[spiznet]

Quark user alert!

If you look to the right of the 4 new G4 models on the Apple Store webpage, click on the "OS9 systems" graphic. There are 2 additional Powermac configurations that appear, specifically stating that they are dual-bootable!!

(Its not what they say, its what they don't say...)

[DinoG4]

Hi, does this mean anything bad? ..Os X only ...can I load any software for mac, or does it have to be specific now?? thanks..Dino.

[tikki]

Originally posted by DinoG4:
Hi, does this mean anything bad? ..Os X only ...can I load any software for mac, or does it have to be specific now?? thanks..Dino.

You can still run old os9 software in classic. you just can't boot into classic.

No big deal unless you are a Quark user or an os9 purist.

[OwlBoy]

Originally posted by tikki:
You can still run old os9 software in classic. you just can't boot into classic.

No big deal unless you are a Quark user or an os9 purist.

You wodered that wrong, you can boot into classic, but NOT strait into OS 9.

-Owl

[Eriamjh]

Enough already.

[MacLone]

I think Steve Jobs is completely blind or maybe he's an
because he desperately needs a reality check.
It does not matter how much he wants to put an end to OS9; OS9 is here to stay for years to come.
It does not matter either how many people here in the forums say OSX is like a dream come true, the real life says there are millions of mac users, designers etc. who rely on OS9 for many reasons and i am sure of it; i work with many design studios and they think osx is still slow enough to not use it as its main.
If Steve Jobs will never let us boot on OS9 again and only let us use the unpractical classic mode then, i'm sure he will sell a lot less of its new machines, mark my words...

[ZackS]

Who needs the reality check now?

You 9 evangelists are CRAZY! First you complained of speed, features and application support. DVD player came out with 10.1. X had more features than 9. So you complained of speed and application support. By the time of 10.2's release, most important applications had been ported to X or at least announced to be ported to X, barring Quark and several discontinued plug-ins for various apps. Now you just complain about speed, and even that has gotten better with every release, a trend most software does not follow.

Not only do you complain as things get better and show more promise, but you get louder too! For the love of God SHUT THE **** UP!

The final nail in the coffin is the fact that Apple listened and backed off from really killing 9 before it was killed by drastic new hardware changes. But you still complain about that too.

In conclusion, MacOS 9 evangelists cannot be won over by any means, including directly submitting to their demands. They have not a leg left to stand on.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

We have to use Quark every day at work. We use Classic, it works fine.

If you can't handle it you have to stick with a old computer.

[Superchicken]

the new machines are pretty darned sweet to me. Apple's made a way for people to keep 9... be happy... I'd use X if I could.. but my iMac's to slooow.

[garetjax]

Do you mean the new Powermacs won't be able to boot 9 at all? Even on another partition or HD? Or do they just not come with an OS 9 install CD? Other than the actual software and OS, what hardware-specific elements in the new Powermacs prevent the machine from booting 9.2??

[Superchicken]

9700 drivers I'm guessing.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by garetjax:
the new Powermacs prevent the machine from booting 9.2??

Yes

[spiznet]

All I am saying is: BE AWARE!

Apple has said for a while that after the new year the new systems would not be able to boot in OS9.

Later, it was reported that Apple would wait until mid-2003.

Now, they have different machines for different people,

...but if you want/need to use OS9 (not Classic from OSX) DO NOT BUY the 4 systems on that first page of PowerMac in the Apple Store...

(they don't say they don't boot OS9, but they don't...

[Eug]

It does not matter how much he wants to put an end to OS9; OS9 is here to stay for years to come.]

Maybe so, but obviously not on Apple's best hardware for sale. And by within the year, probably on no new Apple hardware at all.

If you MUST stick with OS 9, then you'll just have to deal with it and use older equipment.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Who needs the reality check now?

You 9 evangalists are CRAZY! First you complained of speed, features and application support. DVD player came out with 10.1. X had more features than 9. So you complained of speed and application support. By the time of 10.2's release, most important applications had been ported to X or at least announced to be ported to X, barring Quark and several discontinued plugins for various apps. Now you just complain about speed, and even that has gotten better with every release, a trend most software does not follow.

Not only do you complain as things get better and show more promise, but you get louder too! For the love of God SHUT THE **** UP!

