[Subzero Diesel949]

Originally posted by ShyWizard:
<STRONG>I've seen a lot of mac users complaining about OS X , it's new interface, and its overall sluggishness. Would YOU be happy if Apple scrapped OS X and continued to support only OS 9 </STRONG>

ShyWizard, you are nothing but a troll posting bullcrud like this. I've seen your mirrored posts in MacFixIt. I know the people over there will appreciate your company, but don't come here with your slants. No one forced you to use OS X. If you don't like it, don't use it. Make some more constuctive posts next time. Your other posts have more or less been the same.

[cowerd]

Now lets hear from some people in Apple's core market of designers. Seriously, how many print designers do you think will move to OSX soon? For web people [well the coder bunch] OSX is a freaking wet dream--apache, php, perl, bbedit, photoshop, dreamweaver etc. doesn't get much better than that. But for other designers:
printing in OSX is a joke--slow, sort of a hit and miss thing. network printers disappear from time to time.
fonts are very iffy still--no ATM Deluxe, waiting for Font Reserve, font panel--hahhaaa. oh wait third party--can't blame Apple for that.
finder is a disaster for file management. no labels [where's terri?], moving files around is a PITA and pop-up folders were a seriously excellent way of managing active projects--GONE. Dock--nope can't drag-and-drop, only launch files--its one way street.
slow slow slow slow
the one app I have sucks so far. Illustrator 10 is a POS. v8 in classic runs bettter and faster.

that said disk I/O is great and files copies are fast. And its kinda stable, but my big graphic apps didn't crash OS9, it was all that other crap like IE5 and Word and Entourage. OSX doesn't crash, which is nic, but I do see way too much of that @$%^^ spinning wheel.

hey its great for surfing and email, but until Adobe and Apple speed things up....

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: cowerd ]

[LtKernelPanic]

I used OSX PB and 10.0.x on my mainstreet PBG3 as it was my only mac that would run it even though sleep was (and still is) non-existant on that model. Then I got my Pismo in July. Damn. OSX rocked on a fully supported machine. It became the main OS on my Pismo and with the release of 10.1 I think I've rebooted back into OS 9 maybe 3 or 4 times. The same holds true for my G4 that arrived last week. OS X flies on it. For everyone who is complaining that they don't like OS X go back to 9.x. I could care less. I would completely abandon OS 9 if OE and Palm Desktop were carbonized. If you don't like OS X now wait until the next major release which could come as early as MWSF and try it. I mean really, what do you expect from a totally rewritten OS that's barely been around for a year? All I have to say is with every release OS X kicks OS 9's butt even more. I can't wait to see OS X 10.5 or 11.0.

[Jerommeke]

i had os 9

i had to constantly check one's program's memory status so it wouldn't run out

it froze

internet explorer froze
msn froze
everything froze

someone with 9 not crashing, that would be the 7th world wonder

and yep, I do write poems sometimes

[jcb9]

ShyWizard, there is NO WAY Apple would scrap OS X. No way whatsoever. Apple spent the better part of a decade trying to come out with a next generation operating system, with OS X as the final result. OS X has a couple issues, most notably speed (which will improve with new hardware - after all, Apple projects OS X to be around for another 15 years), but it has NUMEROUS advantages over OS 9. Preemptive multitasking, a Unix core, etc. OS X, despite being an entirely new operating system, is able to run almost all old Mac software, as well as OS X-only software and Unix software. For Apple to scrap OS X would be insane. There's no reason whatsoever for them to do so.

And who are all these people complaining about it? Everyone I know who uses OS X loves it. And that includes some former Windows users who wouldn't have considered buying a Mac unless OS X existed. And it's not just people I know who like it - look at C|Net (http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806340-1204-7333990.html) - 94% of users give it thumbs up. By comparison, last I checked XP had something like 30% thumbs up. Maybe it's just you doing the complaining...

[Bruce O'Neal]

i am not sure i am understanding solving the speed issue with new hardware comment. i mean, i bought a g4 533Mhz this past summer in hopes that it was fast enought to run os x quickly. i am not going to upgrade the processor just to have more speed. i will upgrade memory (looking to goto 640 from my paltry 128), but they should tinker some more with the os to increase speed. afterall, i do not have another $1,600 to burn on new hardware.

[Spheric Harlot]

I think the point made about how OS X is not going to dent M$'s market share substantially, and how Gates/Ballmer are rightly much more worried about Linux is true for one simple reason:

Hardware.

- Linux runs on the exact same hardware as all MS OS'en, making it a constant, *immediate* option to anybody who isn't dependent upon platform-specific software.

- Mac OS X only becomes an option when you're prepared to make a hardware change - which will put off a lot of people right there.

