Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

driven · May 25, 2002, 03:25 PM

Question:

Are there any of you left out there that run OS 9 in spite of the fact that you have hardware that CAN run OS X?

If so ... why do you run 9?
(Just curious)

AppleScript · May 25, 2002, 11:23 PM

1. Yes.
2. Several reasons. One is that OS X 10.14 doesn't seem like it's quite finished. Some of the advanced Energy Saver options are inaccessible, for instance.

(157)

ARENA · May 26, 2002, 12:01 AM

Well, it's seems there's not many of them.
No wonder

X RULES!

Woehrle46 · May 26, 2002, 12:30 AM

I have a Pismo 400 and i still use it just because im too lazy to upgrade and what i have works just fine right now.

seanyepez · May 26, 2002, 04:25 AM

I find OS 9 much nicer than OS X on my 500-megahertz PowerBook G3. The G3 does not perform very well in X, but it's pretty decent under 9. I have 512 megabytes of RAM, too. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

MacMonster · May 26, 2002, 06:21 AM

Yesterday, I bought a Beige G3 to replace my PM4400. The performance in OS 9 is extremely fast when compare it to my 4400. But running OS X is quite slow since I only have 96MB RAM in my machine. Also, I feel OS 9 is more easy to use.

IUJHJSDHE · May 26, 2002, 07:45 AM

I used to by a strong 9 only user but I must say with UNIX and the other features and look of Mac OS X and it's stablity.

I really like X more now, I had it up for 2 weeks just now, I could not keep 9 on 2 days <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Cipher13 · May 26, 2002, 08:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ARENA:
Well, it's seems there's not many of them.
No wonder

X RULES!<hr /></blockquote>No, we just find little point answering these questions over and over again, when it's quite clear what our motivations are.

tooki · May 26, 2002, 06:31 PM

I use OS 9 primarily on both of my OS X capable machines for many reasons, but the main one is that 10.1.x just isn't finished, as AppleScript said... too many missing features (or underpowered replacements), applications that are inferior to their OS 9 counterparts, and it's a heck of a lot slower (448MB should be enough, I think). For me, the advantages that OS X brings do not outweigh the loss of features and speed.

Additionally, 99% of my business clients have no plans to switch to OS X until Quark is native, so it's not like if 9 is dead quite yet.

I do, however, have 10.1.4 installed on both machines, as well as my workstation at work, since I do need to be very familiar with it for the future.

tooki

tooki · May 26, 2002, 06:31 PM

I'm also still waiting for any scanner software for OS X that supports UMAX FireWire and USB scanners...

tooki

[ 05-26-2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: tooki ]

cameca · May 27, 2002, 02:37 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Question:

Are there any of you left out there that run OS 9 in spite of the fact that you have hardware that CAN run OS X?

If so ... why do you run 9?
(Just curious)<hr /></blockquote>OS X is PC software ported to a Mac. OS X is a slug!!!

aloner · May 27, 2002, 07:02 AM

I still use OS 9.2 as main OS. I use Office 2001 and have no intention to waste $400 to update to Office X.
The same happens to most of the software I use. I spent $2000 on a Ti667 a month ago and don�t want to spend another $1000 upgrading my software to OSX and find out two months from now, that I need to upgrade again to use Jaguar.

In addition, OSX still has an "unfinished" touch. OS9 is much more mature, allows more personalization and makes me more productive.

driven · May 27, 2002, 11:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ARENA:
Well, it's seems there's not many of them.
No wonder

X RULES!<hr /></blockquote>No, we just find little point answering these questions over and over again, when it's quite clear what our motivations are.<hr /></blockquote>Do tell .....

I have missed your reasons and for that I apologize.

driven · May 27, 2002, 11:43 AM

Good responses folks. Thanks. I appreciate it.

CheesePuff · May 27, 2002, 02:05 PM

I was waiting for Apple to tell us developers that Mac OS 9 is dead. Now that he did, Mac OS 9 is not on any of my Mac's. OS X only!

hidozage · May 27, 2002, 04:47 PM

I'm running Yellow Dog Linux on my old iMac rev. B. I use MOL (Mac on Linux) to access specific Mac OS 9 Application. I love this setup than running Mac OS X. Not until I replace my old iMac with a new PowerMac that I'll be running Mac OS X.

hyperizer · May 27, 2002, 06:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
I was waiting for Apple to tell us developers that Mac OS 9 is dead. Now that he did, Mac OS 9 is not on any of my Mac's. OS X only!