The final nail in the coffin is the fact that Apple listened and backed off from really killing 9 before it was killed by drastic new hardware changes. But you still complain about that too.

In conclusion, MacOS 9 evangelists cannot be won over by any means, including directly submitting to their demands. They have not a leg left to stand on.

You need to grow up.
However, since you feel that OS9 is dead, please let me know when my OS9 only installer apps will be replaced with ones that have OSX installers.
Games like Starcraft, Diablo2, SMAC and SMACX, along with apple apps like appleworks 6.
Also, there are many professional apps that don't run in OSX.
This includes old versions of programs that still would like more speed.

Please refrain from making any more of the above quoted comments.

Thank you.

Scott

[a2daj]

Originally posted by spiznet:
All I am saying is: BE AWARE!

Apple has said for a while that after the new year the new systems would not be able to boot in OS9.

Later, it was reported that Apple would wait until mid-2003.

Now, they have different machines for different people,

...but if you want/need to use OS9 (not Classic from OSX) DO NOT BUY the 4 systems on that first page of PowerMac in the Apple Store...

(they don't say they don't boot OS9, but they don't...

Apple's stance has always been OS X booting only for new models introduced after Jan 1st 2003. The mid-year deadline refers to the current eMac, iBook, and CRT iMac product lines and the original 1.25 GHz PowerMac. I believe all of this was announced in a press release last month.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0212/13.boot.php

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
You need to grow up.
However, since you feel that OS9 is dead, please let me know when my OS9 only installer apps will be replaced with ones that have OSX installers.
Games like Starcraft, Diablo2, SMAC and SMACX, along with apple apps like appleworks 6.
Also, there are many professional apps that don't run in OSX.
This includes old versions of programs that still would like more speed.

Please refrain from making any more of the above quoted comments.

Thank you.

Scott

I didn't once say that OS 9 was dead, nor did I hint towards it. I use 9 (or classic) for all the things you mentioned above. I did say that X has more features and looks promising (it does).

What I did say is that diehard 9 users need to step back and look at the current state of affairs. Apple set January as OS 9's death date because they had to in order to rally support for X (more developers than users). They have now backed down from that, setting the date to around when the new powermacs should come out. Does that not make sense? Why dedicate resources to making 9 work in a 64 bit environment?

I was bashing OS 9 diehards who complain about X and the current state of affairs of Apple without taking into account what is actually going on. Apparently, you took offense

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Oooooh, stuck with a Dual 1.25 GHz computer for Quark! THE HORROR!

[piracy]

Originally posted by garetjax:
Do you mean the new Powermacs won't be able to boot 9 at all? Even on another partition or HD? Or do they just not come with an OS 9 install CD? Other than the actual software and OS, what hardware-specific elements in the new Powermacs prevent the machine from booting 9.2??

The new machines don't *prevent* booting into 9.2; it's not as if they would have booted 9.2, if it weren't for Apple intentionally crippling them. Mac OS 9 is no longer being developed to support new hardware. It's Mac OS 9 that doesn't support the new Power Macs, not the other way around. Don't forget that.

[legacyb4]

Unfortunately, that is only the case if you are running 4.x or better.

Out here in Japan, Quark Japan tried to screw their users by charging an abnormally expensive upgrade from 3.x to 4.x so a lot of users (my office included) stayed in the 3.x world. Not the most ideal situation as there are some system-critical bugs working in the 9.2.x environment, but we get by.

As a result, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place because OSX-compatible and tested Quark is still not shipping and we are in need of new hardware.

Guess I have to start looking at the discount sellers with excess stock or used market...

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
We have to use Quark every day at work. We use Classic, it works fine.

If you can't handle it you have to stick with a old computer.

[adamtki]

Chances are, the apps that can run in Classic (such as Quark) will run faster in Classic in the NEW machines than in OS 9 in your OLD machine.

I don't recommend you switch over completely at once of course. You may still need OS 9 for hardware compatibility.. and if you just can't figure out how to do something in X.

Transition half the computers over to X and it should be a fairly painless process. OS X has matured enough so that you will not see any of the annoying bugs the early adopters had to deal with.

[Mac Boy]

I'd like to add a new term to the Mac community's vocabulary:

OS 9 Zealot

NOUN:
1 a. One who is zealous, specifically referring to using outdated operating systems. b. A person afraid of stability and beauty. c. Quark user.