- Macs are substantially more expensive than Linux/Windows boxes are for those who know what they're doing. I know about TCO and all the extra hardware included, gigabit ethernet, yadda yadda yadda. And the people who can will always pay for a BMW/Apple. But your poor hacker/student/whatever will in most cases go for the cheap Daihatsu/slapped-together PC or build it himself from used parts that cost next to nothing.


Note that I'm not saying that Macs aren't a viable option to Wintel hardware - I haven't met a single geek (save one, who hates mice with a passion) in the last few months who *isn't* drooling over OS X or hasn't already bought an iBook/tiBook to run it - but I think Microsoft really does have a lot more to worry about regarding Linux than Mac OS X.


Note also that I'm not addressing the question of whether Apple should drop OS X - instead, I propose a new discussion topic:

Should the United States drop tap water and return instead to bucket-carrying and wells? Would that make those of you who worry about terrorist attacks on drinking water supplies happier?


-chris.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>I think the point made about how OS X is not going to dent M$'s market share substantially, and how Gates/Ballmer are rightly much more worried about Linux is true for one simple reason:

Hardware.

- Linux runs on the exact same hardware as all MS OS'en, making it a constant, *immediate* option to anybody who isn't dependent upon platform-specific software.

- Mac OS X only becomes an option when you're prepared to make a hardware change - which will put off a lot of people right there.

- Macs are substantially more expensive than Linux/Windows boxes are for those who know what they're doing. I know about TCO and all the extra hardware included, gigabit ethernet, yadda yadda yadda. And the people who can will always pay for a BMW/Apple. But your poor hacker/student/whatever will in most cases go for the cheap Daihatsu/slapped-together PC or build it himself from used parts that cost next to nothing.


Note that I'm not saying that Macs aren't a viable option to Wintel hardware - I haven't met a single geek (save one, who hates mice with a passion) in the last few months who *isn't* drooling over OS X or hasn't already bought an iBook/tiBook to run it - but I think Microsoft really does have a lot more to worry about regarding Linux than Mac OS X.


Note also that I'm not addressing the question of whether Apple should drop OS X - instead, I propose a new discussion topic:

Should the United States drop tap water and return instead to bucket-carrying and wells? Would that make those of you who worry about terrorist attacks on drinking water supplies happier?


-chris.</STRONG>

Good point. For certain limited applications, Linux runs on x86 and it runs that hardware faster and more stably than any version of Windows. Until Darwin is more fleshed out, it isn't a very viable alternative. However, I reiterate that M$ is not and should not simply brush off the new Mac OSes at this point, considering all the positive reviews of OS X over XP. Plus the fact there already exists a fledging *nix Apple OS (Darwin) that powers this beautiful GUI we call OS X.

As hardware prices, I agree to a certain extent. I still see the high end G4 Macs as horrendously expensive for what you get. For an equivalent system (hardwarewise), that runs the OS MUCH faster, you can spend about 2/3 to 3/4 of the price if you get a PC. That's not chicken feed. And of course, if you have very specific needs, you can build a customized PC that will run circles around a G4 package for literally half the price. And yes, it will even outperform a high-end G4 in Photoshop. OTOH, it seems that the iBooks have run away with the market for a good reason. There is simply nothing equivalent to it in the same price range. So it seems that Apple can compete in the price-for-hardware category if they really want to, at least to a certain extent.

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Eug ]

[xi_hyperon]

What was the point of posting this topic? If people post useless threads, should MacNN disband the entire forum?

[cpt kangarooski]

Hm -- tough question.
I wouldn't support dropping OS X and reverting to MacOS 9 indefinately. But only because MacOS 9 is in sore need of replacement with something significantly more advanced. OS X clearly isn't a worthy successor -- if there were something better than that, which also represented a substantial improvement over MacOS (which is rather redundant I'd drop OS X in an instant.

As it stands, I use MacOS 9 a lot more than OS X. It's not a stable platform, I agree. And it hasn't improved significantly since ~1991. But for all that it's _still_ easier to use and more capable than OS X, and I don't see that changing at any time in the foreseeable future.

Frankly though, I was happy on MacOS despite all of its failings, but given what Windows is like, and OS X is like, etc., I don't see myself being happy with an up to date computer for many years to come.

[Bernard Ducamp]

No.. I bought my iBook White for OS X.

OS X is the present and the future. Symmetric multiprocessing, protected memory, multiple users and security levels, command line power, true object-oriented development tools, compatibility with the Unix/Linux world.

OS 9 is the present and the past.

Just my opinion.

[Bernard Ducamp]

No.. I bought my iBook White for OS X.

OS X is the present and the future. Symmetric multiprocessing, protected memory, multiple users and security levels, command line power, true object-oriented development tools, compatibility with the Unix/Linux world.

OS 9 is the present and the past.

Just my opinion.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Hm -- tough question.
I wouldn't support dropping OS X and reverting to MacOS 9 indefinately. But only because MacOS 9 is in sore need of replacement with something significantly more advanced. OS X clearly isn't a worthy successor&lt;snip&gt;</STRONG>

Speak for yourself, buddy.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
<STRONG>

Speak for yourself, buddy.</STRONG>

Ditto!

