[proceedNeXT]

Just a little question...

What makes MacOS X the "most advanced operating system of the world"?
Do you think it's

>the graphic system Quarts, which is so advanced that it cannot take advantage of today's GPUs, making it slooow?

>the ultra responsive Finder, which whom you can't do anything while it connects to the iDisk or other servers?

>the cool new structure of the filesystem, where you can't really move something beside the files in your home folder?

>the loss of special icons for the system folder?

>the way the association between files and applications is handled, so that half of the programms don't understand type and creator codes and the other half doesn't understand file extensions?

>strong unix underpinning, which regularly cause a kernelpanic?

>the new IOkit, which relies on C++, not ObjC, making it so easy to programm for?

>the new BSD networking, which can't connect to windows networks at all, and is slooow on even Appletalk?

>the wonderful HFS+ file system, which is so extraordanary fast, and crash proof, and full supported by all non-gui apps, and secure?

>the crash proof Trublu environment, that allows to use classic applications side by side with new ones?

>the new Carbon API, which allows classic programms to run on MacOS X and MacOS 9 (after a little rewrite of 30% of the source code)?

>the speed of Carbon?

>the speed of Cocoa?

>the battletested Cocoa API, that is sooo modern, and has templates for all last-century controls, but not for assistents, real inspectors, real toolbars, starting points, calendar controlls, htmlviews, preference windows, new preference-modules, side bars, status bars, "view-switcher" or even fileviews?

>the advanced objectoriented language Obj-C, that is so ultra-fast, type safe, easy to use, fast to programm with, widly accepted, well documented, used in the whole system- like IOkit, elegant, and crossplatform?

>the loss of stupid and useless interface features, like the real AppleMenu, ProgrammSwitcher, Platinuum Sounds, window shading, springloaded folders, control strip, window boarders, instant file system, labels, and icon-indicating?

>the new dock, which takes less CPU, but brings us useful docklets, quick-opening folder menus, easy-access to folders, files, and internet sites (we don't have to know the name of them, since every file has a diffrent icon, especially folders), holds easily-to-distinguish-between windows and "?"'s, and does not hide windows behind it ?

>the way the dock moves around, when the mouse moves over it, or a file get's added?

>the real Desktop, that finally holds the network neigbourhood, too?

>the finder "toolbar", which has been stolen from MS, is so easy to use, holds file proxies for moving, is nice for new users (cause they learn very quickly the diffrence between a toolbar item and a file, they look so diffrent, don't they?), can hold masses of items since it is multi-row, and can be used for every other app, too?

>the strong and fast Java2 implimentation?

>the system-wide speech recognition and speech control?

>the fact, that it needs only over two minutes to start on most systems?

>the multiprocessor support?

>the modern screen savers?

>the modern desktop backgrounds?

>the system-wide anti-alias of >10pt fonts?

>the fast appliction starting?

>the controls that look like water drops?

>the window resizing, that's even faster than windows 95's?

>the column, list and file view, that are superior to windows' explorer views?

>the sheets that take forever to slide down, and are as efficient as Windows 98 zooming menus?

No, nothing of that makes MacOS X the most advanced operation system of the world. Because it simply isn't. It is the fusion of the weak, but sometimes simple, Macintosh technologie and the once industry strengh enterprise operating system NEXTSTEP. Both failed. and so will MacOS X. It has no target user base: Interface to cheap for professional users, to complex for novice users, it has no good programming environment (Project Builder and Interface Builder suck! It's 2001 not 1990!), no real standard programming language and no realy useable APIs.
So what can I do? Linux sucks even more, Be is dead, and there's beside Windows no alternative. I don't know. Probably stick with it, till Apple gets rid of Steve Jobs, puts the HI-Team back to their position, and implement a new system.

I am curious. Do you think, MacOS X is the most advanced operating system? And if so, why?

[TNproud2b]

wow

*jaw hits the floor*


it's almost as if you don't like OS X

or something.

[fhoubi]

Right said...

Funny although, the German OS-X box reads:

"Das fortschrittlichste Apple Betriebssystem."

In my opinion, even that is not true...

[Ron Goodman]

ProceedNeXT, I think you'll probably be happier staying with OS 9.

[proceedNeXT]

When Steve showed Aqua the first time, I loved it. Then I used DP4 and I loved it even more. Some time after that, I pluged my old NeXT box together, and during using NEXTSTEP again, I slowly started to hate OS X. I missed the PB, but I bought the final version, and I loved it (again). And then I used Windows 98 the whole last week, while creating a magazin with InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop. While I hate almost everything about windows, I realized, that MacOS (X and 9) isn't that brilliant either. It is even more worse. If I were a women, I would start crying.

[Zadian]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
While I hate almost everything about windows, I realized, that MacOS (X and 9) isn't that brilliant either. It is even more worse. If I were a women, I would start crying.

Oh, finally i see the truth. Thanks, proceedNeXT you saved my soul. I was such an ignorant fool. Now i know, Windows is good an Mac OS is bad. Thank you!
Finally out of that reality distortion field!

[proceedNeXT]

Entweder ist mein Englisch noch schlechter, als ich dachte, oder Du hast mich mi�verstanden, Zadian. Was ich sagen wollte war, da� ich zwar das Meiste an Windows hasse (Whistler ist ja wohl das letzte), aber MacOS (9, aber erst recht X) die Perfektion 'auch nicht gerade mit L�ffeln gefressen' hat. Und ja, so wie es aussieht, ist das Interface vom Windows Explorer eleganter und einfacher zu benutzen, als der Finder von MacOS X.
I'm from Germany, too :-)

[itomato]

It's only the most advanced OS in the World in that it's a decent UNIX with a mostly usable desktop environment. However, Apple will have some competetion when Solaris 9 is released with GNOME/Nautilus. You must not have used too many other environments to think that Apple ripped the taskbar off Microsoft.. Take a look at CDE. The Dock resembles that far, far more than the Microsoft taskbar. I do wish they had left the interface all around more like NEXTSTEP, or at least allowed an option to use it. The Workspace Manager *works* the Finder is soooo broken it's not funny. The dock in NEXTSTEP is more functional than the dock in X. The floating app menus are a much better solution than the static bar at the top of the screen. Of course, this is all my opinion. I'll let any OS X user who lives in my area come over and play with my NeXT box, or NEXTSTEP or OPENSTEP on Intel, if they find it hard to believe.


So, in short, no OS X is not the most advanced OS in the world. It would have been if they had used some of the NEXTSTEP interface advancements. They have taken two steps back, AFAIC..




------------------

[Oneota]

I'm from Germany, too...

Yeah, well some of us aren't. What the heck did you just say?