Yuk Yuk Yuk...

- Ross

[John123]

Originally posted by Mac Boy:
I'd like to add a new term to the Mac community's vocabulary:

OS 9 Zealot

NOUN:
1 a. One who is zealous, specifically referring to using outdated operating systems. b. A person afraid of stability and beauty. c. Quark user.

Yuk Yuk Yuk...

- Ross

The bottom line is that Quark users are screwed, and for them and everyone else, 9 is faster in terms of system responsiveness.

That's the #1 thing I care about, and frankly, why bother paying a premium for a faster computer when your OS cripples it?

Just doesn't make sense...if Apple would make 10.2.x or 10.3 soon and make it as fast as OS 9 (perhaps by the option to disable cute GUI stuff), I think a lot of folks would be happy and make the full-time switch.

I'm typing on my 1Ghz PB right now, actually, and I can see the text lagging behind me. Moving windows is considerably slower. Etc. etc.

[Powerbook]

Why is no one complaining that the DualBoot machine is 500$ more?!?! (+40 Gigs of HD space and 256MB Ram, but no FW800 or new Airport, so eqal value I'd say)
Edited to add: The "new old" PM 1.25s sold in Europe are not only �3000 (while Dollar : Euro 1:1,08!!!) but also is the Superdrive missing. Thank you Apple.
Not buying.

Grrrrrrrrrrr. }:-(
PB.

[:XI:]

1. people bitch that apple don't move things forward.

2. apple moves things forward.

3. people bitch because they can't run their old stuff.



yeah, it's all apples fault i bought a mac and can't run my old pc games

wait... that's why a kept my old pc!

jesus, it's not rocket science.

if you're pissed you can't run quark on the new macs. BITCH AT QUARK! they're the ones late to the party.

for the love of god!!!!!

[spiznet]

Why is no one complaining that the DualBoot machine is 500$ more?!?! (- 40 Gigs of HD space and 256MB Ram, but no FW800 or new Airport, so eqal value I'd say)

Grrrrrrrrrrr. }:-(
PB.

The DualBoot Dual 1.25 Ghz machine appears to be the old top of the line machine at an $800 savings. It is competitive with the new OSX-only Dual 1.25 Ghz machine.

I think Apple is trying to do the right thing here...

[Graymalkin]

1. Selling the OS9 systems is a big deal, Apple is specifically saying "Quark users and people who won't abandon OS9, we are not screwing you over, you can have good machines for a pretty fair price" but I don't see many people listening in this thread.

2. Most major apps are at the very least Carbonized, if an app hasn't been it is the vendor's fault not Apple's. Because third party developers don't see fit to update their software they deserve to lose customers, abandon them if they don't do this very basic thing. Quark has always screwed their users over with upgrades, the current situation is no different.

3. It isn't like Apple didn't freaking announce their intention at the WWDC to stop development on OS9 and it isn't like all the people in that room didn't expect it. Apple isn't trying to screw their customers over, they are dropping development of OS9 to put more resources into making OSX everything OS9 was and more. I'd rather see them develop and OS with a future than one without. OS9 will be around for years to come but only on machines that won't run OSX. It isn't like OS9 will shut down come June 2003 or something.

Yes there's a lot of people who can't upgrade to OSX, this is unfortunate but instead of thinking Apple ought to be required to support them they ought to look at why they can't upgrade. If you've got an app that isn't a relatively easy task to Carbonize it is probably an app that takes the whole computer down regularly. Carbon has 80% of Classic's functionality, stuff requiring that extra 20% has problems (as that 20% is really old and should not be used in any modern software). The same goes for Classic, if an app won't run in it there is a reason for it. If you're using stuff that is not very future proof you've got a very serious problem and it isn't associated with MacOS. Your management is incapable of choosing systems that will not break horribly as time passes and computers are upgraded. That is a fundamental problem, it isn't something Apple needs to address with their PowerMacs.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by John123:
The bottom line is that Quark users are screwed, and for them and everyone else, 9 is faster in terms of system responsiveness.

Wake up moron.

Apple will gladly sell you a DUAL 1.25GHz computer that will boot into OS9 so you can Quark yourself to death. Actually quark doesn't even NEED 1.25 GHZ and OS9 won't even use the second prosessor 95% of the time.