[Nonsuch]

Kangarooski doesn't like OS X, as he's made clear on other occasions. I wonder why Cipher hasn't contributed here ...

[edddeduck]

I never use classic it's dare I say it slow... ie I normally burn a cd or have a dvd in the corner when coding in 9 I cannot do either..

This I know is not a good example but the true multitasking in OS X is amazing and the Devtools are great.

Basically X is buggy and I cannot play some old games or VGS but on the whole I love not having a crash in over 3/4 months compared to at least once a week (BTW I do the same things on both systems)

Cheers Edd

[cowerd]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Hm -- tough question.
I wouldn't support dropping OS X and reverting to MacOS 9 indefinately. But only because MacOS 9 is in sore need of replacement with something significantly more advanced. OS X clearly isn't a worthy successor&lt;snip&gt;
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speak for yourself, buddy.

Note the use of the personal pronoun "I", usually indicated a reference to oneself in standard english. In other words I do believe he was speaking for himself. Redundant pithy remarks should be kept to a minimum.

And kgrooski has been very specific about why he doesn't like OSX. A few steps backward in UI design, along with poor perceived performance [read your literature of UI feedback and why its so important to users] isn't exactly what you expect from the greatest OS in the world.

How about some realism here, because while OSX may be great under the hood, Apple seems to not be too concerned about fixing some of the worst aspects of the Finder [see metadata thread, any moving icons thread, and broken symlinks thread].

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: cowerd ]

[edddeduck]

And sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.....

Doh! Grammar mistakes what next....

Oh I get it OS X only has built in spelling not grammar

REVOLT REVOLT cummon Batman to OS 9!!!!!!

Cheers Edd

(btw that was sarcasm no need to look it up)

[MusicMac]

Originally posted by ShyWizard:
<STRONG>I've seen a lot of mac users complaining about OS X , it's new interface, and its overall sluggishness. Would YOU be happy if Apple scrapped OS X and continued to support only OS 9 </STRONG>

Yeah! Forget OS X. In fact scrap it all the back to 68k Macs running 6.5
(Note the sarcasm)
OSX if the future of Apple, just like the PPC processor was a while back.

[cpt kangarooski]

Bernard--
Well, the problem I see here, is that OS X doesn't represent much of an advancement in all of those areas, unless you take into account how primative MacOS was underneath. When you've been living in a cave for the last three thousand years, bronze is great! But it isn't precisely state of the art.

OS X's multiple user support doesn't have rather nice features such as XP's ability to suspend sessions w/o closing them. Apple doesn't make the promised ultra lightweight network terminals they were promising us a few years ago (which would be diskless, supercheap iMacs, booting off on OS X servers across a network) which could be very useful. (e.g. for a home environment where several family members want their own terminals)

The security has been tripping people up left and right, as is all over these boards. It's not all that granular, as Win2K's slightly better ACL is, nor is it exceptionally cool, with emerging technologies like capabilities security (as in the experimental EROS project) that stand to be a real improvement both securitywise and from a UI perspective. In fact, OS X hasn't significantly improved the UI relating to this; the concepts themselves are still mildly difficult for some users to understand, setting up proper security isn't a total cake walk, and let's not even get into Net Info. (which, while an improvement on the ordinary Unix state of affairs, is rather like bronze again)

The Command Line has incredible potential. Apple has squandered it; and the damn thing is no better than a command line circa 1984, or earlier. Total integration of the CLI and GUI, standardization of the syntax and vocabulary, etc. could all be great but we aren't even getting hints of them. These concepts aren't all that new, and for certain operations, the Unix-based CLI is even behind the DOS CLI and Apple II BASIC interpreter. (e.g. IIRC, using standard Unix tools, there's no _simple_ mass renaming command, such as REN. I'm aware of techniques such as using foreach and mv together, but I'd like to see that defended on ease of use principles)

As for compatability, I'm all for compatability. However, I take issue with the notion that compatability with Unix requires _being_ Unix. Isn't that was Posix is for? Or, at absolute worst, emulators? (we've got a long history of those: 68LC040 emulators for Power Macs, Classic running on top of OS X -- what's one more?)

Frankly, if I had to have compatability with anything, I'd choose MacOS first, because that's where most of Apple's user base is coming from. This is satisfied with Classic, but Classic is not as good at its job as it could be, if for example, we could give every Classic app it's own Classic OS to run on, taking advantage of OS X's vaunted multitasking and memory management features. Or making classic use RAM dumps for booting (aka Hibernation) to speed up its launch times into known stable configurations, or ones already running apps or with open docs.