<hr /></blockquote>So you switched because an exec told you to? That's weird.

I find that running OS 9 with minimal 3rd-party extensions, it's just as stable as X, and it certainly feels faster.

That being said, I recently made the switch to X so I could run some Unix Web servers for development, and it cost me quite a bit of money. I had to buy a new printer since my perfectly good Epson Stylus 800 Color doesn't have OS X drivers. I had to update Word and Photoshop. And FileBuddy and StuffIt Deluxe. So it is a big investment, and I'm sure people will continue using 9 for years to come. (Heck, I know people who are getting things done in OS 8. If you've got an efficient work environment, <a href="http://www.streettech.com/archives_Special/neoLudditeSpecial.html" target="_blank">why switch</a>?

Cipher13 · May 27, 2002, 06:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
I was waiting for Apple to tell us developers that Mac OS 9 is dead. Now that he did, Mac OS 9 is not on any of my Mac's. OS X only!

<hr /></blockquote>If Apple told you to stick your finger in an electrical socket....?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
No, we just find little point answering these questions over and over again, when it's quite clear what our motivations are.<hr /></blockquote>Do tell .....

I have missed your reasons and for that I apologize.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Really? I've posted it that many times, I didn't think that was actually possible... though I suppose it was a while ago.

Anyway... it's just too slow, for one thing. A lot of what I do requires lots of Finder navigation - and OSX simply doesn't allow me to do that very fast. OS9 does.

Applications - sure, lots of big name apps are now available for OSX, but what about the older sharewarish titles which I find invaluable?

The apps are horrible... they're crappy ports. Slow, unstable, inconsistent... the OS may be rock solid, but the apps crash all the time. The OS9 versions are far superior. Photoshop in OSX is incredibly slow.

The little things - like the fact that it can take MINUTES for the System Preferences or Terminal to load; or up to TEN minutes to log out. It really is not finished yet, seriously...

There are so many other reasons, but OSX, to me, cannot touch OS9.

eep! · May 27, 2002, 07:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cameca:
OS X is PC software ported to a Mac. OS X is a slug!!!<hr /></blockquote>actually it's NeXT Software ported to the mac (although that was also ported to x86) and it runs nice and smooth on my 933 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

driven · May 28, 2002, 01:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
I was waiting for Apple to tell us developers that Mac OS 9 is dead. Now that he did, Mac OS 9 is not on any of my Mac's. OS X only!

<hr /></blockquote>If Apple told you to stick your finger in an electrical socket....?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
No, we just find little point answering these questions over and over again, when it's quite clear what our motivations are.<hr /></blockquote>Do tell .....

I have missed your reasons and for that I apologize.<hr /></blockquote>Really? I've posted it that many times, I didn't think that was actually possible... though I suppose it was a while ago.

Anyway... it's just too slow, for one thing. A lot of what I do requires lots of Finder navigation - and OSX simply doesn't allow me to do that very fast. OS9 does.

Applications - sure, lots of big name apps are now available for OSX, but what about the older sharewarish titles which I find invaluable?

The apps are horrible... they're crappy ports. Slow, unstable, inconsistent... the OS may be rock solid, but the apps crash all the time. The OS9 versions are far superior. Photoshop in OSX is incredibly slow.

The little things - like the fact that it can take MINUTES for the System Preferences or Terminal to load; or up to TEN minutes to log out. It really is not finished yet, seriously...

There are so many other reasons, but OSX, to me, cannot touch OS9.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Ah ... I understand. Thanks for taking the time to post it again.

(I don't have nearly the speed issues that you are having .. if I did I wouldn't run it either ... what's your hardware if you don't mind me asking?)

Cipher13 · May 28, 2002, 05:12 AM

G4/400 with 704 megs of RAM...
iMac 600 with 256.
iBook 600 with 384 (not mine, technically, but eh).

I had a dual gig G4 here for a week or so, and it was... well, acceptable.

I think my speed standards are just different to yours, then... I'm quite an impatient persons when it comes to non-sentient objects... well, even sentient ones...

Mac Guru · May 28, 2002, 08:20 AM

I find OS X is all up to the user. Like Cypher said, he's impatient when it comes to the OS speed. Me, well I use OS X 100% of the time on my iBook 500 and have zero complaints. I run photoshop, illustrator, indesign and many other apps with 384MB of RAM. It seems to be perfectly fine to me. It's just the perception of the user.