So what the hell are you going on about?

[John123]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Wake up moron.

Apple will gladly sell you a DUAL 1.25GHz computer that will boot into OS9 so you can Quark yourself to death. Actually quark doesn't even NEED 1.25 GHZ and OS9 won't even use the second prosessor 95% of the time.

So what the hell are you going on about?

Wow, you resorted to personal invective rather than making a truly substantive argument. LOL. Testy, aren't we? Never mind that I have an IQ that places me in the genius range...in any event, you should really seek an anger management course or something.

Anyway, this "moron" will point out three key facts:
(1) That dual 1.25 Ghz machine is less capable than its OS X-only counterpart in terms of features and hardware and is $500 more expensive. That's a bit of a screw. The least they could do is sell both models for the same price.
(2) Who are you to determine whether users need a 1.25Ghz machine for Quark or not? I know lots of folks who use very large documents with high-res graphics and who would (and do) appreciate the faster processors.
(3) You can run Quark on these 1.25 dualies -- and everything else. And run it faster than in OS X, which is a bloated and excessively GUI-intensive OS. That was the thrust of my original point, which you clearly missed.


It's a pity that Apple, with all their OS X development, can't bring the GUI even close to par with OS 9.

[:XI:]

Originally posted by John123:
Anyway, this "moron" will point out three key facts:
(1) That dual 1.25 Ghz machine is less capable than its OS X-only counterpart in terms of features and hardware and is $500 more expensive. That's a bit of a screw. The least they could do is sell both models for the same price.

It has less features because it's old. They're selling it for a higher price so people buy the newer cheaper models. Besides if you're that desperate for a mac that can run os9 why shouldn't you pay more?

(2) Who are you to determine whether users need a 1.25Ghz machine for Quark or not? I know lots of folks who use very large documents with high-res graphics and who would (and do) appreciate the faster processors.

i'm pretty sure there is no argument to this

(3) You can run Quark on these 1.25 dualies -- and everything else. And run it faster than in OS X, which is a bloated and excessively GUI-intensive OS. That was the thrust of my original point, which you clearly missed.

but you can't run quark in X, yet

It's a pity that Apple, with all their OS X development, can't bring the GUI even close to par with OS 9.

I've used 9 and i hate it. I'm glad X is the future.

i don't know why i keep arguing about quark, i've never used it and probably never will.

[Mac Zealot]

It's about time they ditched the poor excuse of an OS for good.

Had it not been for OS X, I'd still be using a PC

[ZackS]

Anyone who has ever used X on a mac with Quartz Extreme knows that OS X isn't THAT graphicly intensive, it just looks that way.

Since I got a Radeon 8500 for my G4/400, the only beachballs I get are application specific (almost always the Finder) and task specific (almost always waiting for network operations, which 9 falls victim to as well).

[MacLone]

Originally posted by John123:
It's a pity that Apple, with all their OS X development, can't bring the GUI even close to par with OS 9.

You have a point here.
Of course they can bring that gui to OS9 speed but they don't care. Why? because they have now a good reason to sell you faster machines.
solution: Just get rid of that lousy, blurry and superslow PDF quartz engine for something like OS9 uses to render and instantly you'll have the incredible super OSX we were waiting for.

[cowerd]

(1) That dual 1.25 Ghz machine is less capable than its OS X-only counterpart in terms of features and hardware and is $500 more expensive. That's a bit of a screw. The least they could do is sell both models for the same price.

If you're going to resort to facts you should at least get them right.

New DP1.25GHZ: 1MB L3 cache, 80GB HD, Combo Drive.

Old OS9 DP1.25GHZ: 2MB L3 cache, 120GB HD and Superdrive.

The crappy old OS9 machine sure looks to be faster and better equipped. Explain to me how you're getting screwed again? FW800 capability can be added with a PCI board and Bluetooth is just a $50 dongle. If you're doing real work 802.11g doesn't even factor in.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by MacLone:
You have a point here.
Of course they can bring that gui to OS9 speed but they don't care. Why? because they have now a good reason to sell you faster machines.
solution: Just get rid of that lousy, blurry and superslow PDF quartz engine for something like OS9 uses to render and instantly you'll have the incredible super OSX we were waiting for.

