the majority of Mac users did not.

But it isn't just setting partitions that OS X freed us from. It freed us from a brain-dead VM system in OS 9.

Wade</STRONG>

"We" didn't ask for anything; it was forced down our throats.

BTW... I find the VM system in 9 much better. Anything that allocates a hundred megs of RAM when you only have 256 to StuffIt Expander has serious issues

[xi_hyperon]

Cipher, you are right in one respect: OS X can be slow, but as was mentioned, this is obvious and Apple will continue to improve this. You disagreed about Apple's intention to correct this, but let it be a reminder to you that Jobs has spoken publicly about this as the number one issue. Arguing that point is, well, pointless.

Here's where your arguments become very trite and silly. Stating that the VM in OS 9 is better (ok, you didn't say "better", but that you like it more, which implies you feel it is better than OS X's). You like unprotected memory? Memory fragmentation? Furthermore, you state that no one asked for better memory management. So, where the hell have you been for the last, oh, say 8 years? Kind of hard to miss all the articles and opinions posted online about this issue. I sure as hell know I was asking for these features. Whatever.

This reminds me of a time back in April, when there was another guy in here who obviously did not understand modern memory management and multitasking, and was going on and on about how manual allocation of memory to apps and cooperative multitasking were more modern. The difference was that he finally understood at some point what people were saying.

As an added point, your argument that OS 9 runs just as fast with extensions off doesn't do much for your believability either, but I expect you'll stick by that regardless.

You certainly have a right to your opinion and that is fine, but when it comes to being an apologist, look in the mirror buddy. You are right on the front line for OS 9, defending its shortcomings and doing your best to turn them into virtues at the expense of your credibility. Again, that's your right, and your priviledge to look as silly as you desire. It's no skin of anyone's back but yours- for most people it is funny and entertaining.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Um, okay, just booted without extensions on my 5500, and it's still faster than Aqua on my G4... your point lies where? I don't see it... wait, is that it over there? Dammit, nope, that's just a pile of sh!t. Damn dogs.</STRONG>

could you get online? watch a movie? come on, give me a break. try doing 2 things at once on os 9 - cooperative multitasking is good for virtual PC and not much else. i enjoy running many programs and having the performance not destroyed by copying files over my network ( 6 computers in the house, all of them used ) while running my apache server w/ sql & php. if menu's pulled down faster, and windows moved around quicker, you would have no beef with os x. pretty simple sh!t to be complaining about.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

IF Apple were actually attempting to alleviate the problem would we have translucent menus and live window resizing? I think not

That'd be a start to achieving a snappier-feeling GUI.

So blatently obvious? As ridiculous as it seems, many people claim OSX feels just as fast as OS9...</STRONG>

Arrrgh....okay Cipher, find and download an OS X theme or program or whatever you want that removes the translucent menus and tell us if it's any faster. I'll save you the trouble though, as I have, and guess what? It's NOT FASTER. Translucency in those menus isn't making ONE FREAKING BIT OF DIFFERENCE in speed. Good grief.

You know, Cipher, you really have in the past seemed like a very intelligent person with good points and such, but whenever you start posting this inflammatory bullshit nobody's going to want to have any serious discussion with you! Hence, this raging flame-fest (and don't call me on the irony of using inflammatory wording in this e-mail, because this thread's pushed me over the edge). What makes you want to piss all over anybody who actually enjoys using OS X? Because YOU don't like it means nobody else has a right to like it, too? And don't start calling me some sort of "apologist," alright? I've got PLENTY of things I'd like to see improved, but there's a right way and a wrong way of wording things. Besides, the notion that Apple isn't trying to speed up OS X is just lunacy. 10.1 is like oiled goose crap on a teflon Slip 'n Slide drenched in KY Jelly compared to 10.0, and you STILL sit there and honestly think Apple hasn't made significant progress in the speed arena and isn't still making progress? You're so blinded by your baseless obsession with timing menu flashes and frames-per-second ratings of the Scale effect that you must have missed the SIGNIFICANT speed increases that came with 10.1.

AAAAAARRRRGHH!!! When, oh when, are you going to realize that EVERYBODY GETS THE POINT ALREADY??? The forum admins get the point, the forum mods get the point, the general forum readership gets the point, the people at Apple who read the feedback forum have surely gotten the point - YOU DON'T LIKE OS X. Great! There's no harm in it! But there's NO NEED to piss and moan all over those of us who do!!