But then I'd attempt compatability with Windows, perhaps buying Connectix and then letting them do whatever they pleased. Compatability of one niche OS with another niche OS isn't a great method of entering the largest segment of the market. Unix compatability, again, through a Posix layer that didn't impair the underlying foundation of the OS from being thoroughly modern (Unix, a creation of the late 60's cannot be said to be modern; it only looks good in comparison to the killer micros of the 80's) would be fine with me. Frankly, enough of the material needed is available that it probably wouldn't be amazingly difficult. Tenon was doing something similar, a Unix on top of MacOS, for some time, and they're not all that large.

I don't disagree that MacOS needed replacement -- I just haven't seen a worthy successor. Little concepts have come up here and there that deserve to be pursued, but nothing cohesive.

Spirit, Gorilla--
As cowerd noted, I was. Still am. But I ask you -- am I proposing something worse than OS X? If so, in what way? I had been under the impression that I merely wanted something better from Apple's many years of effort than a reheated NextStep. I'd be very surprised if you cannot think of things that could be improved, and which are within realization, even at a very fundemental level.

Music--
Clean and appealing as the PPC design might've been... which platform is it again with multigigahertz CPUs, multiple CPU and motherboard developers to take up slack, rapid advancements fueled by hundreds or thousands of companies competing against one another, widespread consumer acceptance and recognition, and all for pretty low prices? PPC might've been the future, but it's not hard to see that it is in the end, a mistake. Frankly, as long as a Mac acts like a proper Mac why would it matter, aside from price, performance, availability, etc. what it's running on? If moving to x86 cut prices, boosted speeds and reduced Apple's long-running parts problems, you'd take issue with it for what reason again?

[cowerd]

5 down 95 to go.
you people are preaching to the choir and the best defense you can offer is sarcasm. if you can't even keep the choir happy what happens to other 95 percent that Apple 'wants' to turn away from the 'dark side'.

on the UI side of OSX things should work and work as well or better than OS9. For user and permissions management Netinfo is not happymaking nor has it changed appreciably since the first days of NeXT. The Finder [or at least all the things we associate with the OS9 Finder] has to be fixed, however Apple seems more intent on delivering a marketable graphic image [aqua] than useability. Apple can do things right when they have a mind to--compare OSX network setup with that of any NT variant--the fact that no lameass wizards are needed means that Apple actually thought about UI design in this case.

One of the most basic problems is Apple's usual lack of communication on any of these issues. We are JUST starting to get decent readme's with minor updates, there is still however there is NO roadmap except for a lousy clock.

[Jelle Monkmater]

Waaaaitaminute! This is that ShyWizard again! He's just a no-good troublemaker I tellsya! First that WinXP thing, then the 'Photoshop ain't commin' to no Mac' thread and now this. That boy sure knows how to stir the pig's droppings and get us peace-lovin, amicable Macheads up in arms.

I say we grab us some pitchforks and torches and visit Mr Wizard but good.

&lt;/boredom&gt;

[Jelle Monkmater]

Note, BTW, what an excellent people player ShyWizard is: he posts 1 comment, then lets the rest fight it out amongst themselves, only guiding a little just once when the post appeared to be drying up.

I'm actually quite impressed (seriously). Very good.

[MacGorilla]

NetInfo...who dreamed up THAT brilliant thing? I despise Netinfo with a passion; it makes porting many Unix apps (like printing apps) to Mac OS X/darwin very difficult.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
<STRONG>

So NT4 is more stable, so what. It is stable at sucking. DOS is stable but it takes longer to do anything then a restart from a crash in OS9 will do.

How is OS9 bad at multitasking for what you do? I can copy large files, burn CD's, surf and listen to MP3's all at the same time completely comfortably even more so then in OSX.

Do you just dislike the fact that technically OS9 doesn't have good multitasking even though it works damn well in most real life situations?</STRONG>

For instance when I'm surfing the web in IE and some page freezes. It reliably freezes the whole computer then until that page has finished loading.It may be more IE's fault but it is IMO indicative of the general OS's inability to multitask smoothly.

Just to troll a bit I'll turn your question around since you seem to like making up other people's minds for them: Do you just dislike the fact that so many people appreciate OSX more than you do because it works so well for them in such a large variety of their real world situations?

I see many people (like me) who do web work and can do their development hosting and coding all on one computer and don't have to worry about crap like 31 character filenames. There is a growing community of Java developers who appreciate the high integration of java into the OS and the free DevTools to work with them. Did you get this with OS9? No, I didn't think so.

There are diferent requirements for different people with different needs. I really appreciate that I can start an update of the locate DB in the terminal, switch to my editor or my browser and just forget about it and not have to worry if it crashes or not. I appreciate being able to open twenty windows in my browser and not have to worry about getting an out of memory error.

Enough, or should I name some others?