OS 9 uses QuickDraw. It was terrible, limited, and no faster than Quartz. The problem lies in the way graphics are drawn. Look at an OS 9 app with live resize, transparent windows, and live drag (they do exist). Then you'll see how OS 9 was no better.

Also, OS 9 was jagged, not crisp. OS X is crisp, not blurry. You might want to try looking someone else's setup with a better monitor.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by John123:

Anyway, this "moron" will point out three key facts:
(1) That dual 1.25 Ghz machine is less capable than its OS X-only counterpart in terms of features and hardware and is $500 more expensive. That's a bit of a screw. The least they could do is sell both models for the same price.
(2) Who are you to determine whether users need a 1.25Ghz machine for Quark or not? I know lots of folks who use very large documents with high-res graphics and who would (and do) appreciate the faster processors.
(3) You can run Quark on these 1.25 dualies -- and everything else. And run it faster than in OS X, which is a bloated and excessively GUI-intensive OS. That was the thrust of my original point, which you clearly missed.


It's a pity that Apple, with all their OS X development, can't bring the GUI even close to par with OS 9.

Don't give me this "you need anger managment" garbage and stick to the computers.

1) Quark does NOT support Dual prosessors.
2) 1.25 GHz is fast enough for quark. I use quark everyday with giant files and 1.42 GHz over 1.25GHz would make very little difference.
3) Quark 6 will be out soon.

[Eug]

I still don't see what the big deal is. As everyone has already said, well-endowed dualies still exist that boot into OS 9.

The new 1.42 GHz dualies are only 14% faster than the old 1.25 GHz.

I have long since discovered that a 15% faster speed is barely noticeable for 95% of the population.

Now say a 33%+ boost... that's very noticeable. However, hopefully by the time those 1.67-1.8 GHz machines come out, OS 9 will be truly dead and it won't be a major issue.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug:
I still don't see what the big deal is. As everyone has already said, well-endowed dualies still exist that boot into OS 9.

The new 1.42 GHz dualies are only 14% faster than the old 1.25 GHz.

I have long since discovered that a 15% faster speed is barely noticeable for 95% of the population.

Now say a 33%+ boost... that's very noticeable. However, hopefully by the time those 1.67-1.8 GHz machines come out, OS 9 will be truly dead and it won't be a major issue.

People just like to bitch

Almost NO humans can see or feel any differnces less then 20%.

If they can it is just a lucky guess.

[spiznet]

('')

1. The Dualboot Dual 1.25 is *not* $500 more, it contains a SuperDrive, larger HD, and more RAM.
They are selling the units at the "same" price. (It's last week's top-of-the-line unit for $800 off!)

2. Quark software is not written to use the 2nd processor. Photoshop in OS9 can, but only a very few other apps...

3. What is really hampering OSX adoption is the 128MB memory ceiling imposed on Classic by OSX.10.2. Big OS9-only apps are prohibited from OSX by OSX. These are the users Apple needs to convince...


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John123:
Anyway, this "moron" will point out three key facts:
(1) That dual 1.25 Ghz machine is less capable than its OS X-only counterpart in terms of features and hardware and is $500 more expensive. That's a bit of a screw. The least they could do is sell both models for the same price.

(2) Who are you to determine whether users need a 1.25Ghz machine for Quark or not? I know lots of folks who use very large documents with high-res graphics and who would (and do) appreciate the faster processors.

(3) You can run Quark on these 1.25 dualies -- and everything else. And run it faster than in OS X, which is a bloated and excessively GUI-intensive OS. That was the thrust of my original point, which you clearly missed.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by John123:
(3) You can run Quark on these 1.25 dualies -- and everything else. And run it faster than in OS X, which is a bloated and excessively GUI-intensive OS. That was the thrust of my original point, which you clearly missed.

[/B]

AGAIN!

OS 9 uses QuickDraw. It was terrible, limited, and not significantly faster than Quartz. The problem lies in the way graphics are drawn. Look at an OS 9 app with live resize, transparent windows, and live drag (they do exist). Then you'll see how OS 9 was no better.

[John123]

Originally posted by MacLone:
You have a point here.
Of course they can bring that gui to OS9 speed but they don't care. Why? because they have now a good reason to sell you faster machines.
solution: Just get rid of that lousy, blurry and superslow PDF quartz engine for something like OS9 uses to render and instantly you'll have the incredible super OSX we were waiting for.