[wadesworld]

It doesn't *require* that. It just happens to have that. I have 4 different installations of OS9, each as stable as the other; 3 of which are straight from the installer CD.

There's no question that one can make OS 9 very stable. How? You find a combination of extensions and applications which work well together, and then you don't make changes.

However, that's not how most Mac users work. Most Mac users are making constant changes. That results in occassional crashes, which on OS 9 = instability.

"We" didn't ask for anything; it was forced down our throats.

No, Mac users have long asked for a memory manager that didn't require setting application partitions. It was only "forced down the throats" of those who'd prefer to stay on OS 9.

BTW... I find the VM system in 9 much better. Anything that allocates a hundred megs of RAM when you only have 256 to StuffIt Expander has serious issues

Then you know absolutely nothing about the respective VM systems, including why allocating a hundred megs of RAM to Stuffit Deluxe doesn't matter, and why the OS 9 VM system is horrible.

Wade

[Bruce O'Neal]

i am not going to belabor the speed point, but i want to ask a question ... will apple's next release of the os x make my hardware (invested in a g4 533 tower this summer) obsolete? i cannot afford a new mac just to make the GUI seem quicker. it has to be something apple can work on to from a software standpoint.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>Cipher, you are right in one respect: OS X can be slow, but as was mentioned, this is obvious and Apple will continue to improve this. You disagreed about Apple's intention to correct this, but let it be a reminder to you that Jobs has spoken publicly about this as the number one issue. Arguing that point is, well, pointless.</STRONG>

That isn't exactly what I said; what I said (or meant, at least), is that Apple doesn't have it's priorities straight; if they did then OSX would have been fast before it was pretty. I understand why it wasn't, they needed some bait, but in the end that hurts them more than if it were the other way around.

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>Here's where your arguments become very trite and silly. Stating that the VM in OS 9 is better (ok, you didn't say "better", but that you like it more, which implies you feel it is better than OS X's). You like unprotected memory? Memory fragmentation? Furthermore, you state that no one asked for better memory management. So, where the hell have you been for the last, oh, say 8 years? Kind of hard to miss all the articles and opinions posted online about this issue. I sure as hell know I was asking for these features. Whatever. </STRONG>

The only reason I like it more is because I control it. I like that, obviously.
Re. memory fragmentation, yeah it sucks in OS9. Re. unprotected memory, yeah, another advantage of OSX. I never denied this.
All I denied was that OSX's advantages outweighed the disadvantages; these aren't big issues to me, as you should know. The big issue is speed.

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>This reminds me of a time back in April, when there was another guy in here who obviously did not understand modern memory management and multitasking, and was going on and on about how manual allocation of memory to apps and cooperative multitasking were more modern. The difference was that he finally understood at some point what people were saying.</STRONG>

I understand each, and the benefits and sacrifices thereof. I prefer manual allocation; however, with that comes OS9's fragmentation and blah blah blah. I don't have a problem with OSX's memory management... I don't really care about it.

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>As an added point, your argument that OS 9 runs just as fast with extensions off doesn't do much for your believability either, but I expect you'll stick by that regardless.</STRONG>

Uh... it does... boot with no extensions next time you're in OS9 and you'll find it faster than it is with your packed system.

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>You certainly have a right to your opinion and that is fine, but when it comes to being an apologist, look in the mirror buddy. You are right on the front line for OS 9, defending its shortcomings and doing your best to turn them into virtues at the expense of your credibility. Again, that's your right, and your priviledge to look as silly as you desire. It's no skin of anyone's back but yours- for most people it is funny and entertaining.</STRONG>

Uh, how about no?
Yeah, I do find these threads extremely entertaining... I doubt you get as much amusement from them as I do.
If I were an Apple Apologist then would I hate Apple? Steve Jobs? Would I proclaim their latest machines and operating system are rather crappy? Be definition I am anti-Apple. Heh.
So yeah. That was a dumb thing to say.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
<STRONG>

could you get online? watch a movie? come on, give me a break. try doing 2 things at once on os 9 - cooperative multitasking is good for virtual PC and not much else. i enjoy running many programs and having the performance not destroyed by copying files over my network ( 6 computers in the house, all of them used ) while running my apache server w/ sql & php. if menu's pulled down faster, and windows moved around quicker, you would have no beef with os x. pretty simple sh!t to be complaining about.</STRONG>