[theolein]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Bernard--
Well, the problem I see here, is that OS X doesn't represent much of an advancement in all of those areas, unless you take into account how primative MacOS was underneath. &lt;edited for obvious reasons&gt;</STRONG>

I really wonder why you bother to post such incredibly long articles here Kangarooski? You always talk about the UI and how bad it is and then in the same breath go ahead and mention things that do not make much sense to most users. Who, as a common user, cares whether OSX is POSIX compatible or whether netinfo is good or bad? Developers do, users don't. They want things like the finder to be faster and more responsive. They want labels etc. I have noticed that many people here use the word HCI and UI Guidlines here without having bothered to read the documentation.

I will make a hypothesis here: A UI is good if users like it, whether or not so called HCI experts appreciate that or not.

Have you ever bothered trying to make a mock up of your ideal UI Kangarooski? You could post it over here and see what the people think. It would save you the necessity of repeatedly posting your dislikes here in such verbose fashion. It would make much more impact than trying to explain the whole thing over and over again. Go for it, I'd be really interrested to see what you come up with.

[cpt kangarooski]

Theo--
I apologize for the length; you're mostly bearing the brunt of my admittedly poor writing style. I'm just long-winded. You'll get more of this below. Sorry.

Regarding underlying elements of the OS, while I agree that users generally shouldn't be terribly concerned for 'buzzword compliance' if the computer is a good fit for them, that's not the whole story. The choice of technologies used in the OS, and the ease of development by third parties will have significant effects on the user, whether he knows it or not.

Consider a cellphone. Technology choices by the telco will determine whether the user can use it in certain environments, the range from the tower (and thus number of towers needed), the infrastructure costs that must be recouped in the phone bill, the quality of transmission, alternative data capabilities (e.g. text messaging, web browsing, email), battery life, size, and cost.

The user interface, at its heart, consists of a keypad and a couple of additional buttons. True, some of the newer phones coming along use voice recognition (badly, AFAIK) or simplified UIs (the paper phones that don't have on/off switches) but this is pretty minor.

Density of cellphone towers, something that the user never really thinks about, will directly impact the size, weight, range and battery life of the mobile. Why do you think the Japanese cellphones are so much smaller?

Similarly, if the OS is, for example, POSIX compatable, the user will almost certainly never know or care. But if a programmer is willing to write a program for the Mac that uses Unix software, cron perhaps, to save time and effort, the user will still derive a benefit from those unknown features.

I, by the way, have read through the Human Interface Guidelines. I still have a well-thumbed hardcopy of the System 7 HIG at my old room in my parents' house, that I started using about ten years ago, while still in school. Really, there's a lot of material that informs the HIG that isn't really mentioned, and is best accessed through the bibliography in the back. I've found Jef Raskin's "Book of Macintosh" documents from the late 70's and early 80's when he was determining what the platform would be to be incredibly enlightening, for example.

I disagree with your hypothesis... somewhat. I definately want users to like the UI they're using. That's absolutely essential, no doubt about it. But you're saying something remarkably like "People are healthy if they feel healthy, whether or not doctors agree." I think we all know that's not true, although a patient's relatable experiences are always very useful for doctors.

Millions and millions of people in the world use Windows and are surely reasonably happy with it. This doesn't mean there aren't shortcomings that are recognizable and fixable. Sometimes very easily so. Should this be ignored? Should people who can do something about it just sit back and allow people to unknowingly injure themselves, or even act inefficiently? It's silly! One of the most important driving forces behind the Mac is the ideal of a humanistic computer. A computer that is designed from first principles to work in cooperation with human beings, to accept and tolerate their foibles, to support them where they are weak, and to further empower them even where they are strong. It's the difference between having an Aeron chair and a straight-backed Spanish monstrosity.

People could sit in either; but comfort is a different matter, and the man who has never experienced anything else, and is not conversant with alternatives is in no position, unless he is quite unusual, to talk about comfort.

You have to understand though, that my position is that the user interface is the most important, and most controlling factor in any product. This is not just a visual or textual shell, I'm talking about. UI is inclusive of the actual functionality of the software! It has to be designed in from the very first sparks. If kuro5hin.org were up, you could check out a post I wrote specifically about this... perhaps Google has it, but I encourage you to look into that, and to think about it.

As for my ideal UI, that's easy. It only has one feature: "Do What I Mean." Wish I knew how to get it to work though....

Seriously, I've toyed around with various mockups, sketches, and behavioral models. But 1) my notes are not all that well organized, and certainly don't reflect a cohesive whole; 2) have not been user-tested and so could easily, unknown to me, be those damn Spanish chairs again, in disguise; 3) Unfortunately probably do not represent as significant leaps forward as the great UI thinkers of the 60's, 70's and 80's, and; 4) would require a lot more time to compile into something useful than I have. I'm not doing professional UI design anymore, you know.