I'd be in favor of this. It would even be enough to get me to switch for good.

[John123]

Originally posted by cowerd:
If you're going to resort to facts you should at least get them right.

New DP1.25GHZ: 1MB L3 cache, 80GB HD, Combo Drive.

Old OS9 DP1.25GHZ: 2MB L3 cache, 120GB HD and Superdrive.

The crappy old OS9 machine sure looks to be faster and better equipped. Explain to me how you're getting screwed again? FW800 capability can be added with a PCI board and Bluetooth is just a $50 dongle. If you're doing real work 802.11g doesn't even factor in.

You're right on hardware but I was right on features.

FW800 is one example and BT is another...both of which you pointed out. You say you could upgrade...with the exception of the L3 cache, you could also upgrade the harddrive and optical drive on the DP OS X only machine -- either BTO or after you get it.

And Airport Extreme does factor in. In case you were snoozing during the presentation, another advantage for AE is wireless printing...not to mention accelerated AppleTalk traffic, which has been the complaint of many for some time now with regard to Airport.

[John123]

Originally posted by ZackS:
OS 9 uses QuickDraw. It was terrible, limited, and no faster than Quartz. The problem lies in the way graphics are drawn. Look at an OS 9 app with live resize, transparent windows, and live drag (they do exist). Then you'll see how OS 9 was no better.

Also, OS 9 was jagged, not crisp. OS X is crisp, not blurry. You might want to try looking someone else's setup with a better monitor.

OS X is blurry. I'll agree with the original poster. I've looked at it on both my PowerBook's LCD and on a 21" Sony CRT that I use on my desk at work. I much prefer what you call "jagged" with OS 9 than the multicolored array of pixels that you're forced to swallow with antialiased fonts in OS X.

[John123]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Don't give me this "you need anger managment" garbage and stick to the computers.

1) Quark does NOT support Dual prosessors.
2) 1.25 GHz is fast enough for quark. I use quark everyday with giant files and 1.42 GHz over 1.25GHz would make very little difference.
3) Quark 6 will be out soon.

(1) You really mean OS 9 doesn't. That's the thrust of the problem. Dual processor support is typically OS-based, and much less so app-based (c.f. Photoshop). And to be accurate, OS 9 *DOES* "support" dual processors...it just isn't OPTIMIZED for them.
(2) It would make about 13% difference on processor-intensive tasks. You're clinging to straws, bud.
(3) So? My original post focused on OS performance...Quark was just a transition topic.

[ZackS]

I have some advice for everyone in this thread supporting Apple's position on X. Let the people who support 9 continue doing so until they are forced to use X or switch to Windows.

To 9 users, please stop dreaming that Apple will back out on any of it's technologies that have cost millions of dollars to develop over the past 3 years or longer. Mac OS 9 is dead to new development. That is the cold hard truth. Apple isn't strong-arming you into switching to X, they are simply saying that 9 is done, over, and to continue using what you have. When your next comuter purchase comes around, you will can buy an OS X box or switch to Windows. That's it, those are your only choices. Stop bitching because nothing will change. Too many people like OS X just like it is, myself included.

Maybe OS X is too big for your current machine, but so was that sweater grandma knitted for you. Well, before you stuffed your gullet with 300 packages of funyons anyhow.

[John123]

Originally posted by ZackS:
I have some advice for everyone in this thread supporting Apple's position on X. Let the people who support 9 continue doing so until they are forced to use X or switch to Windows.

To 9 users, please stop dreaming that Apple will back out on any of it's technologies that have cost millions of dollars to develop over the past 3 years or longer. Mac OS 9 is dead to new development. That is the cold hard truth. Apple isn't strong-arming you into switching to X, they are simply saying that 9 is done, over, and to continue using what you have. When your next comuter purchase comes around, you will can buy an OS X box or switch to Windows. That's it, those are your only choices. Stop bitching because nothing will change. Too many people like OS X just like it is, myself included.

Maybe OS X is too big for your current machine, but so was that sweater grandma knitted for you. Well, before you stuffed your gullet with 300 packages of funyons anyhow.

Zack, you have completely missed the thrust of my argument.