Exactly! EXTREMELY freakin' simple sh!t. So where the **** is it?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
<STRONG>Arrrgh....okay Cipher, find and download an OS X theme or program or whatever you want that removes the translucent menus and tell us if it's any faster. I'll save you the trouble though, as I have, and guess what? It's NOT FASTER. Translucency in those menus isn't making ONE FREAKING BIT OF DIFFERENCE in speed. Good grief.</STRONG>

Goddamn. I KNOW. The problem isn't with the freakin' theme (you could put a 2-bit System 6 theme on there and it'd be slow), but with Quartz and "Aqua" (not the theme Aqua, but the GUI itself).
THAT is what needs to be fixed. And FYI I use Iridium.

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
<STRONG>You know, Cipher, you really have in the past seemed like a very intelligent person with good points and such, but whenever you start posting this inflammatory bullshit nobody's going to want to have any serious discussion with you! Hence, this raging flame-fest (and don't call me on the irony of using inflammatory wording in this e-mail, because this thread's pushed me over the edge). What makes you want to piss all over anybody who actually enjoys using OS X? Because YOU don't like it means nobody else has a right to like it, too? And don't start calling me some sort of "apologist," alright? I've got PLENTY of things I'd like to see improved, but there's a right way and a wrong way of wording things. Besides, the notion that Apple isn't trying to speed up OS X is just lunacy. 10.1 is like oiled goose crap on a teflon Slip 'n Slide drenched in KY Jelly compared to 10.0, and you STILL sit there and honestly think Apple hasn't made significant progress in the speed arena and isn't still making progress? You're so blinded by your baseless obsession with timing menu flashes and frames-per-second ratings of the Scale effect that you must have missed the SIGNIFICANT speed increases that came with 10.1.</STRONG>

No, the fact that you DON'T complain about what isn't right is the problem. It seems that so many people sit back and take it. YOU people get shit all done. People hate to hear it but it's the damn truth; OSX is not usable as a mainstream OS for as large a portion of users as its predecessor, and THAT is the problem. And it's quite a problem, isn't it?

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
<STRONG>AAAAAARRRRGHH!!! When, oh when, are you going to realize that EVERYBODY GETS THE POINT ALREADY??? The forum admins get the point, the forum mods get the point, the general forum readership gets the point, the people at Apple who read the feedback forum have surely gotten the point - YOU DON'T LIKE OS X. Great! There's no harm in it! But there's NO NEED to piss and moan all over those of us who do!!</STRONG>

People don't get the point. Perhaps you do - good for you.
How hypocritical (not you necessarily); you people (in general) bag the hell out of OS9; and when I defend it and retort, bagging OSX, this is what happens?

Hypocrisy.

You'll get it one day.

[Toyin]

What exactly is an apologist? I can't stand when people throw out this term and don't know where another forum member my stand.

I like OSX better than OS9 period. I have a Dual G4 with 1.5gb of RAM. OSX uses both processors most of the time and OS9 almost never uses both processors. It's pretty easy to see why OSX can edge out OS9 in this situation.

Do I apologize for all the bugs and inconsistencies in OSX? Not at all, I've logged in hundreds of complaints and suggestions since OSX PB and I continue to do so. Do I think OSX should be faster? Hell yes, but in it's current form it's faster (on my setup) then OS9.

[wadesworld]

if menu's pulled down faster, and windows moved around quicker, you would have no beef with os x. pretty simple sh!t to be complaining about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly! EXTREMELY freakin' simple sh!t. So where the **** is it?

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Please, enlighten us all with your vast knowledge on writing a window server, menu manager, double-buffered display and all other aspects.

(Hint: there's nothing simple about it)

Wade

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Uh, how about no?
Yeah, I do find these threads extremely entertaining... I doubt you get as much amusement from them as I do.
If I were an Apple Apologist then would I hate Apple? Steve Jobs? Would I proclaim their latest machines and operating system are rather crappy? Be definition I am anti-Apple. Heh.
So yeah. That was a dumb thing to say.</STRONG>

I didn't say you were an Apple apologist, whether you are or not is irrelevant and inconsequential. I said you are an OS 9 apologist, and anyone reading your posts would find this rather obvious. Hypocrisy? *That * was a dumb thing to say. I believe you were the one who first said "goddamn apologists" or some such nonsense. If you can't handle a retort like a big boy, then don't dish it out.