It's like Windows, people use it and people find it gets what they need to get done, so they don't bother using anything else. There's nothing WRONG with them, they just enjoy a different flavor. Much like the OS 9 fans.

Mac Guru

May 28, 2002, 03:37 PM

Wow! Mark this day down on the calendar. I actually agree with Cipher on something. OS X sux...

Long live Mac OS 9 - whatever version you run ;-)

driven · May 29, 2002, 05:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
G4/400 with 704 megs of RAM...
iMac 600 with 256.
iBook 600 with 384 (not mine, technically, but eh).

I had a dual gig G4 here for a week or so, and it was... well, acceptable.

I think my speed standards are just different to yours, then... I'm quite an impatient persons when it comes to non-sentient objects... well, even sentient ones...

<hr /></blockquote>Patience is a virtue.

My computer spends more time waiting for me than I do for it.

CheesePuff · May 29, 2002, 08:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CheesePuff:
[qb]I was waiting for Apple to tell us developers that Mac OS 9 is dead. Now that he did, Mac OS 9 is not on any of my Mac's. OS X only!

<hr /></blockquote>If Apple told you to stick your finger in an electrical socket....?

Yes, I would. Apple told developers to stop developing for OS X.

Mac Guru · May 29, 2002, 11:57 PM

Ummmm I think it was stop developing for OS 9

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Mac Guru

Cipher13 · May 30, 2002, 04:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
Yes, I would. Apple told developers to stop developing for OS X.<hr /></blockquote>Figures.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by <Fatal Claws>:
Long live Mac OS 9 - whatever version you run ;-)<hr /></blockquote>Haha, here's to that

Targon · May 30, 2002, 08:15 AM

Running OS 9 on my main machine Dual 500 G4. I have installed OS X on the machine for testing but removed it.

Reasons:
1)Much slower than Mac OS 9x overall, this includes boot times, app launch times, processing of video times and general UI slowness. It's pretty sad to see a 1-2 second delay when resizing a window on this hardware. Cocoa app's are a particularly slower overall.
2) General feel of the OS is not what i like. In fact, this OS is much like Windows XP regarding stupid little traits, ie not remembering view settings, new folders getting created to the right of the screen as opposed to being created where the mouse was clicked on the desktop (OS 9) to access the context menu, excessively large sized windows opening up when the folder contains 2 icons etc. I get the impression that this OS is a hacked up hybrid of the new an the worst of the Mac OS 9x. eg Carbon apps work just like Mac OS 9x apps, they grind to a halt when a menu selected, open/save dialogs are no better...eg get QT Pro an export a file and hit options and settings, u cant move the dialog box's, u can't resize them. Terrible terrible stuff here. The sooner Apple can dump Carbon and Classic the better. Blame dev's or blame Apple if u will, i just care to have it all fixed up.
3)I HATE .....yes HATE Quartz text anti-aliasing, its blurry, its grey not black its hard to read its too large and for the most part not razor sharp like text in 9x.
4) Installer doesn't let you install specific components, ie if im setting up a machine for digital video why should networking, internet, java an all the other junk be a required install.
5) The Finder is bar none the WORST thing i have ever used, PERIOD. I expected much much more, this thing is shameful

m saddened to have to think about it....truly......i am. The Jaguar Finder will probably still be a pathetic joke, tho an improvement over the current Finder.

I would have been far happier to have had a new Mac OS 5 years ago just like 9x but never froze or crashed and had multi channel audio and a better midi system than the current 9x. Having to wait so long for OS X with high hopes and expectations has been very disheartening. Adding insult to injury when realizing i have a new OS thats no better than Winhoez XP (my Opinion) that runs on a hardware platform thats very expensive and slow and developing at a snails pace in such secrecy (fact) is forcing me to consider other options. The severely constrained hardware options are yet another damning factor for me.

In closing, 9x is still here. Since development of 9x has been terminated an OS X doesn't shape up rapidly (also other factors relating to 3rd party software) it may be an XP/AMD workstation that i migrate to.

clebin · May 30, 2002, 09:07 AM

After a while I think you just become accustomed to the speed, so I only notice how quick OS 9 is, not how slow OS X is.