All I -- and many others -- ask for is a GUI that is comparable in responsiveness to OS 9's. Is that really so much to ask?

More specifically, I think we ask for an option. Let us turn off these antialiased fonts. Let us have Windowshade back as part of the OS. Let us tweak the OS to make it responsive.

That's fairly little in the way of programming and fairly significant in terms of the response from folks like me.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by John123:
OS X is blurry. I'll agree with the original poster. I've looked at it on both my PowerBook's LCD and on a 21" Sony CRT that I use on my desk at work. I much prefer what you call "jagged" with OS 9 than the multicolored array of pixels that you're forced to swallow with antialiased fonts in OS X.

I hope that's not what it tooks like to you! But none the less, I see what you're getting at.

OS X Window:



OS 9 Window:



What You Wish the X window looked like:



Is this at all what you were talking about?

Edit: Read your reply. As a programmer myself I can say optimizing Quartz more would be quite a feat indeed. Apple is plowing away at it slowly and made a HUGE leap with Jaguar. Just be patient.

[Eug]

And Airport Extreme does factor in. In case you were snoozing during the presentation, another advantage for AE is wireless printing...

If you do use wireless with your PowerMac, an Airport Extreme card in the PowerMac is NOT required for this purpose. You need an Airport Extreme base station. You can still print to that printer hooked up to that base station just fine using your normal Airport card. That's the whole point of Apple's choice of 802.11g after all. 802.11g is backwards compatible with 802.11b.

Indeed, I'm thinking of buying of buying an AE base station specifically for this reason, despite the fact I "only" have a TiBook with no AE.

[freak_in_pekin]

Originally posted by John123:
...Never mind (sic) that I have an IQ that places me in the genius range...in any event, you should really seek an anger management course or something.

No offense but I just had a customer explain her "genius" level IQ to me and she couldn't even peel off a sticker. It took 15 minutes of discussion over the phone before she could even find a tab for its removal.

If you were a genius, you would know that you shouldn't use that title as a defense. You make yourself seem very ignorant.

I guess even genius level is relative.

[Graymalkin]

John123: Quartz is not the cause of your responsiveness woes. There's a few simple things programmers can do to make their apps behave much better but don't. One important one is live scrolling, any scroll view can have cursor following turned off, many apps do not turn this off. When scrolling it set to follow the cursor the computer has to redraw the screen constantly and is all done on the processor. Window redraw is handled by CoreGraphics and is thus entirely processor dependent. Setting a few values in an app either at runtime or during execution can turn this effect off. Most older MacOS apps would use a scroll to point method with view scrollers which is why you rarely notice much slowdown. Further, your IQ be it high or low does not make you right and does not mean you know what you're talking about.

Arguing the merits of OS9 based on Snappiness� is getting old and is not really a valid measure of an OS. Hmm would I rather have Snappy� menus or the ability to natively talk with NFS and CIFS servers? I think I'll go with file sharing for 500. Megafast window outline movement or true SMP capability? I think I'll go with door number three, SMP capability.

OSX is not a system you want to run on really old hardware. You were in the same position when System 7 was released, it was scores more resource intensive than System 6 and caused a lot of headaches for owners of older systems. Would anyone would have really liked to stick with System 6 forever? No. The differences between 9 and X are even greater than that of 6 and 7. X is a truly modern environment and is capable of compting with the likes of Windows and Linux. OS9 no matter what stalwarts like to believe is not capable of competing anymore. It was a dying OS when OS8 was released which is specifically why the Copland project was ever started and NeXT was eventually bought. Apple couldn't stick with a single threaded cooperatively multitasked shared memory operating system forever. OS8/9 had been forced into roles it was not designed for and not very good at. There's nothing wrong with the high level parts of the systems, they were after all stuffed on top of NeXT's operating system to become Rhapsody/X. The core of the OS was the main problem, what it had in Snappiness� it lacked in power and scalability.

Again, third party apps that haven't been at the very least been Carbonized need to be looked at quite critically. Why haven't they been Carbonized, is it too difficult to pry the app away from the 20% of ToolBox that was not included in CarbonLib? If this particular apps needs this obscure 20% and its competitors don't, why aren't the competitors being looked at as viable alternatives? If you're locked into one company's product will you go out of business without them? How viable is YOUR business if you will go down the tubes without a single piece of software?