When I have time, I might throw some things together. HOWEVER, you have to understand (and people so often never do) that a lot of the UI cannot be expressed easily in a visual manner. It's behavior -- it's what the computer does in response to some input. And also, it obviously wouldn't look as graphically finished as something like Aqua. I've made visually complete comps, sure. It's almost always worthless, because whether a titlebar is black and white, grey, or blue has very, very, little bearing on the usability. People always get hung up on it though, and it always was a waste of my time. Check out some of the early Lisa mockups to get a feel for the visual difference.

Anyway, I'll mess around, but I have other things on the front burners (like studying res judicata for my exam TOMORROW!) and other more pressing personal projects as well. (the 1930's pulp adventure rpg campaign I'm designing; man, there is almost _nothin'_ you can't do with that era)

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>Have you ever bothered trying to make a mock up of your ideal UI Kangarooski? You could post it over here and see what the people think. It would save you the necessity of repeatedly posting your dislikes here in such verbose fashion. It would make much more impact than trying to explain the whole thing over and over again. Go for it, I'd be really interrested to see what you come up with.</STRONG>

I happen to think that is a great idea. Basically everyone how uses the same desktop metaphor that apple pioneered back in the 80's. Even OS X still uses basically the same ideas, as does Windows, Linux, Be, etc...

I think it would be very interesting to see what people come up with, and why. I would make an attempt, but I have finals to study for...maybe when break starts.

[Napier]

Pre-Press might be dealing with 2 Mac OS's for a long time.
I'm the head designer at a print house with 8 other artists on macs and 1 on a PC. I've been using OS X at home since last March, and I love it. The 10.1 upgrade got me excited enough to install it at work,classic app's couldn't see our NT servers so it didn't last long.
In the past the other mac users couldn't wait to be updated to the latest OS, if only to play around with untill updates and upgrades to the other apps made it useable at work, this is anything but true with X, you would have thought I suggested they start running PC programs on their machines with Virtual PC. They're professionals and they really seem scared. They're praying that maybe, just maybe Apple won't scrap it but continue to develope and support the Classic OS (OS 9, OS 10, OS 11 etc.) along with OS X (OS X 10.1, OS X 10.5, OS X1, OS X1.5, etc.) instead of fading Classic out.
Pre-press will just love dealing with files of 3 OS's � PC, Mac OS 9 etc., and X.

[SpeedRacer]

Kudos for having the sack to post such an inflammatory topic title.

Personally, i've been trying to drueling over the possibility of a "next generation Mac OS" since the days of Rhapsody. But after waiting so long and attempting to use 10 on a full-time basis i always find myself demanding a greater level of responsiveness, hardware/software compatibility, and overall productivity which i can only achieve in OS 9. I mean it sucks enough being a 2nd class citizen to the 95% of the software, hardware, and computer systems running "the other OS", but now i'm given the privilege to use an OS that renders a good % of my already 5% inoperative? No thanks.

Sure the multitasking of X is great and UI is something to gawk at, but i have a G4/450 with X on a separate drive and 512MB of RAM at work that cannot run a single day w/out 3-5 X crashes... ohh.. sorry, X doesn't crash... ok then... shall we say infinite stalls. I hate the ridiculous system lock-ups in 9 just as much as the rest of us, but at least i've come to know exactly when and why they occur - not so with X whose Finder seems to randomly decide it doesn't want to quit and just brings down the rest of the running apps instead.

So i guess i'm just another b*tcher, complainer, old-school mo-fo that nobody here on "the cutting edge" wants to hear, but believe me i'm close enough to the mothership to hear know all the positive aspects of OS X 100 times over. It's just that (at this very day/time) they don't hold the water that they need (no pun intended). There's just no excuse for a next-generation OS feeling more sluggish than that which is set to replace (even if only feels that way to 1% of your market). The foundation of OS X just holds too much potential for Apple to f*ck it up w/a GUI that chokes on hardware &lt;1 year old.

As long as Apple demonstrates they're awareness of X's shortcomings through their decision to stick with OS 9 for the time being i don't see much reason to complain, but come the time when we're standardized on X and have an entire consumer G3-based lineup feeling subjectively slower post-upgrade there's a serious problem. I just don't have much interest in an OS that uses 50% of my CPU cycles just rendering window resizes.. and i have a funny feeling that those working in productivity-driven environments such as graphic/design won't really have much interest (as Napier mentions above) either.

Seeing the improvements the .1 update brought i'm only hoping that the .2 update brings us up to the point where stability is no longer a question and the off-loading of Quartz onto the GPU much more efficient than it is now.

Speed

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: SpeedRacer ]

[moki]

Originally posted by ShyWizard:
<STRONG>I've seen a lot of mac users complaining about OS X , it's new interface, and its overall sluggishness. Would YOU be happy if Apple scrapped OS X and continued to support only OS 9 </STRONG>

The sooner Mac OS 9 is shot in the head and left for dead, the happier I will be.