In the end, I think OS X was designed for better hardware than Apple currently has available. Motorola have screwed up the Mac with the pathetic G4 and its 500mhz roof. We had such high hopes for that chip, and expected it to have faster clock-speeds than the Pentium.

I HATE Motorola. I hate their mobile phones, I hate the way they basically killed Psion (a true great in computing history), I hate the way they discontinued the 680x0. I just hate the bastards.

If things went according to plan, we'd be in the 2ghz territory now alongside the Pentium, and I'm sure OS X would run pretty damn well.

Anyway, it seems that using GPU to draw Quartz hasn't speeded up window-resizing etc significantly, but I think it makes the OS credible for the server market speed-wise.

Whatever the underlying efficiency, I don't think reckmount-types are generally particularly happy to have the CPU spending time away from Apache to draw drop-shadows and genies when they're trying to adminster it. If the graphics card is doing it, that's fine.

I installed OS X 10.1 on my Beige G3, which I gave to my parents. That was a mistake - I'm going back to OS 9 with that machine whenever I get a chance.

In terms of the featureset, there's so much to like in OS X. It is NOT XP. XP is full of pop-ups, marketing tie-ins, useless features and Wizards. When Apple designed the original Mac they got rid of the Filer, which basically was a wizard-driven interface, only for Microsoft to resurrect it.

Chris

zilmer · May 30, 2002, 09:55 AM

We (advertising agency) have office full of PowerMacs and not a single one of them runs on X yet. OS9 has been stable and all the work has been done with it this far and therefore people really tend to think that it is still wise to wait until shifting to X. I bet it will happen somewhere during early 2003.

I have tried X on my G4/466 home computer and went back to 9 for now. I really really don't like the anti-aliased text on small sizes and I probably wont shift before there will be an option available to modify the X settings more than right now is possible.

I believe many web-designers are not very keen shifting to X as well yet, since if you look at what has been happening during last years - the rise of pixelated fonts and small crisp and clearley readable text and graphics - they won't be really interested in UI X offers. At first sight... X seems damn clumsy when we talk about interface. And I totally agree with Targon - the grey text IS hard to read. Plus - the overall light and bright interface is much more difficult to catch with an eye than the crisp and clean OS 9.

Other than this - I believe the stability in X is superb. Also the speed seems to be quite OK in 10.1.4. I hope 10.2 will be even better, but more than the speed, I miss the option "to make the picture crisp" ifyouknowwhaddaimean!

[ 05-30-2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: zilmer ]

fisherKing · May 30, 2002, 04:07 PM

i'm really happy with 9.2.2 on my pismo (G3/400 powerbook); everything works beautifully, relatively stable.

am waiting for all my apps to move to X (& with reason2.0, they'll all be there).

that, and a G4 iBook. (before end of the year, fingers crossed)

Mac Guru · May 30, 2002, 05:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I believe many web-designers are not very keen shifting to X as well yet, since if you look at what has been happening during last years - the rise of pixelated fonts and small crisp and clearley readable text and graphics - they won't be really interested in UI X offers. <hr /></blockquote>I know 30 Web-Designers and we're all 100% OS X. IE for OS X does not "blur" website text. It appears JUST like the text in OS 9. I know because I have the same page open on my iBook 500 (OS X) and my G4 733 (OS 9) and the text is THE SAME. I've never been happier. I personally don't care what system I'm in, I use both at work and am pretty much equally productive in both. They both have pro's and con's.I used OS 9 on the iBook until the other day, now that I have DreamweaverMX, there's no need to use it anymore. I'm happy with OS X and it's glitches... it's only getting better from here.

jaske · May 30, 2002, 09:46 PM

I'm using 9 as well. Now, I would love to use X, but all X broswers are simply unbearable on a 56k connection.

Most importantly, I need to use MS office to edit very long law review articles, and Office X is not up to 50 pages and 400 footnotes (and please do not mention Apple Works).

Well, small fonts are rotten in X as well...along with other problems...

That being said, I love X...seriously. It is so damned close to working...and here's hoping Jagwire will be the last step.

pete.z · May 31, 2002, 01:10 PM

I'm still using 9.2.2 on my Imac 400dv,mainly because it runs pretty smooth on it.
I tweaked to the point it never crashes,and does anything I want flawless.

I don't see why I should go to something else when this OS still provides me with everything I need.