------------------
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"

[This message has been edited by Oneota (edited 05-12-2001).]

[proceedNeXT]

Apple didn't ripp the taskbar from MS, they rip their finder toolbar from it (InternetExplorer 5). You can read more about it for example at ars technica ( http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q1/...sf/mwsf-3.html ).
The dock is a combination of the classic NEXTSTEP dock and the minimized NEXTSTEP windows.

EDIT:

I said to him, that though I dislike windows, MacOS isn't that great, too. I said, that it looks like the Explorer in Windows is more elegant to use than the finder in OS X.

[This message has been edited by proceedNeXT (edited 05-12-2001).]

[proceedNeXT]

dbl post


[This message has been edited by proceedNeXT (edited 05-12-2001).]

[itomato]

Oh, I see, I misunderstood. I wouldn't touch Internet Explorer on the Mac with a 10' pole. It's got some features that best the Windows version, but then again, the Windows version _is_ Windows..

I only hope that 10.1 is more like an 11.0 release.. There is so much that needs to be fixed. No option to view images as thumbnails in the Finder?! What is that about?! How advanced is that?!

------------------

[typoon]

What made you not like OS X all of a sudden after you said you "When Steve showed Aqua the first time, I loved it. Then I used DP4 and I loved it even more...I missed the PB, but I bought the final version, and I loved it (again)."

The first time Jobs Showed it off I loved it too. I love OS X even more now.
I don't think it is difficult for "new" or novice users to use. I have one at home. My brother. He has found it very easy to use. I hear stories quite a bit about bout new users and power users who love OS X.

"So what can I do? Linux sucks even more, Be is dead, and there's beside Windows no alternative."

Well you can always go back to Pen and Paper. Or create your own OS. Two alternatives for ya.

Have you forgotten that it's only about 3 months old and is still not feature complete yet? For some people, it will never be. They can add every feature that everyone wants but someone will find something they didn't add and complain about that.

[proceedNeXT]

At first this thing is over four years old. Then, it is nothing more than a better Linux, with support of major software firms, build of pieces that just don't fit together. Or let's say, that have not fully 'merged' yet. While I agree, that there might be features added, I don't believe in a whole shift of Apple, providing something that is at least as consistent as Windows 2000 is (or as functional).
Let's face it: The GUI of MacOS X is neither easy to use, nor powerfull. It just does not provide features of a modern OS. The success stories are -mostly- from unix guys or Mac fanatics.

[proceedNeXT]

Or the reality distortion field is up and running. ;-)

[proceedNeXT]

stupid double post!

[This message has been edited by proceedNeXT (edited 05-12-2001).]

[Skywalkers new Hand]

You are 100% right. The only advantage I have using OSX is that it looks nice and I crash less. That is not worth it to me as it is so slow and unresponsive on a G4 with 448 megs of RAM that crashing once a day in OS9 is still faster and more efficient then using X.

I am a web designer and MOST Mac users are graphical oriented somehow. So far none of us can use this OS to get any work done.

OSX is slower then OS9 in almost everything, from burning CD�s, ripping MP3�s, rendering movies, launching apps everything...and bugs bugs bugs. File management is hell with this terrible Finder. Things are slow to select, the folders jump around and don�t update the contents for ages sometimes.

Why are all these OS updates not touching the most buggy app of all, the Finder? I can kernel panic the thing easy. Not to mention that in 5 minutes of using it you can easily find 10 annoying bugs that you have to dance around to get things done.

I have a feeling that everyone who loves OSX are just surfing the web with it and showing off to their friends. I also bet that your terminal looks like with Matrix with a black background and green text.

Sure some people that use OSX for serving are probably having a ball with it. Is this really the market Apple should be making happy? What is there share in the server Market? .01%? What is it for graphic designers, 80%?

Apple's user base of Graphic desigers are the ones that have keep the company alive for the past 20 years. So far OSX is much much less efficiant, slow and buggy compaired to even Windows. I have the hell out of anything Windows, but I will design on a NT box before OSX.

I do think this will change in about a year and OSX will be much better. Right now though people seem to be defending it because of its buzzwords and they conviently seem to forget that it is buggy and slow as hell. If this was Windows we would have a field day!

OSX is NOT faster, better or more efficient for WORK!
Playing is 10x more fun though.

Disagree all you want, it won't make the OS any faster or bug free.

------------------

[Millennium]

You know, it's interesting. I can't call you a whiner, because you've managed to back up most of your points (you did fail to offer a reasonable proposal for a solution -or, indeed, any proposal at all- but I can't count that against you either). And yet I'm in such utter disagreement that I'm having trouble figuring out what to say. But I'll try.

the graphic system Quarts, which is so advanced that it cannot take advantage of today's GPUs, making it slooow?

Irrelevant. Yes, it's slow. It's also advanced beyone anything we've seen since Display PostScript (which was even slower, and more of an all-around resource hog).

the ultra responsive Finder, which whom you can't do anything while it connects to the iDisk or other servers?

No one here ever claimed the Finder didn't need anything short of a complete overhaul. If Apple was trying to show how viable Carbon was for writing apps, their success is arguable.

the cool new structure of the filesystem, where you can't really move something beside the files in your home folder?

Versus the filesystem that couldn't support more than one user, and even that in a very unstable, insecure manner? Sorry; going from single-user to multiuser is a big advancement. You're overreacting.

the loss of special icons for the system folder?

Um, I don't know what you're talking about; it's got a special icon on my system, and no, I didn't do anything to get it there. If you're talking about inside the system folder, that's irrelevant.

the way the association between files and applications is handled, so that half of the programms don't understand type and creator codes and the other half doesn't understand file extensions?

I've also stated that this is a problem (though there is no "half that doesn't understand file extensions"). This should be remedied by Cocoa's imminent support for LaunchServices.

strong unix underpinning, which regularly cause a kernelpanic?

Untrue. I've been using OSX since DP4, and have never had a KP. If something is causing it in other users, it's not the software. Besides, Unix in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean kernel panics (which, incidentally, are basically system bombs in OS9, which had them far more frequently than even the most unfortunate OSX user can claim).

the new IOkit, which relies on C++, not ObjC, making it so easy to programm for?

And how would Obj-C make it any easier? While I find it odd that Apple wouldn't go for language consistency, I can't find any fault in doing so. (even though I despise C++ myself).

the wonderful HFS+ file system, which is so extraordanary fast, and crash proof, and full supported by all non-gui apps, and secure?

I've already spoken on this one. Yes, HFS+ sucks in many cases. But what would you have done; go UFS-only and sacrifice all backward-compatibility?

the crash proof Trublu environment, that allows to use classic applications side by side with new ones?