That said, the user-centric ideas and ideals espoused in Mac OS 9 (and earlier) should be held onto tenaciously. Mac OS X is a very cool fusion of the geek (Unix) with the chic (Mac OS) -- but I definitely do not want to see this tilt towards the geek end of things.

The Mac OS isn't a platnum appearance, it isn't an Apple menu on the left, an application menu on the right -- those are merely the window dressings that have evolved over the years. They aren't necessarily the best way to do things.

No, what the Mac OS is about is being user-centric. That means that we as programmers have a mandate to figure out a way to make things easy for the user to do powerful manipulations with their computer.

Linux is the opposite of this mentality. In Linux, many things are the way they are for "technical" reasons -- the user experience is driven by the engineering issues. In other words, it is an absolute nightmare for the non-technical user. Imagine if you had to do as much manual tinkering with your car just to drive the damn thing as you have to do under Linux to do much of anything.

There is a fundemental mindset difference. Let's keep Mac OS developers on-track. Serious effort needs to be spent to ensure that complicated things are continually made easier and easier to do. Using a computer should be an enjoyable, liberating experience -- bringing the power of a computer to talented people who have no desire to learn the technical side is what the Mac OS is all about to me.

Elegance and intuitiveness. The Mac OS is an engineering philosophy, not a collection of UI widgets. People who use both Mac and Windows can *feel* the difference. I sure can -- I'm typing this on a crappy PC in and Internet cafe. I find it painful.

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: moki ]

[fmalloy]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>
The sooner Mac OS 9 is shot in the head and left for dead, the happier I will be.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: moki ]</STRONG>

Me too, only when X finally supports my beige G3's:

- Graphics acceleration
- SCSI CD-R
- SCSI scanner

Right now these are expensive boat anchors. I didn't even mention my now non-functional floppy drive.

I'm sick of hearing about how great X is. Sure, it doesn't crash, but it has nowhere near the hardware and application support of OS 9.

[moki]

Originally posted by fmalloy:
<STRONG>

Me too, only when X finally supports my beige G3's:

- Graphics acceleration
- SCSI CD-R
- SCSI scanner

</STRONG>

hrm. Well, as of Mac OS X 10.1.1, some SCSI CD-R's are indeed supported. Your scanner is likely up to your scanner manufacturer.

I agree with you that Mac OS X is slower than Mac OS 9 on non-dual processor machines, and I agree with you that the hardware and software support isn't up to Mac OS 9 levels yet. However, I wouldn't really expect it to be there yet.

Hopefully it will be more to your liking next year.

It all depends on what you need/want. For me, Mac OS X is so much better than Mac OS 9 that I refuse to go back. There is plenty of software available, and more coming every week now it seems. I'm happy.

[moki]

I wanted to add that the odds are pretty good that you'll never be happy with how Mac OS X runs on your beige g3. I just can't see it happening. It will always been slower than OS 9 on the same machine -- the eye candy and basic window sub-system was design for current and future hardware, not older Macs.

[nayr x]

When I had my first experience with OS X, I beta tested it... and I absolutly HATED IT. With a passion, even! I had been using Macintosh since it's conception, and this new operating system disgusted me! I even went as far as to go all over the internet yelling for a holy war to be waged against this new product. I held out until just a short time ago, when I got my mom a new iBook for her birthday and it had OS 10.1 on it. I finaly gave it another shot. I was really aprehensive about doing so. Even the version of X that came on my TI Book tickeled my gag reflex. Finally, after realizing that the move to X was unescapable, and that 10.1 finally made it stable and fast enough to support my daily needs, i reluctantly switched. One thing is for sure. I can never go back! After i hacked the hell out of the UI to make it more familiar (Finder menue, trash on the desktop things like that) I realized X was truly the way of the future. My biggest gripe now is that all the software I used before is obsolete. I design web pages and edit video in Final Cut, and things of that nature. Moving to OS X was like starting alllll over again. Damn software companies get to collect $ for all the same apps ported over to X. That pisses me off. Oh well. I just can't wait to see what this new system is capable of. I know this is just the begining, and X will run it's coures as far as the "classic" OS did. OS XVIII will be tight.

[theolein]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Theo--
I apologize for the length; you're mostly bearing the brunt of my admittedly poor writing style. I'm just long-winded. You'll get more of this below. Sorry.

&lt;snip&gt;</STRONG>

And I must apologise for being being an arrogant prick last night. I had an awful day and you bore the brunt of it. Sorry.

In any case if you do ever get the time, make a mock up, I would really be interrested in a visual example. You could possibly do it in flash to use animation to help bring your ideas across.

I wasn't referring to you when I said that too many people throw the HCI word around. I only read the Apple System 7 guidlines due to interface issues on a project that I did some years ago, and Raskin's HI by chance last year. But not many people have.