Maybe when I buy a new Mac,but till then,9 is my OS.

mitchell_pgh · May 31, 2002, 02:04 PM

I think there are more die hard people then we think, they just don't hang out in the lounge all day posting. I am 100% OS X, but my work computer will be 9 for a long time... Quark, is a big one, and there are also about ten 9 only apps that I just can't live without.

cenutrio · May 31, 2002, 03:27 PM

I run OS 9 in my bondi iMac/256 Mb and OS X in my PBti 400 mhz/384 Mb. The overall feeling is that both machines are equally fast, although they are 3 years appart and the Ti doubled my iMac price. No wonder, I did not recommend to upgrade our lab computers to OS X since performance is slower, they are quite stable in OS 9, and not much DNA related software is available yet.
May be we�ll move next year, but OS X needs to be fully optimized first.

ophion · Jun 3, 2002, 03:05 PM

Add another OS 9 user to the tally. I tried using X for several days on my new iBook 700. It *still* is far from ready. After experiencing lost preference settings over and over and rainbow-cursor blocking of the Finder and Dock, which were nearly as bad as a full system crash, I began leaning toward going 9-only for another year or so. The final blow that pushed me over the edge came during a simple move operation in the OS X Finder--an error message popped up after the move; I checked the files; all were in their new location; all were missing their resource forks.

ae77 · Jun 5, 2002, 02:54 PM

i'm still using OS9 (9.1) on my bondi iMac (w/ 466mhz cpu upgrade)

X is too slow. 9 is much snappier.

And I know how to troubleshoot 9, just take a peek into System Folder. If something went wrong with X, I don't know what to do with their gazillion files and directories...

drfrank · Jun 5, 2002, 03:40 PM

Yes, MacOS 9.2.2 is productive and stable. Most of my work is prepress, photography, and graphics. Currently I have no desire to move to X (or spend additional $$$ for native software) when everything runs fine under 9.2.2 on a G4/500. When I run into a problem, I can troubleshoot and fix it. My work environment is stable, efficient and productive. There is no reason to change it.

Sap · Jun 5, 2002, 08:18 PM

Simple.

1) OS X is dog slow. Try resizing a window. Try opening say an application. Try Quake 3. Now try all those in OS 9. In case you don't want to do the experiment, let me tell you the results: They're all way faster in classic. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

2) Software support. I simply can't live without AIMM, Wapp Pro, Shadow IRC, and some other obscure third party software. Also, I'd rather stick with speedy versions of Photoshop, GoLive, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc. Everything that I've tried in OS X is slower.

3) I'd like to use a system that doesn't use half my processor for the UI, thanks. My OS 9 system is tweaked down to about 50 megs of RAM, sans VM. How much does OS X use, again? My system folder is slimmed down to 200 megs. OS X... Ouch.

4) The dock ****es me off. Rather than shaving off the bottom of my monitor... How about giving me a 16x16 pixel process menu like in OS 9?

5) I don't want a multiuser OS. I hate having to login whenever I want to do anything. I hate having no control over the hierarchy of my HD.

6) I hate things unexpectedly quitting. My OS 9 system is rock solid. In OS X, I can barely squeeze out a game of low FPS, slow, carbon Quake 3 without X crashing.

Ugh, and don't even ask me about Aqua.

You're asking us why we haven't "upgraded" to OS X? Why don't you explain why you downgraded from OS 9?

Sap · Jun 5, 2002, 08:24 PM

Oh yeah, the main reason why I'm so mad with OS X... it somehow messed up my HD.

Just a friendly tip: do not try installing OS X alongside OS 9, you might lose a lot of work.

DNA man · Jun 6, 2002, 12:30 PM

I still use OS9.2 on my 500Mhz Pismo 95% of the time switching to OSX just to play with it. Why you ask, well...

1st reason is that OS9 has hardly ever crashed with me. Once in the past six months and that was my fault as I pulled out the M$ mouse by mistake.

2nd reason is that OSX (most upto date) is much slower on my Pismo with 384Mb of RAM. OS9 is postively a blur in comparison.

3rd reason is that all of my programs are for OS9 and it would be expensive to upgrade. I still need to be convinced.

4th reason is that I don't feel OSX is as user friendly as OS9 and lacks some qualities that OS9 has. OSX just feels like a rough cut somehow.