Not perfect, I'll admit, but an extremely impressive technological feat. What would you have preferred?

the new Carbon API, which allows classic programms to run on MacOS X and MacOS 9 (after a little rewrite of 30% of the source code)?

30%? Who told you that? If you're moving completely to OSX-based technologies (particularly Carbon Events), then maybe 15%. If you haven't been keeping up with technologies as they come out (for example, Navigation Services), then maybe as high as the 30% you claim. Otherwise, it's extremely small. And another impressive feat, I might add.

the speed of Carbon?
the speed of Cocoa?

More like the speed of the task switcher. I'm fully aware that OSX is slow, but don't place the blame where it doesn't belong.

the battletested Cocoa API, that is sooo modern, and has templates for all last-century controls, but not for assistents, real inspectors, real toolbars, starting points, calendar controlls, htmlviews, preference windows, new preference-modules, side bars, status bars, "view-switcher" or even fileviews?

Sounds to me like you want Windows. By the way, what are "real" inspectors and toolbars, and how do they differ from Cocoa's stuff? For that matter, why the necessity for such highly-specialized and seldom-useful controls as calendars and fileviews, which are only needed by certain very specialized programs that are likely to have very different needs from any kind of non-custom control? Also, please note that HTMLViews, sidebars, statusbars, view-switchers, and toolbars are all supported in Cocoa, contrary to your claims. Finally: what the heck is a "starting point"?

the advanced objectoriented language Obj-C, that is so ultra-fast, type safe, easy to use, fast to programm with, widly accepted, well documented, used in the whole system- like IOkit, elegant, and crossplatform?

How is acceptance of a programming language relevant at all? Not to mention that I have yet to see any evidence that it's not fast, typesafe, easy to use, fast to program with, elegant, and well-documented. And I've used the stuff, so I know what I'm talking about. Whether or not it's used in the whole system is utterly irrelevant. I should also point out that Objective-C is crossplatform; I can find compilers for it on just about any platform.

the loss of stupid and useless interface features, like the real AppleMenu, ProgrammSwitcher, Platinuum Sounds, window shading, springloaded folders, control strip, window boarders, instant file system, labels, and icon-indicating?

I'm not sure what you mean by "instant filesystem" and "icon-indicating." Soundsets are slated to appear again later, as are labels, but neither is useful enough that Apple should put them at the top of their priority list when there are things like speed, stability, and hardware support to be dealt with. Spring-loaded folders... well, they're supposedly up in the air at the moment. As for everything else you mentioned (except window borders, which are useless), they've all been replaced, and surpassed, by other things. As you well know, I take it. Zealots often say that critics are afraid of change; while I don't agree with them for the most part, it's posts like this that make me see where they could get that idea.

the new dock, which takes less CPU, but brings us useful docklets, quick-opening folder menus, easy-access to folders, files, and internet sites (we don't have to know the name of them, since every file has a diffrent icon, especially folders), holds easily-to-distinguish-between windows and "?"'s, and does not hide windows behind it ?

It's the best that could be done, given the circumstances. It does take less CPU time (particularly if you turn off fluff like magnification), and it does, as you say, bring useful docklets, folder menus, easy access to files, folders, and Internet sites. The icon thing is an issue, but it can't be helped, as with labels (there is NO good place to put the labels, except via the solution Apple implemented). The window-hiding thing is an obvious bug, as we've already seen steps toward fixing it.

the way the dock moves around, when the mouse moves over it, or a file get's added?

Makes good feedback for when the Dock's state changes. What would you propose instead?

the real Desktop, that finally holds the network neigbourhood, too?

Ah, another Windows bit. Why should the Desktop hold the network? It's meant for stuff on your machine, and the network is decidedly not on your machine.

the finder "toolbar", which has been stolen from MS, is so easy to use, holds file proxies for moving, is nice for new users (cause they learn very quickly the diffrence between a toolbar item and a file, they look so diffrent, don't they?), can hold masses of items since it is multi-row, and can be used for every other app, too?

The toolbar, for one, isn't stolen from MS. And even if it is, it's a good idea.

It shouldn't hold file proxies; that's counterintuitive. The Shelf in NeXTStep is the same way. You want something like it? It's there. It's called the Desktop. Use it like you would the Shelf.
A multi-row toolbar is a waste of screen real-estate, and the sign of someone who really overloads theirs.
And -oh, yes- the toolbar can be used in other apps, though I fail to see why they didn't stick templates for it in InterfaceBuilder. But it's right in both Cocoa and Carbon, as the "NSToolbar" class.

the strong and fast Java2 implimentation?
the system-wide speech recognition and speech control?

Check, and check. Oh, wait; on the speech-recognition bit, are you saying that you want it to be forced on developers for apps where it's not necessary or even desirable? No thanks; I'd prefer adding a couple lines of code when I want it. And it really is no more than a few lines, more if you want to really specialize things. Or are you going to lay down the unreasonable demand that Apple insert speech control into every single app that has ever been made and ever will be made, including the ones they didn't write and have no control over?

the fact, that it needs only over two minutes to start on most systems?

When you never need to reboot, is this really relevant? Nope. And by the way, what system are you using that takes so much time to reboot?

the multiprocessor support?

Never used it (don't have a multiprocessor Mac), but it's an advancement, and a welcome one for those who have such machines.

the modern screen savers?
the modern desktop backgrounds?

I fail to see how either of these is even close to relevant. Of course, I also fail to see why the screensavers aren't "modern" either. Would you kindly enlighten us?

the system-wide anti-alias of >10pt fonts?

Yep. Good-quality, fast antialiasing that makes the text more readable and just plain more aesthetically pleasing. Though I will admit I could do without the drop-shadowed test in menus and titlebars.

the fast appliction starting?

How often have we discussed this? Is there really a need to bring it up again?

the window resizing, that's even faster than windows 95's?

Already discussed. Next?

the column, list and file view, that are superior to windows' explorer views?

Yep.

the sheets that take forever to slide down, and are as efficient as Windows 98 zooming menus?

Um... what the heck are you talking about? In the half-second that takes the sheets to slide down, they provide the user with important feedback on what application and document the sheet is relevant to. This is an important GUI innovation (well, technically it was in the Lisa too, but they haven't been seen since). I won't comment on efficiency, because I don't know what you're talking about.

It is the fusion of the weak, but sometimes simple, Macintosh technologie and the once industry strengh enterprise operating system NEXTSTEP.

And it took the best of both worlds. So?

Both failed. and so will MacOS X.

Back that up. Or are you presenting your opinions as facts? Careful; you've been doing so well at not being a whiner all through your post that I'd hate to see you slip at this point.