If there is anything that really disturbs me with OSX (although it really does get better from release to release) is the feeling sometimes that when you click on an icon, there often seems to be that small delay while the system figures out that your mouse is indeed above an icon and that it should do something about it.

I.E.Responsiveness. I think Apple will continue to work on this one because it is vitally important that they get the system working and the bugs ironed out. I personally like column views but apart from that don't really appreciate the present finder. but then again, judging from notes in the Applescript libraries, I think spring loaded folders will eventually come back as will Labels etc.

[edddeduck]

I agree responsiveness is very important IMHO esp for people trying it out it feels slower...

Also there are some glaring inconsistencies that need fixing the old full screen in QT going below the dock for one...

But on the whole I love X and could never go back

esp the dev tools.... Oh and omniweb...

Cheers Edd

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Bruce O'Neal:
<STRONG>i just wonder if apple will one day port os X to intel boxes. that would be an amazing thing and now that it is based on unix, i don't see why not?</STRONG>

Read this thread over. Look at just how many posts say, "I bought my Mac for OS X." There's your reason. Apple makes money from hardware. The Mac OS drives sales for the hardware. Apple would only hurt themselves by offering an x86 version of OS X.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>Read this thread over. Look at just how many posts say, "I bought my Mac for OS X." There's your reason. Apple makes money from hardware. The Mac OS drives sales for the hardware. Apple would only hurt themselves by offering an x86 version of OS X.</STRONG>

If one considers the amount of time Apple has taken uptil now to get Developers to port apps to MacOSX and the rather lacking support of many third-party drivers, I think that would be suicidal for Apple. It might be bouyed up by the fact that there are so many more developers for x86 compared to PPC and the Mac, however, as it would definitely be an incentive for some developers to increase their marketshare etc. But the simple fact of the time scale required to switch over would kill Apple. Be was a very good OS running on x86, arguably better than Win2000 and it had fairly good support for all the miriad third party devices on the x86 platform. Look where it ended up.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>Read this thread over. Look at just how many posts say, "I bought my Mac for OS X." There's your reason. Apple makes money from hardware. The Mac OS drives sales for the hardware. Apple would only hurt themselves by offering an x86 version of OS X.</STRONG>

I disagree. I bought my iBook partially because it was an iBook. However, for higher end I would simply not buy a TiBook because they are too expensive for my purposes. I WOULD consider buying a PC laptop with OS X though.

[cpt kangarooski]

theo--
Honestly, I didn't even notice. Think nothing of it. I think that there's definately some value in being able to 'put up' and believe me, I'd like to, I just don't think that the only alternative is 'shut up.' I'm not trying to be critical of you here, and I totally understand how people could reasonably be frustrated with people such as myself who tend to criticize w/o offering replacements.

As it happens, I also have a well-thumbed copy of the NextStep HIG at home as well. (somewhere... a fair amount of it's covered in the manuals that came with the NeXT anyway) And I ocassionally read through the HIG MS has online for Windows, which probably distinguishes me from most Windows developers!

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by cowerd:
<STRONG>
Note the use of the personal pronoun "I", usually indicated a reference to oneself in standard english. In other words I do believe he was speaking for himself. Redundant pithy remarks should be kept to a minimum.
</STRONG>

Also note "OS X clearly isn't a worthy successor." No use of the personal pronoun "I" in that one, Franky. Rather, made as though a statement of indisputable fact. Smug "can't you read" replies should be kept to a minimum.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Spirit, Gorilla--
As cowerd noted, I was. Still am. But I ask you -- am I proposing something worse than OS X? If so, in what way? I had been under the impression that I merely wanted something better from Apple's many years of effort than a reheated NextStep. I'd be very surprised if you cannot think of things that could be improved, and which are within realization, even at a very fundemental level.
</STRONG>

No, I'm not at all saying OS X cannot be improved upon at all. My problem rests within statements such as "OS X is clearly not a worthy successor" and the like, since it seems to indicate a statement of total fact that OS X is incapable of being a better OS than Classic was, and dismisses the notion that OS X can be improved even more rather than be abandoned for a more radical OS or can be improved upon without major, radical changes to the existing OS. There is a laundry list of things I'd like to see improved in OS X, but just saying "OS X is clearly not a worthy successor" is painting with FAR too broad of a brush. It's my personal view that in the vast majority of "things," OS X is far and away superior to OS 9. I'll even go so far as to be a heretic and say that on the whole, I think OS X has a superior interface to OS 9, WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THERE CAN'T BE IMPROVEMENTS, you see, but looking on the whole I honestly think Apple's advanced from OS 9's interface, not regressed. I'm completely opposed to the idea that the file system, interface, metadata, etc. etc. (just take your pick) of OS X is just fundamentally flawed and should be tossed out. OS X, as it stands right now, is in my belief a well-designed OS with some loose ends and shortcomings, not a fundamentally flawed "warmed-over" NeXT stepchild.