My 5th and final reason is that I'm hoping that Jaguar will be MUCH better. Even when I play with OSX on a dual 1Ghz (1Gb RAM), it still feels very slow on hardware that costs �3000 plus.

Anyway, just my views on things.

I nearly forgot. OSX is pants when it comes to battery life for my Pismo. I can get an extra hour of life with OS9!!!

clebin · Jun 7, 2002, 10:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sap:
Simple.

1) OS X is dog slow. Try resizing a window. Try opening say an application. Try Quake 3. Now try all those in OS 9. In case you don't want to do the experiment, let me tell you the results: They're all way faster in classic. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

2) Software support. I simply can't live without AIMM, Wapp Pro, Shadow IRC, and some other obscure third party software. Also, I'd rather stick with speedy versions of Photoshop, GoLive, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc. Everything that I've tried in OS X is slower.

3) I'd like to use a system that doesn't use half my processor for the UI, thanks. My OS 9 system is tweaked down to about 50 megs of RAM, sans VM. How much does OS X use, again? My system folder is slimmed down to 200 megs. OS X... Ouch.

4) The dock ****es me off. Rather than shaving off the bottom of my monitor... How about giving me a 16x16 pixel process menu like in OS 9?

5) I don't want a multiuser OS. I hate having to login whenever I want to do anything. I hate having no control over the hierarchy of my HD.

6) I hate things unexpectedly quitting. My OS 9 system is rock solid. In OS X, I can barely squeeze out a game of low FPS, slow, carbon Quake 3 without X crashing.

Ugh, and don't even ask me about Aqua.

You're asking us why we haven't "upgraded" to OS X? Why don't you explain why you downgraded from OS 9?<hr /></blockquote>I don't think you mentioned the speed in points 4 and 5. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Most of this is nonsense

There's one valid reason in all of that:

1) I don't have a G5 with a beefy 3D card. Yet.

Chris

Sap · Jun 8, 2002, 04:19 PM

Not to mention the stability issues, software problems, and my plain disgust for the interface.

Regarding Aqua... I am generally very open minded about interfaces, and trust me, I don't dislike it because I'm "afraid of change" or that I'm just so used to OS 9. I use Windows XP/98, Gnome, KDE, etc. all the time and I'm essentially a 'power user' in every environment I use, meaning that I know all the shortcuts, tricks, etc. I have no problem with all the environments I listed (although none can touch OS 9's consistency, general polish, and plain excellence). But, there's just something about Aqua that rubs me the wrong way. It's just forced down your throat... can't customize anything. For a lot of people this is ok, I guess, because they have no problem with it... But all the jumbo sized icons, fatty dock, and just the general feel of Job's saying "supersize it" doesn't work with me. I simply don't like all the transparency, user elements flying at me from all sorts of directions, buttons glowing different colors, drop shadows on everything, etc. "Just because I can." I just can't stand the idea of my GUI wasting my entire processor doing all this crap that I don't want it to do in the first place!! I can live with some casual features like opaque window dragging, but when Apple starts to do stuff like force you to use opaque window resizing, making it actually take like 20 seconds to resize an internet explorer window... That's unacceptable.

Not to mention all the standard "interface mistakes" that Tog or whoever pointed out. OS 9 is truly the work of years and years of research adding up to millions of dollars of R&D just to discover the absolute optimal interface. Heavily used items in the corners, icons that stay were you put them, etc. etc. It's just so perfect! In fact, the OS is really the only reason I use my Mac. A few years ago, Apple was designing an OS based on clear logical thought, backed with absurd amounts of R&D and quality assurance. Now Apple is coming out with stuff like the infamous QuickTime value control. Blatant bad design, but at least it looks cool. :/

Now that Apple seems to be concerned with shipping stuff based on how cool it looks rather than its actual functionality, I'm afraid my Mac days are over

. As I said before, the only reason I use my Mac rather than a PC is because of the excellent UI. Since Apple's next generation OS is trash, IMHO, and because OS 9 is now dead, I'm afraid it's Linux and Windows for me.

[ 06-08-2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Sap ]

Superchicken · Jun 8, 2002, 09:06 PM

I was soooooo afraid Fireworks MX wouldn't come out for OS 9!
I was freaking out!
I was like NOOOOOOOOOO! I won't be able to try the trial! I'm planning on upgradeing to a 500Mhz card for my iMac but even then that still won't let me run OS X extreamly well. I think is soooo stupid! I think OS X was developped and thought up when Apple was still thinking they'd be as fast or faster than PC makers.