It has no target user base: Interface to cheap for professional users, to complex for novice users, it has no good programming environment (Project Builder and Interface Builder suck! It's 2001 not 1990!), no real standard programming language and no realy useable APIs.

Let's see:

• Interface too cheap for professionals: INCORRECT. At least, according to the vast majority of professionals to whom I've spoken.
• Too complex for novices: INCORRECT. At least, not according to every single person I've taught to use OSX.
• ProjectBuilder/InterfaceBuilder too complex: UNCLEAR, due to lack of any sort of backing for the poster's assertion. Enlighten us as to who PB/IB are so bad, since you're the only person I've ever seen who's ever had anything bad to say about them.
• No real standard programming language: INCORRECT. Evidence: Obj-C, C++, C, and Java, all of which can be used to program to standard OSX API's.
• No really usable API's: INCORRECT. Evidence: Cocoa, Carbon, POSIX. All three have been proven over time to be very usable. Again, absolutely no backing up of claims.

Well, I'm afraid after that little tirade, you slipped. Sorry to say, your post became a whine. A pity, too; that list of arguments at the beginning was actually for the most part quite good.

I am curious. Do you think, MacOS X is the most advanced operating system? And if so, why?

Do I think it's the most advanced: not yet.
Do I think it has the potential to be: Enthusiastically, yes. But there's still work to be done before it reaches that point. Why? Let's see:

The most advanced 2D graphics architecture currently in common use, namely Quartz (I don't count DPS since even Adobe has discontinued support for it). Not to mention QuickTime and OpenGL, again the most advanced graphics layers in their respective areas.

The solid Mach core, which adds great stability and security to the system. Yes, there are currently bugs, some of them very serious (the task scheduler, with its ignorance of priorities, is about on par with Win95's, and will continue to be until this issue is fixed).

The BSD compatibility layer, which in addition to providing a solid alternate interface for true geeks, also gives us access to the best network applications out there, like Apache.

The Aqua GUI, which combines form with function in ways never before even dreamed of.

The multiuser capability, which lends security and flexibility to the system, which still allowing each user his or her own personal space over which they have no less control than they did in OS9.

The object-oriented Cocoa API, the true potential of which has yet to be tapped. This provides unprecendented possibilities for app integration and interoperability.

The Carbon API, which allows most OS9 apps to run on OSX with a few code tweaks. This makes an excellent stopping-point on the road to a Cocoa rewrite, as it allows a company to get something out there while they continue on the hard work of a true rewrite.

Classic, which allows OS9 apps to be run side-by-side with OSX.

What do I think if holding OSX back? I'll go through those too:

First and foremost, the Darwin task scheduler. I've already talked about that one.

Next, lack of hardware support. Common devices still aren't supported, and they need to be.

Third, the current requirements of Quartz. It's impressive as it is, but it needs still more optimization.

Fourth, the Finder. It's quite poorly written, and may not be fixable short of a full rewrite.

And finally, whiners who, rather than promote discussion on the problems with OSX and how best to fix them, merely gripe about the same issues we've all already heard before for hours on end without once contributing to any ideas of why the issues exist, and how to address them.

Are you satisfied?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
You are 100% right. The only advantage I have using OSX is that it looks nice and I crash less. That is not worth it to me as it is so slow and unresponsive on a G4 with 448 megs of RAM that crashing once a day in OS9 is still faster and more efficient then using X.

I am a web designer and MOST Mac users are graphical oriented somehow. So far none of us can use this OS to get any work done.

OSX is slower then OS9 in almost everything, from burning CD�s, ripping MP3�s, rendering movies, launching apps everything...and bugs bugs bugs. File management is hell with this terrible Finder. Things are slow to select, the folders jump around and don�t update the contents for ages sometimes.

Why are all these OS updates not touching the most buggy app of all, the Finder? I can kernel panic the thing easy. Not to mention that in 5 minutes of using it you can easily find 10 annoying bugs that you have to dance around to get things done.

I have a feeling that everyone who loves OSX are just surfing the web with it and showing off to their friends. I also bet that your terminal looks like with Matrix with a black background and green text.

Sure some people that use OSX for serving are probably having a ball with it. Is this really the market Apple should be making happy? What is there share in the server Market? .01%? What is it for graphic designers, 80%?

Apple's user base of Graphic desigers are the ones that have keep the company alive for the past 20 years. So far OSX is much much less efficiant, slow and buggy compaired to even Windows. I have the hell out of anything Windows, but I will design on a NT box before OSX.

I do think this will change in about a year and OSX will be much better. Right now though people seem to be defending it because of its buzzwords and they conviently seem to forget that it is buggy and slow as hell. If this was Windows we would have a field day!

OSX is NOT faster, better or more efficient for WORK!
Playing is 10x more fun though.

Disagree all you want, it won't make the OS any faster or bug free.

OS X doesn't seem to unresponsive on my G4 450 with 640 Megs of RAM.

"I am a web designer and MOST Mac users are graphical oriented somehow. So far none of us can use this OS to get any work done."

Well I do some Web design and some graphic stuff and I also do quite a bit on the internet. I use OS X fulltime so You are incorrect by saying none of us can get work done.

"So far OSX is much much less efficiant, slow and buggy compaired to even Windows. I have the hell out of anything Windows, but I will design on a NT box before OSX."

I don't think OS X is much less efficient. I am browsing the net while rendering an iMovie and listening to iTunes. Slow maybe a bit but I have not found it unusably slow, buggy, I'll give ya that but I have not encountered too many of them. All I have to say is enjoy designing on NT.

"I do think this will change in about a year and OSX will be much better. Right now though people seem to be defending it because of its buzzwords and they conviently seem to forget that it is buggy and slow as hell. If this was Windows we would have a field day!"

Yes I do agree that things will change in a year maybe even by July. but I am not defending OS X because of some Buzz words. I could careless about the buzz words. I think it is a little bit slow but not bad. Window resizing has gotten a little better since I installed 10.0.3. I'm not noticing many of the bugs people are having. I do have a couple but nothing serious.

"OSX is NOT faster, better or more efficient for WORK!"

Well if I can render a movie, browse the net and use iTunes, and have Photoshop open like i do now then I would say it is much more efficient for work. try doing all that at once in 9.1 Not Happening.

[Hash]

ProceedNext is right. Absolutely. These are small things, but devil is in details..Summed they make huge difference. I agree absolutely

[dogzilla]

Why are we having this discussion again? Wouldn't it be quicker to just copy and paste one of the many previous threads on this same topic?

[Brad Nelson]

<<What makes MacOS X the "most advanced operating system of the world"?>>

Nothing. If it were we'd be falling all over each with our praise. However, it may be the "most expensive ego-gratification endeavor since Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose". OS X is part brilliance and part stupidity. Since most of us admit the need for a major overhaul of the Mac OS, we'll probably stick around and see if the "stupid" parts are excised. I'm not holding my breath.