BTW, if you hate Apple so much, why do you support it by buying its products? Wait, hold that thought, I just remembered that I don't care.

Trust me, you are very entertaining.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>Spheric:

I don't hate UNIX. Far from it. I love the Terminal; whenever in OSX, I use it as much as possible.

The GUI? I can live with it; it is themeable, I know.

The *ONLY* things stopping me from using OSX are the lack of apps (being remedied), and SPEED!

Give me some freaking speed and I'll move, without a second thought.

START by getting rid of, or making optional, those stupid effects; SECONDLY can come options nav-wise like the Dock (which is a waste of space - I want an Application menu, control strip and popup iwndoes).

But they can come later. Given speed I'll switch.

Apple is putting form over function as always, and that's whats killing it.

I'm really sick and tired of it all to be quite honest; as I'm sick and tired of all of you who don't have a problem with it. Wake up and realise that if you don't bitch about something it won't improve.

Goddamn Apple Apologists.</STRONG>

this is getting ridiculous.. people are getting way to into their operating system.. anyway, from a unix programmer's standpoint, I can say that I'm pleased with OS X. I have done a great deal of work programming with the Mac tools given to us, and I like what i'm given. HOWEVER - actually doing a compile is slow as dog sh!t. it links against all the libraries it can get its hands on. my point - there are always both pro's and cons. perhaps cipher does an EXTREME amount of work in OS 9 relient programs, ie photohop, golive, dreamweaver, or any of the other hundreds of unported applications. perhaps he is unwilling to accept classic as a substitute, and I don't blame him. frankly those reasons might not come into play, but honestly, he prefers OS 9 for a reason, I don't think posting the same reasons why we like os x over and over again are going to convince him otherwise. it is entertaining though, like a soap opera. merry christmas everyone. (and other miscellaneous wintery holidays)

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by wadesworld:
<STRONG>

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Please, enlighten us all with your vast knowledge on writing a window server, menu manager, double-buffered display and all other aspects.

(Hint: there's nothing simple about it)

Wade</STRONG>

hint: we both meant conceptually, faster windows & faster menus. not the implementation. frankly, i'd like to see it too. it's tough to understand how other things can run fast if MENU's won't pull down right away

[pelorus]

I gather that cipher doesn't like Mac OS X. Fine.

Why spend so much time here trying to convince other people???

Here's an anecdote that highlights my point of view.

I used to be an OS9 apologist. I used to come up with all sorts of defenses for OS9s shortcomings. For example: the crashing was harmless and was sometimes even good because it cleared memory. The cooperative multitasking was good because it focussed the processor on the task at hand.

When my parents got an iMac my eyes were opened. Daily phone calls about conflicts, crashes, running out of memory, Internet Explorer being an absolute dog, prefs being corrupted with the crashing. And remotely I could do nothing. It was so bad that they even questioned the wisdom of getting a Mac. Every week I'd visit and run First Aid or trim the crap from their system folder.

I installed 10.1 on their machine and deleted OS9 and since then all has been silent. The machine doesn't crash, the internet just works, the system supports my brothers amateur audio stuff (using Sound Studio) as well as his movie stuff (iMovie) and when he wants to go online and play Wolfenstein and he doesn't have to reboot with different extension sets. The family are much happier. They now complain about the PCs they have in work or when they visit family and friends and the PC there crashes.

When 10.1 was released, I deleted OS9 from my life entirely. Finally I have an operating system that waits for me rather than the other way round. With OS9 I remember the waiting. Waiting while it booted up after the daily crash, waiting while my powerbook woke from sleep, waiting while a movie rendered for 45 minutes because of the single-tasking, waiting, waiting, waiting. I would limit the number of apps I had open to about 3 because if one crashed I knew I'd lose the data in all of them.

OSX is fast enough for me, fast enough that it's always waiting for me to start a new task. Exporting a movie from MOV to DV? No problem in either OS9 or OSX. And while that's working I'll check email and run a colleague through a short iMovie tutorial - oh dear - can only do that in OSX. I only have a G3/400 Powerbook with 384 MB RAM but I do have 14 applications open and the system is waiting for my next request.