OK now if NeXT was ported from the PC 86x or whatever couldn't they port it back? And start sticking AMDs in our machines?
Like I'm sorry to sound like a PPC hater... but I am! I don't care if Mhz to Mhz the G4 is better than a P4. THe fact is that it's not Mhz to Mhz, it's not even Mhz to 2x the Mhz it's Mhz to 2.2 the Mhz!
It's BUNK!
BUNK I SAY!

I use OS X because of iPhoto. I like the program... i hate the way it sets everything up! But I like the program. That's the bst way for me to use a digital cammera. Unfortunately I don't consider that really worth the money I've paid for OS X, sure it's fun, but I mean my AIM stopped working propperly, and even upgrading new versions has not helped. I think it's kinda bogus when in OS 9 I should have been able to delet the preffernces and delet the program and then while it mighta been an effort to fix everything, at least it owuld work!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I like the way OS X runs in the one window interface, I find I miss that in OS 9, but I hate the way that OS X doesn't let you set up your windows the way you want to!

OSX Abuser · Jun 9, 2002, 12:16 PM

The only reason I boot into System9 is so I can
play Unreal Tournament.
Yes I do have the OSX version and I do play it also.
Once they can get all 4 buttons on my trackball working.
System 9 is GONE

Mac Guru · Jun 12, 2002, 10:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It's just forced down your throat... can't customize anything.<hr /></blockquote>Hmmmmm I hate it when I can't customise anything...

<img src="http://www.jamesmeister.com/postimg/custom1.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://www.jamesmeister.com/postimg/custom2.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://www.jamesmeister.com/postimg/custom3.jpg" alt=" - " />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm afraid my Mac days are over . As I said before, the only reason I use my Mac rather than a PC is because of the excellent UI. Since Apple's next generation OS is trash, IMHO, and because OS 9 is now dead, I'm afraid it's Linux and Windows for me.<hr /></blockquote>See you around. It was nice having you here while it lasted, Have fun in Windows and Linux. TTYL

Mac Guru

Cipher13 · Jun 12, 2002, 05:30 PM

Mac Guru, all you did was change the colour of your windows... that's hardly customisation to any decent extent...

Sap · Jun 12, 2002, 08:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
Mac Guru, all you did was change the colour of your windows... that's hardly customisation to any decent extent...<hr /></blockquote>Exactly. Mac Guru, not that those aren't legitimate examples of slightly altering OS X's appearance, but frankly, that is really the limit of OS X's customizability.

The reason why Cipher and I aren't really impressed with your screenshots can best be explained by some screenshots of my own.

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160122_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160122_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160133_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160133_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160343_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160343_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160352_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160352_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160402_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160402_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160406_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160406_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160412_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160412_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160425_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160425_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160430_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160430_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160435_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160435_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160446_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160446_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160515_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160515_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160521_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160521_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160533_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160533_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160538_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160538_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160704_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160704_shot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160110_shot.jpg" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/sap2/linux/2002_06_12_160110_shot.jpg</a>

Please note that this is by no means the limit of Linux's cutomizability. What I demonstrated was the options present in the Sawfish window manager and an old version of the Gnome desktop environment. Check out <a href="http://www.mosfet.org/liquid.html" target="_blank">liquid</a>, for example.

Oh yeah, and check out <a href="http://themes.freshmeat.net/." target="_blank">http://themes.freshmeat.net/.</a>

Mac Guru · Jun 12, 2002, 09:30 PM

<img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" /> You're an idiot.

I was discussing the customizability of OS X vs. Dead 9. Not Linux.

Linux is way more customizable than X and that's with a BIG DUH on the end. If OS X had a windowmanager like a real Unix all sorts of cool ****e would be happening. Not to mention the redraw would be a little faster.

BTW, MacOS X Theme's are HARDLY just hue changes. There is a lot of things that can be done that I didn't screen grab. OS X's theme ability is FAR greater than OS 9's simply because theming it doesn't sacrifice stability for pretty windows like K-Scope did. Open almost ANY app's package contents in OS X and you can customize the CRAP out of that app. There was only so much one could do in ResEdit.

So PLEASE spare me the OS X vs. Linux comparisons in a "Die Hard OS 9" discussion.

Mac Guru