[AirSluf]

It's the weekend, I got too many projects due and then I have to read this. At least it's a really good reason to procrastinate!

>the graphic system Quarts, which is so advanced that it cannot take advantage of today's GPUs, making it slooow?

yes it�s a little too advanced for the machines of two years ago, but not on today�s midrange machines or tomorrows boxes. Supported hardware doesn�t mean it will run as fast as you want it to. I still rum 8.6 on my Wallstreet because 9 is too slow and buggy. This is the nature of computers and software. Try running Win2K on a 1999 Dell laptop. The whole office laughed so hard they had to capitulate and reload 98 on all of them.

>the ultra responsive Finder, which whom you can't do anything while it connects to the iDisk or other servers?

It takes my finder about 10 seconds, of which I am usually in another app getting work done. That�s the point of multitasking. You can do other stuff while something else is done.

>the cool new structure of the filesystem, where you can't really move something beside the files in your home folder?

>the loss of special icons for the system folder?

Trust me, you don�t want to muck around with how the file system is set up. If you can�t muck about, why make pretty icons to entice folks to do what they can�t do anyway. Hide it, make the box magical again. The restrictions are actually a good thing making it much less likely your three year old can trash the HD or the Cro-Magnon co-worker assumes you want the newest shareware thing and proceeds to shred your setup. Do you have how many hours of work this will save, even if you are religious about backing up! If you knew what you are doing, you wouldn�t have mentioned this (Apple is protecting you from yourself here).

>the way the association between files and applications is handled, so that half of the programs don't understand type and creator codes and the other half doesn't understand file extensions?

You mean you haven�t spent the time configuring your files to know which app to use? There are third party tools to help do this. When you loaded X you got new apps, the old documents couldn�t possibly have known how you personally wanted them to link to the new app or stay with the old ones unless they were designed by Yuri Geller. Take some personal responsibility here.

>strong unix underpinning, which regularly cause a kernelpanic?

Unix doesn�t cause kernel panics. Bad applications or drivers can. If you haven�t figured out what caused yours you need to hire a consultant to coddle you. After I pulled an offending USB card reader from the bus I haven�t had any type of crash in X for almost 2 months. I figured that out in about 30 min with a search on panics on these boards. The DP PPP stuff NEEDS to be fixed though, luckily I have DSL.

>the new IOkit, which relies on C++, not ObjC, making it so easy to programm for?

You obviously don�t have a clue about what you are saying, if it�s for Carbon it can�t use Obj-C, Duh!.

>the new BSD networking, which can't connect to windows networks at all, and is slooow on even Appletalk?

Have you tried any of the third party apps (every flavor of Unix needs these). I guess not, so much for can�t connect. My network is quite fast, learn how to make yours fast too, read something.

>the wonderful HFS+ file system, which is so extraordanary fast, and crash proof, and full supported by all non-gui apps, and secure?

You can use UFS if you want, but I wouldn�t count on a whole lot of support for awhile. The entire Mac industry is familiar with HFS/+. And why are you ranting about wanting to change stuff around (see above) if you actually want less ability to do so for the average user in exchange for security?

>the crash proof Trublu environment, that allows to use classic applications side by side with new ones?

Nobody said protected memory would be implemented inside Classic as well. It was an issue for so long and such a hard problem we needed a whole new architecture to get it. A Classic app won�t crash an X app either.

>the new Carbon API, which allows classic programms to run on MacOS X and MacOS 9 (after a little rewrite of 30% of the source code)?

This is a GREAT thing. Without it X would have ended up stillborn. Very few devs would have spent resources on both X and 9, with Carbon, Apple appealed to their bottom line and got them to work on both simultaneously.

>the speed of Carbon?

>the speed of Cocoa?

Both are fast, Cocoa is faster because it is more mature.

>the battletested Cocoa API, that is sooo modern, and has templates for all last-century controls, but not for assistents, real inspectors, real toolbars, starting points, calendar controlls, htmlviews, preference windows, new preference-modules, side bars, status bars, "view-switcher" or even fileviews?

I see you like a nice puree for your development environment (my nine month old really likes purees too, especially peaches.) If it doesn�t already exist, make one to fit your needs, or work with Apple to flesh out these things. Most haven�t even been necessary in the unix world until X came out. I see a profit opportunity where you a reason to be whiny and lazy.

>the advanced objectoriented language Obj-C, that is so ultra-fast, type safe, easy to use, fast to programm with, widly accepted, well documented, used in the whole system- like IOkit, elegant, and crossplatform?

C++ with MFC isn�t very cross platform either. Obj-C is new to the dev environment but brings very enticing benefits if you learn it. I also see another profit opportunity in providing a compiler extension for C++ to be able to call the Cocoa libraries. Alas, my contract precludes this type of outside work.

>the loss of stupid and useless interface features, like the real AppleMenu, ProgrammSwitcher, Platinuum Sounds, window shading, springloaded folders, control strip, window boarders, instant file system, labels, and icon-indicating?

A well configure Dock provides most of your features. Mine does. Spring loaded folders do need importing into the column view though and I really miss my Star Trek sound set, but it doesn�t stop me from getting anything done.

>the new dock, which takes less CPU, but brings us useful docklets, quick-opening folder menus, easy-access to folders, files, and internet sites (we don't have to know the name of them, since every file has a diffrent icon, especially folders), holds easily-to-distinguish-between windows and "?"'s, and does not hide windows behind it ?

The Dock only conflicts with Classic windows, never a native window, and try custom folder icons, they really help (yes you can use them, I do.)

>the way the dock moves around, when the mouse moves over it, or a file get's added?

Put it on the right pin it to the bottom and scale the icons so it always goes from top to bottom. Then turn off disk icons on the desktop and put their custom icon aliases in the dock, you will only need to fix those if you restart the dock. You obviously haven�t experimented or tried to solve you problem.

>the real Desktop, that finally holds the network neigbourhood, too?

Umm, isn�t that Windows? You�re loosing me here, and the rest is just schizophrenic compared to the top half?

Now go learn to use a spell checker and finish school. Your assault on written English is so bad and inconsistent I haven�t been able to convince myself that another language is your primary one, I think you just didn�t pay enough attention in class. Your poorly chosen and unsupported arguments crumbled under the weight of their own pixels (and they don�t weigh much).