Here's to three months completely Classic and OS9 free.

M

[scarab]

Why don't we all just use whatever we are most comfortable and productive with? The person started this thread just to tell us why he thinks OS X rules, and it's becoming some battlefield. Is all this necessary?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by wadesworld:
<STRONG>

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Please, enlighten us all with your vast knowledge on writing a window server, menu manager, double-buffered display and all other aspects.

(Hint: there's nothing simple about it)

Wade</STRONG>

Well, if they're incapable of accomplishing the task, they're in the wrong business

I don't doubt it isn't simple. But it quite simply isn't my job either is it?

[edddeduck]

1. Cipher you are a uni student...... ( So yes your job is not that hard)
2. Practice what you preach - Your site has an Aqua back button one it. ( I thought Aqua sucked )
3. Web design companies should never have an under construction web page it gives out all the wrong signals you should finish it, test it finish it again then put it online. An "under construction" web page is a sin for any person for a web designer is a cardinal sin.

Point 2 UI know is a little low but hey if you feel that strongly on the GUI.... Anyway as a web designer etc you should like X I know for my course (Comp Sci) I like it.

Cheers Edd

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by pelorus:
<STRONG>With OS9 I remember the waiting. Waiting while it booted up after the daily crash, waiting while my powerbook woke from sleep, waiting while a movie rendered for 45 minutes because of the single-tasking, waiting, waiting, waiting.</STRONG>

This is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for illustrating my point.

-chris.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by edddeduck:
<STRONG>1. Cipher you are a uni student...... ( So yes your job is not that hard)
2. Practice what you preach - Your site has an Aqua back button one it. ( I thought Aqua sucked )
3. Web design companies should never have an under construction web page it gives out all the wrong signals you should finish it, test it finish it again then put it online. An "under construction" web page is a sin for any person for a web designer is a cardinal sin.

Point 2 UI know is a little low but hey if you feel that strongly on the GUI.... Anyway as a web designer etc you should like X I know for my course (Comp Sci) I like it.

Cheers Edd</STRONG>

1. No, I'm not yet a Uni student. It doesn't start until next year. I'm a system administrator of a college; and believe me, you don't know the definition of hard work until you have, by hand, relocated storerooms; try moving ATM's around without a forklift (yeah, those 500Kg armoured-steel things).
2. Meh, I didn't design it, did I? And quite honestly, I don't mind "Aqua" the theme now. It's just Aqua the GUI that sucks. If that makes sense. And at least the engine powering the graphics on the site is suits its purpose (and is quick).
3. Well I'm afraid after acquiring the domain, due to unexpected circumstances, we were unable to work on it for some time; what's better, a 404 or UC? We may have to agree to disagree there.

I don't care what the GUI looks like as long as its fast; however, when you make a theme like Aqua default, that's daring; Platinum is very sterile and neutral. People that hate it won't hate it as much as those who hate Aqua, and vice versa.

It's too "controversial".

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

This is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for illustrating my point.

-chris.</STRONG>

Well, perhaps the person who said that needs a better video app; any decently written app co-operates perfectly with anything else. Final Cut Pro being the perfect example
It will keep rendering while you work and doesn't slow down the system at all. The OS does not need to get better, apps do!

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Well, perhaps the person who said that needs a better video app; any decently written app co-operates perfectly with anything else. Final Cut Pro being the perfect example
It will keep rendering while you work and doesn't slow down the system at all. The OS does not need to get better, apps do!</STRONG>

Sorry FCP does not do this "well". It will do it...kinda. I have spent 5 hours doing some rendering with FPC in the background as I talked to you cipher. That same rendering would take 30 min if it was in the foreground. Any AIM was SLOWER then Aqua in the public beta. I watched as every letter made it's way to the screen, one at a time.

While this is a little better then not being able to even switch apps, like what nearly ALL OS 9 apps do, it still takes 10x longer to finish. And everything else is dog slow at the same time.

[Toyin]

Another example why OSX rules occurred tonight

A friend of mine came over and wanted me to burn him a CD

Not only did I burn him a CD, I was ripping a CD, playing an MP3, Downloading a song through Audiogalaxy (sputnik) and surfing the web {b]all at the same time[/b]

The surfing wasn't effected at all, and iTunes would take a little less than 1 second to respond to mouse clicks.