[GnOm]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
I am curious. Do you think, MacOS X is the most advanced operating system? And if so, why?

actually yes, because:
(remember I�m just talking for myself)

a.) it doesn�t crash
b.) it does it�s job and it does it good
c.) it�s beautiful
d.) it�s (almost) fast enough
e.) I can use my "old" Apps too
f.) there are a lot of new Apps coming to the Mac (e.g. Maya!)
g.) it�s Multiuser (no one at work can now see my Pam Anderson Pics i dl from the net )

cu

[Lord Kronos]

It's the most advanced operating system in the world because it features the most advanced technologies in the world. Even if it's slow on old hardware, it remains the most advanced operating system in the world.

Mac OS X = TMAOSITW.

------------------
"Resistance is futile"

[proceedNeXT]

*Sigh*
I wanted to make you think. Seems like I have failed.
This thread went to a direction, I didn't want it to go. What I posted are just observations I made, because I was disappointed about OS X after having worked with Windows 98 and Windows 2000 Sever the last week. I have writen a long comment on Milleniums post, but after this other long post from AirSlurf, I give up.

I just want to make the following statements:
I have used NEXTSTEP and MacOS since they were out.
I have used Linux, BSD, Solaris, Be (and Windows 95 for a short period of time).
I work on interface design.
IOkit is not Carbon, and has never been.
Obj-C function calls take 1,5-2 times of C functions.
Obj-C is not crossplatform, because it is nothing without frameworks.
I dislike to talk/write english, because it's a boring language. I am sorry, if it was hard to read for you.

Sit down and watch some Genies going ;-) I'll boot into OS X to check my e-mail, since Outlook dies, every time I try it.

[GnOm]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:

I wanted to make you think.

I dont need anyone to make me think, I�m old enough to do it on my own.

cu

[proceedNeXT]

Ok, let me correct myself. I want to make you think about OS X in a greater context than the 'MacWorld'.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

"a.) it doesn�t crash "
It Kernel Panics.

b.) it does it�s job and it does it good
If you do nothing but surf the web.

c.) it�s beautiful
Yup, very true.

d.) it�s (almost) fast enough
For what? Surfing the web? It is twice as slow at everything else.

e.) I can use my "old" Apps too
Yes, slower and more buggy. You can use your old apps in OS9 just fine.

f.) there are a lot of new Apps coming to the Mac (e.g. Maya!)
When? Were? How much to upgrade?

g.) it�s Multiuser (no one at work can now see my Pam Anderson Pics i dl from the net )
So is OS9. And you bad boy!

Sorry, not sold.



------------------

[MacGorilla]

The only thing about Mac OS X that really gets me is the fact the Finder isn't multithreaded; just try opening an iDisk, transfering files between directories and downloading a file and you'll see what I mean. But I can deal with it (for now).

I personally would never use Windows, never, never. I'd Use Linux, BeOS and OS/2 (in that order) first.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:

"a.) it doesn�t crash "
It Kernel Panics.

b.) it does it�s job and it does it good
If you do nothing but surf the web.

c.) it�s beautiful
Yup, very true.

d.) it�s (almost) fast enough
For what? Surfing the web? It is twice as slow at everything else.

e.) I can use my "old" Apps too
Yes, slower and more buggy. You can use your old apps in OS9 just fine.

f.) there are a lot of new Apps coming to the Mac (e.g. Maya!)
When? Were? How much to upgrade?

g.) it�s Multiuser (no one at work can now see my Pam Anderson Pics i dl from the net )
So is OS9. And you bad boy!

a) I have had one KP ever since PB. How many have you had? How often does 9 crash? How often does 9 go down from a memory leak?

b) It does alot more then surf the web. Even that (as a single task) is faster in 9. But, try rendering a movie and browsing in 9, and you will understand. I wish people would get this through their heads, on a one app basis there is no way X would come out on top. but when you do three, four, ten things at once that is where the advantage lies.

c) no arguemnt there, but I have head lots of artists complain that they want a more neutral interface. Something about throwing there perception off...we need options like themes or something, or an option to turn on the platinum from 9.

d) for doing everything in X. When I want to quickly render a movie I will boot into 9 to get it done faster. I just go and do something else for a while.

e) but in 9 you can't use alot of other apps, no protected memory..etc...

f) ask the developer. Soon, that is why it was released this incomplete so developers would get to work. It takes time...

g) 9's SUCKS!!!

------------------
"Imagine the disincentive to software development if after months of work another company could come along and copy your work and market it under its own name...without legal restraints to such copying, companies like Apple could not afford to advance the state of the art."
- Bill Gates, 1983 (New York Times, 25 Sep 1983, p. F2)

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Better question, why do you hate 9 so much. don't tell me cuz it can't multitask. so far I can play a quicktime movie and surf better then in x.



------------------

[Group51]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Better question, why do you hate 9 so much. don't tell me cuz it can't multitask. so far I can play a quicktime movie and surf better then in x.

I don't *hate* 9, but when I open a QT tv channel my mac freezes for about a minute. If I open my iDisk the mac freezes for about a minute for any operation I make. If an app crashes, I know its only a matter of time till I have to reboot or it crashes.

This doesn't happen in X. However, it isn't fast enough to show off to my friends yet either.

[edddeduck]

Here we go again......

Another I think its good another I think its bad......

For gods sake why cannot we agree that for some people X is great and for some its not....

Ad as for the most advanced name a MORE advanced operating system using NEWER technologies.....

Just coz apple borrowed ideas this does not mean its not good.

As far as I can see we have in unix a solid base to build on for years to come.

Also in apple coming into the unix world they have done a clever thing...

As alot of SERIOUS internet work is all on unix Making it UNIX based will make companies thing UNIX servers for our websites ftp etc and also for our desktop machines. Thus a total all in one network.

I think it was very sly although it will take time.

------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

I Took The Red Pill

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Better question, why do you hate 9 so much. don't tell me cuz it can't multitask. so far I can play a quicktime movie and surf better then in x.

I don't have 9. I hate windows. I love the Mac OS. I also like the new Mac OS. I will love it when some rough spots have been ironed out.

Like I said earlier, I use 9 to do video rendering in FCP. But when I am doing that I can't do a damn thing! and that is what is so cool about X. I can't browse, can't use IM, can't type, can't even think about playing a game or something.

In X, even though it may be a bit slower (FCP crashed on me when I tried it via classic) I can still check my e-mail, talk on IM, surf the web, hell play a game!

Also, 9 doesn't use my extra CPU, which is more incentive to use X. If you don't have a DP or are still using a G3, then my all means keep on using 9. We, and X, will be waiting when you get a new machine.

[edit] hear hear eddie!
------------------
"Imagine the disincentive to software development if after months of work another company could come along and copy your work and market it under its own name...without legal restraints to such copying, companies like Apple could not afford to advance the state of the art."
- Bill Gates, 1983 (New York Times, 25 Sep 1983, p. F2)

[This message has been edited by juanvaldes (edited 05-12-2001).]

[Todd Madson]

All I see is the same people whining that they don't like OS X and the same people saying they like it. Why don't we agree to disagree and re-assess the issue in July? It's getting worse than tiresome - boring, futile, no purpose. You think this is going to affect the outcome of OS design at Apple or anywhere else? They're too busy working.

[edddeduck]

Todd well said

nuff said....

[edit] Spelling mistake even in this small post
------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

I Took The Red Pill

[This message has been edited by edddeduck (edited 05-12-2001).]

[BuonRotto]

ProceedNeXT, a lot of your points are petty. The list is misleading because it covers personal preferences, large issues, menial fixes and everything in between.

Of course, you could also point out the big upside, but since I'm at MacNN, I don't expect any positive outlook.

[This message has been edited by BuonRotto (edited 05-12-2001).]

[Brad Nelson]

<<ll I see is the same people whining that they don't like OS X and the same people saying they like it. Why don't we agree to disagree and re-assess the issue in July? It's getting worse than tiresome - boring, futile, no purpose. You think this is going to affect the outcome of OS design at Apple or anywhere else? They're too busy working.>>

Besides the Apple feedback page, this is an indirect method to reach Apple. I believe it's right and proper not only to give the feedback here, both good and bad, but that if Apple employees didn't live under fear of Ghengis-Steve they would and should be posting here, answering some of our questions and concerns.

Because there is this wall of silence and ivory-tower mentality what do we have left? If we repeat and rehash so often (and we do) then I'd put the blame on Apple. Noone's really bitching about AppleScript because Sal from Apple was active on one of the forums and told everyone about some of the stuff they were working on. Would it kill Apple UI guys/gals to do the same? Are we really talking trade secrets here? If Apple told us of the possibly nifty new features for labels they're working on (among other stuff) wouldn't that silence some of the criticism? Instead we're left with this vacuum of silence.

[edddeduck]

Don't so pesemistic...

------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

I Took The Red Pill

[dogzilla]

Originally posted by Todd Madson:
All I see is the same people whining that they don't like OS X and the same people saying they like it. Why don't we agree to disagree and re-assess the issue in July? It's getting worse than tiresome - boring, futile, no purpose. You think this is going to affect the outcome of OS design at Apple or anywhere else? They're too busy working.

Can I get a hallelujah from the congregation?!

Dead on, Todd.

[frawgz]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
IOkit is not Carbon, and has never been.
Obj-C function calls take 1,5-2 times of C functions.
Obj-C is not crossplatform, because it is nothing without frameworks.

I don't see your point. So what if IOKit is not so and so or is so and so? Should it have been in Obj-C? Or do you like it in C++ better? Wouldn't it have been awesome if IOKit was in Obj-C so that every developer that wanted to write drivers for their devices would have to learn a new language? That way we'd really have an OS so advanced we wouldn't ever have a need for non-Apple devices, huh?

Ouch, Obj-C is not crossplatform. There's a huge blow for Mac OS X. Are we going to dredge up the whole OS X on Intel thing again? Here's a question: what's the point of saying Obj-C is nothing without the frameworks when no one, including and especially Apple, has ever brought up the point of engaging Obj-C outside of the Cocoa context?

Edit: UBB code.



[This message has been edited by frawgz (edited 05-12-2001).]

[gorgonzola]

proceedNEXT: I have a question -- are you a developer?

You seem to have some truly bizarre opinions about X's development environment, so I was just wondering.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[REVITUP]

Where could I get ahold of OPENSTEP(or NeXTStep)? Is it distributed anywhere at all? And, if so, what does it cost(if anything)?

[osiris]

Patient is what I've been, and continue to be.

And I also consider myself a guinea pig for using OS X since PB,
then the quiet official release and on through all the updates.
One thing for sure, trying to get any real work done can be difficult in X, depending
on what you do.

Programs that work for me in X are: Quicktime, Mail, Word, iCab (kinda) and Photoshop.
I attempt to do whatever art layout I need in Photoshop, provided it's not something
like 11x17 600 dpi, cause that's where it really chokes like a Dung Beetle with too much sh*t in it's mouth

But when it comes to my real work of video production, X is useless.
Premiere/After Effects/RayDream render unusual artifacts (likely caused by shoddy OpenGL support in Classic)
and an apparent lack of support for a number of Firewire devices, (including the Media Converter Apple resells)

This all makes for an impractical solution , at least for me and at least until native software is available.
(then I'll have to spend another ton of $ on software, dammit.)

but ya know,

Apple's been releasing steady updates, I imagine a few more by July.
And the way I see it, Apple seriously must have a polished release for MacWorld
where the 'Grand Opening' of OS X takes place for mass consumers.

I say this as a user and lover of Mac OS, and as an investor that wants to eventually make a profit from my little 'appleshare'.

So I'm opening a tasty brew, having some tasty bud and chillin out til then,
cause hey, life is too short and so are some of our fuses.







[This message has been edited by osiris (edited 05-12-2001).]

[AirSluf]

*Sigh*
I wanted to make you think. Seems like I have failed.
This thread went to a direction, I didn't want it to go. What I posted are just observations I made, because I was disappointed about OS X after having worked with Windows 98 and Windows 2000 Sever the last week. I have writen a long comment on Milleniums post, but after this other long post from AirSlurf, I give up.

I just want to make the following statements:
I have used NEXTSTEP and MacOS since they were out.
I have used Linux, BSD, Solaris, Be (and Windows 95 for a short period of time).
I work on interface design.
IOkit is not Carbon, and has never been.
Obj-C function calls take 1,5-2 times of C functions.
Obj-C is not crossplatform, because it is nothing without frameworks.
I dislike to talk/write english, because it's a boring language. I am sorry, if it was hard to read for you.

Sit down and watch some Genies going ;-) I'll boot into OS X to check my e-mail, since Outlook dies, every time I try it.

I apologize and retract my statement on your grammar and spelling. I was mistaken in thinking you might be a youngster just trying to stir up mischief.


Beyond that, you only failed to control the thread, we all thought. More than you it seems.

I design training software, and have had formal Human Factors training. I think I have a clue on interface design too. X's is different than 9's but doesn't inherently suck. There are actually many new well thought out features, and some that can still use some tweaking.

It doesn't matter what I/O kit is written in. It is providing the hooks for Carbon application ports. That's why so many apps like Toast aren't working in Carbon yet.

Obj-C does have more object call overhead than C or C++, but when you only need 20-30% (or less) of the total number of calls, the scale tips in favor of Obj-C. Obj-C is also lower level than C++ (C++ extended C by inlining many C calls and making super-calls) so it has less inherent overhead in non-object code.