The thing is when he asked me to burn the CD, I said that the computer (or at least iTunes) will probably crash. It didn't. MP3s played without a stutter. CD Burned at 12x and the other CD was ripped at about 8x (normally 10-12x)

I could never do this in OS9

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Toyin:
<STRONG>Another example why OSX rules occurred tonight

A friend of mine came over and wanted me to burn him a CD

Not only did I burn him a CD, I was ripping a CD, playing an MP3, Downloading a song through Audiogalaxy (sputnik) and surfing the web {b]all at the same time[/b]

The surfing wasn't effected at all, and iTunes would take a little less than 1 second to respond to mouse clicks.

The thing is when he asked me to burn the CD, I said that the computer (or at least iTunes) will probably crash. It didn't. MP3s played without a stutter. CD Burned at 12x and the other CD was ripped at about 8x (normally 10-12x)

I could never do this in OS9</STRONG>

I always do that in OS9; rip, listen and burn simultaneously. Though I won't try browsing, cause IE is to crap. But... I wouldn't do it in OSX either.
It's my burner that discourages me from doing it rather than the OS.

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
<STRONG>

Sorry FCP does not do this "well". It will do it...kinda. I have spent 5 hours doing some rendering with FPC in the background as I talked to you cipher. That same rendering would take 30 min if it was in the foreground. Any AIM was SLOWER then Aqua in the public beta. I watched as every letter made it's way to the screen, one at a time.

While this is a little better then not being able to even switch apps, like what nearly ALL OS 9 apps do, it still takes 10x longer to finish. And everything else is dog slow at the same time.</STRONG>

Something's up then man. I even do Bryce work while FCP renders... I agree you definately notice the hit on the FCP performance, but when you're not actively doing anything else, FCP steals back the CPU time. It takes much longer yeah, but I gotta question how AIM was acting; I've never had any slow down probs.

Always amazed me that FCP could multitask so well...

[edddeduck]

Cipher normally you arguments are based in reality ie (the GUI begin slow etc) but to try and tell me that OS 9 is better than X or can even hold a candle to x with multitasking is a joke really you cannot be serious.

Try these open over 20 apps word excel etc then run a dvd in a window while rendering in Bryce mmm... good luck!!!!!

Now I would not normally have all the apps open but in X I CAN without real or noticeable slow down or if it slows down it is still responsive. During this lets say M$ Word crashes I come back to find every other app still running happily.

A number of things are not possible in 9 as stated above.
That many apps open and.....
At least two of the apps processor intensive (Bryce and DVD) and still have responsiveness
An application crash without effecting other apps. (Highly unusual in 9 to not crash the entire system when this happens and most people don't run macs bug so its not a valid excuse.

All this can be done while copying a file across a network and STILL be able to use the finder (Not possible in 9).

The OS has no MP support in 9 (SOME applications do but that's some and not all so processor load is never spread evenly.

OS 7-9 were great OS's for there time but by OS 9.2 it has become hack on top of hack on top of hack. GUI speed on my machine is great and even though it is missing a few features (Spring loaded folders I still miss) on the whole it's more stable (less than 10 crashes since I bought the OS btw crashes are hard reboot crashes ie freezes and this figure counts all crashes not different crashes all crashes). I think people esp with MP macs could get that number of crashes in OS 9 in a week. It's no surprise that the uptime records are mostly on UNIX boxes and not on NT or OS 9 boxes.

Oh and for productivity as someone else said all I remember now of OS 9 was waiting while something was unzipping or rendering etc in X at least I can do other things. If we take the GUI speed in X and compare it to lost work & time in 9 due to crashes and waiting I think X would win hands down.

Cheers Edd

[EDIT] Spelling and grammar mistakes [/EDIT]

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: edddeduck ]

[Cipher13]

I've never had a prob whlie copying files to or from a network machine with Finder slowdown... I honestly don't get this, because the systems I administer, and my own system simply do not exhibit it.

Yes, it is possible for an app to crash and not bring everything down; 95% of the time that's how it goes.

I can indeed have that many apps open; but given Bryces' full screen nature there isn't much point having the DVD player open too
That many apps will work just fine; Byrce is EXTREMELY co-operative when it comes to rendering. You can do whatever you like in the meantime.

I don't know why you have all had bad experiences in OS9. Seemingly OSX and OS9 are indeed kindred in their inconsistency; how sweet.

I will forgive OSX most of its faults; the one I will not forgive is the responsiveness of the GUI. That is paramount; I work in the GUI mostly using the keyboard (in OS9 and X) - OS9 can barely keep up with me. X doesn't stand a chance.

[edddeduck]

Before OS X I loved 9 and had a custom setup which was stable as long as I knew its limits. Stuff like DVD in 9 is better in compatibility and sometime picture quality than in X, but doing anything while watching a dvd was pointless as the DVD would stop and start esp when selecting fonts etc from menus as a open menu in 9 freezes all other threads.

But I loved 9 but with X esp on a DUAL processor it's just as fast but more reliable and overall better to use. On a 266 iMac in OS X I get your point it is a pain (even 10.1 can sometimes be a pain) but on a MP with 980 MB it comes into its own and shows up 9 for what it is, an aging system for better suited to aging machines (Notice better suited not that OS 9 is bad etc but on the newest macs X rules supreme and 9 does not get the most out of the mac, this again is esp true with MP macs).

To summarize newer machines esp MP's run so much faster in 10.1 its not even worth talking about.

Cheers Edd

[Cipher13]

I use a dual 500 Mystic with 1792 megs of RAM. OS9.1 is faster than X. At least X is usable on it though; quite a high price to pay for a machine that is considered "usable"

[edddeduck]

I think we should agree to disagree on this on I suppose it depends on what you do, how you do it and your personal setup.

I like X and use it daily but still expect improvement. (well in my course I have always been told design it, built it, optimize it. This is not 100% truth I am over simplifying but the fact is optimization takes time best to get it working first).

You don't use X as you have had bad experiences with it, miss some features, don't like the GUI speed. And you like 9 coz you know it like the back of your hand and thus can have your computer setup just as you like it.

Lets hope within the next few update we both can get on the same side. (Like X, Use X, eXpect more )

Cheers Edd

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>I've never had a prob whlie copying files to or from a network machine with Finder slowdown... I honestly don't get this, because the systems I administer, and my own system simply do not exhibit it.

Yes, it is possible for an app to crash and not bring everything down; 95% of the time that's how it goes.

I can indeed have that many apps open; but given Bryces' full screen nature there isn't much point having the DVD player open too
That many apps will work just fine; Byrce is EXTREMELY co-operative when it comes to rendering. You can do whatever you like in the meantime.

I don't know why you have all had bad experiences in OS9. Seemingly OSX and OS9 are indeed kindred in their inconsistency; how sweet.

I will forgive OSX most of its faults; the one I will not forgive is the responsiveness of the GUI. That is paramount; I work in the GUI mostly using the keyboard (in OS9 and X) - OS9 can barely keep up with me. X doesn't stand a chance.</STRONG>

Uh-huh. That's fine, you'll find others agree on this including myself, although it continues to improve. Stick with that point and drop the bullsh*t about 9's superiority in multitasking and memory management; that it's the apps which need to improve, and and and. If you like the architecture of 9, that's great, but don't confuse it for a modern operating system. It simply is not, no matter which way you slice it, like it or not.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>

Uh-huh. That's fine, you'll find others agree on this including myself, although it continues to improve. Stick with that point and drop the bullsh*t about 9's superiority in multitasking and memory management; that it's the apps which need to improve, and and and. If you like the architecture of 9, that's great, but don't confuse it for a modern operating system. It simply is not, no matter which way you slice it, like it or not.</STRONG>

I never claimed it was superior; I claimed I preferred it. That says NOTHING about superiority at all. Assumptions, assumptions...
If I used the word superior anywhere, I apologise.

The reason I like it is because I can control it; there's no doubt in my mind that OSX is superior technically; but I'm afraid that means nothing in the real world.

I'm sorry, but OS9 is indeed a modern operating system. Who defined the term "modern" as meaning "has protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, and SMP". Got a name? I'd like to see it.

If you were to say that OS9 is ancient; well the fact that in many ways it is superior to its "modern" brethren is quite an insult to OSX indeed.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>I'm sorry, but OS9 is indeed a modern operating system. </STRONG>

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>Who defined the term "modern" as meaning "has protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, and SMP". Got a name? I'd like to see it.</STRONG>

Umm... most people do, so pick a name.