Obj-C is cross platform. Compilers exist for other platforms, just because it isn't in a Visual Obj-C package doesn't mean it's doesn't exist. And just because Microsoft doesn't support it with the MFC doesn't make a language non-cross platform.

I will agree X is not perfect, but get your facts straight before bashing.

[mumble]

Originally posted by frawgz:
Ouch, Obj-C is not crossplatform. There's a huge blow for Mac OS X. Are we going to dredge up the whole OS X on Intel thing again? Here's a question: what's the point of saying Obj-C is nothing without the frameworks when no one, including and especially Apple, has ever brought up the point of engaging Obj-C outside of the Cocoa context?

Um, Obj-C is very much crossplatform, it's been in gcc since 1.99 (IIRC) ten years ago. I believe this is the basis for both gnustep and Apple's current dev software. There are also MPW compatible compilers (for IX).

[This message has been edited by mumble (edited 05-13-2001).]

[plaidpjs]

Let's see, at the beginning of this thread I was thinking, "Wow, the same old tired a@@ gripes, with no real substance!"

By the middle of the thread I was thinking, "Wow, people are claiming to know that the entire graphics industry can't get work done in OS X, that must mean i don't work in the graphics industry."

Toward the end i was thinking, "Wow, at least there are some people still willing to step to the plate and defend X against this never ending promenade of assaults from the same (never-changing) group of people who just don't like OS X!"

So, I'll spare you all from my opinions as to why I think OS X will be successful and just get to the one thing that really "chaps my hide," the idea that web designers and graphic artists can't accomplish anything in X.

Here's the thing, I've been doing graphic arts and design for a number of years, I've been doing web design for almost ten years. So, while I know I haven't been doing this stuff for as long as some people out there, I also sure as hell know that I am in the graphics profession. but, for my retort to that wonderful individual who claims that no one in the graphics industries can work in OS X, i will just simply focus on web design.

Here's the thing, when the web first began to emerge, you didn't need to know a thing about graphic design, you just need to learn how to code HTML. Site design wasn't a real issue as the WWW was never intended to be a graphics driven environment. but, then, a few people started putting little images on their sites. Adding a flare here and a splash of style there. Then WYSIWYGs started to pop up and graphic file formats developed to usable standards for the web and everything changed.

A crop of "professionals" developed that knew how to use a WYSIWYG but knew nothing of design (there are still a lot of them out there). At the same time, true designers began to see the worth of their skills in the world of the web. Now, however, through the rapid growth of technology and the changing idiom of the Web (from commerce to communication), being either an uneducated-in-design WYSIWYG user or a pure graphics professional does not cut it. you have to know something more.

That's where OS X comes in. you see, most of the emerging technologies are being developed on other computing platforms and they won't or don't, or won't be made to, run on Macintosh the way it stood. Suddenly, though, I can start to take advantage of PHP and Python, MySQL and Apache, and a host of other software. Why? because of OS X. In this regard, at least, OS X has made true web design/development professionals more productive (assuming they wanted to stay on a Mac).

Of course, the shining intellect that pointed out designers can't do anything in X was probably meaning to focus on the use of "artistic" utilities - PhotoShop, Illustrator, Flash, etc. And, if all they were to look for was the "brand" name apps, then they might actually have a point. me, I've never been one to give up so easily. I like PhotoShop (and it runs better for me in Classic then it ever did in 9.1), but if Adobe takes to damn long to put out a new version and I really need to be working native in X, I'll just launch TIFFany. If Illustrator is delayed in shipping for X, I'll buy the cross grade to Freehand.

The point is, there are always alternatives for those willing to look for them. And... well... I think maybe I've been rambling... I just got so pissed off reading that previous posters statement... wow, I've never gotten truly pissed off in these threads until now...

Ciao!

------------------
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.

[Millennium]

*Sigh*
I wanted to make you think. Seems like I have failed.

What do you mean, you failed? I know you got me thinking, at least. I came out of it still disagreeing with you, but you certainly made me think. Or was getting us to think really your goal, and not just getting us to agree with you?

I have used NEXTSTEP and MacOS since they were out.

I have used Linux, BSD, Solaris, Be (and Windows 95 for a short period of time).[/quote]
Interesting. Some of the statements you make seen quite inaccurate, for someone who's used all of these.

I work on interface design.

Good for you. Could we see some examples of your work, incidentally?

IOkit is not Carbon, and has never been.

I never claimed it was, and I didn't see any posts claiming it was either. Maybe I just missed them; it's late and I'm not really up to posting like this at the moment.

Obj-C function calls take 1,5-2 times of C functions.

That's it? If so, that's darn good. But, a question: why do they take so long? And for that matter, where did you get your data on this?

Obj-C is not crossplatform, because it is nothing without frameworks.

So? No language is worth much without "frameworks" (though most languages call them libraries). C is nothing without stdlib. C++ is (arguably) nothing without STL or something analogous to it. So it's unfair to hold Obj-C to the standard of "it's nothing without frameworks."

I dislike to talk/write english, because it's a boring language. I am sorry, if it was hard to read for you.

Don't worry about it; I applaud your using a language common to most of the people on the board, as a matter of courtesy. What language would you prefer to use, though?

[proceedNeXT]

German.

As some of you may have noticed, I actually like Cocoa and Obj-C very much. I also think, that Carbon is a very good solution to enable the transition between old and new os.

However, has ANY of you OSX lovers (I know, a little bit of gereralization) used Windows 98/2000 lately?
I am very angry. Windows has a key concept for the interface (altough they are dropping it right now for Whistler, hehe). For years I worked with Apple's and NeXT's systems. They were once so modern, so easy-to-use, so superefficent. But Microsoft was not sleeping. They have come up with concepts, solutions, ideas and patches for their stupid Windows.Finally they created a operation system, that is as efficent to use as MacOS and even as NEXTSTEP :...( . Apple used these once supermodern OSes to create a new one. And what do we get? A OS that misses the conistent programming language of NEXT, the superior way files, folders and volumes are handled in MacOS. The interface consistency of MacOS and the efficency of NEXSTEP. The list goes on and on and on. The Cocoa frameworks *have* definately *been* the best solution for programming. But they miss features and elements, that a modern OS has to implement to be consistent. Have you used freehand recently? Those toolbars are just bad. Thoose pallets, too. Have I mentioned my beloved starting points, yet? Or the single window versus multi window discussion?
While I know that these points are not essential to an OS, I know that they make OS X not look like the most advanced OS in the world. And while Apple made a great effort, they finally created less. They created a OS that I can *compare* with OS 9. But, however, I know that if one company could get the necessary things done, it would be Apple using Cocoa. Neither Java nor .NET can really compete with Cocoa.