[Hobbes]

Cipher, remember one simple issue... OS X'S NOT DONE YET!!! Even Apple readily admits this. If it were complete, it would be the default OS on all new systems. As it stands however, 9 is still the default system, even if new computers come installed with both.

Why is it not considered done enough to be the default? Because Apple realizes that there is still a lot of work to be done to X to make it an adequate replacement for 9 for all Mac users. This has never been an issues that Apple has been unclear on. They've always said that it wouldn't be until sometime next year that X could be considered complete. In the meantime, there will be some individuals who will find that X fits there needs, and others who still need to stay in 9 for the time being.

But the important thing is this... Apple is attempting to do what various companies have been trying to do for over 2 decades... namely to make a Unix (and later a Linux) distribution easy enough for the masses. Considering that Apple is attempting to do in a couple of years what no other company has managed to do in a couple of DECADES, I for one am willing to cut them a little slack considering that amazing progress they've made so far.

Does OS X have its problems? Without a doubt. Does it still need work? Only an idiot would say no. Are there some things 9 still does better? Of course! But Apple already knows that! They've publicly admitted that. They're working on it! So why beat a dead horse?

If X works for you (as it does for me) than use it. If it still doesn't have the features you need, rather than say it sucks as an OS, recognize its strong points, and simply use 9 until X does offer what you need.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Hobbes:
<STRONG>Cipher, remember one simple issue... OS X'S NOT DONE YET!!! Even Apple readily admits this. If it were complete, it would be the default OS on all new systems. As it stands however, 9 is still the default system, even if new computers come installed with both.

Why is it not considered done enough to be the default? Because Apple realizes that there is still a lot of work to be done to X to make it an adequate replacement for 9 for all Mac users. This has never been an issues that Apple has been unclear on. They've always said that it wouldn't be until sometime next year that X could be considered complete. In the meantime, there will be some individuals who will find that X fits there needs, and others who still need to stay in 9 for the time being.</STRONG>

If it isn't done, they shoudln't be SELLING it for the price of a full OS
It cannot compete in its current form.

I just recieved 27 new iBooks; they all booted by default into OSX. Default. Strange huh?

[pelorus]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

If it isn't done, they shoudln't be SELLING it for the price of a full OS It cannot compete in its current form.

I just recieved 27 new iBooks; they all booted by default into OSX. Default. Strange huh?</STRONG>

No. Progress. I notice the only rebuttal you have of my post was (regarding waiting for rendering to complete in iMovie):

"Well get a better app then".

The point being that it's not an issue of a "better app". Some actions in Os9 are unnecessarily modal and exporting Quicktime and doing anything regarding external volumes are perfect examples. While these are happening OS9...just makes you wait.

Another anecdote:
I have a CD that was damaged (long story) and under OS9 it just freezes the OS and well....I can Force Quit the Finder and Eject the damn thing but no other solution. Under OSX it doesn't stop me from working. The OS just keeps on working. Sure - the Finder is probably chugging just like the OS9 Finder but it doesn't mean that any other applications are affected.

Next you'll tell me that if I juggled extensions a bit more the problem would go away...

See, you have too much of an emotional investment in OS9 and earlier. You may be an acknowledged master of extension alchemy but your knowledge of OSX is just scratching the surface. This is what your objections are really about - nothing to do with Aqua or responsiveness or extensions or whatever - it's just your unwillingness to be back at the starting point and learn new things.

Take a break. If the 27 new iBooks did boot into OSX then maybe that should tell you something. Swallow your pride and join us in the 21st century. To be honest forget about the pre-emptive multitasking and really cool OSX sysadmin tools. Life is too short to be depending on an OS without protected memory.

[Norm1985]

You go boy!

But seriously Cipher, you have been the ONLY one here fighting for OS 9, while everyone else is fighting for OS X. Oh yeah, Sek929 made ONE comment. But you've been fighting like there's no tommarow. He's right, you do have an emotional attachment to OS 9. Face it, many, including myself feel OS X is superior. I have not crashed AT ALL in 10.1, and crashed once since March 24th in 10.0. It's fast in regards I can do many things at once without the entire system being boggled down. And I AM more productive in X than 9. Please, give it up.