[JeffHarris]

I used and played with the Public Beta. It was RAW, but fun to play with.

I used 10.0 on a part time basis, perhaps 50/50.

I really switched full time with 10.1.

[ryju]

10.0 Baby! I got it in the mail after buying my iMac which only had 64mb RAM at the time. I was worried it wouldn't run but I installed it anyways, much fun.

[RTiMac]

There's a choice missing from the poll: I know it's hard for MacNN readers to believe, but a LOT of us out here in the real world still haven't switched yet!

I agree completely. You're forgetting about 40% of the Mac community.

The 40% that don't call you a troll if you disagree with their opinion.

[fergnetserv]

I used public beta on one machine but I still had to run most things in 9. I had another machine that was loaded with 9. I switched when X.0 came out. I haven't used 9 since early 02 and classic ended the same year. I had to work through problems with it crashing my machine every day but I got it fixed.

There wern't many apps to run but I tried to run all that wew available. MaIl.app was very crude but it worked very well. IE was very dissapointing and still is. Can't remember much else from then.

[NickBurnsMdwest]

I was running OS X the day the beta became available. It has been my OS of choice since 10.0.

However, due to my employer's reliance on MS Office, we had to wait for the first OS X native version.

Since Jaguar, we have never booted back into OS 9 or opened Classic within 0S X. We do not miss it.

[el_humpo]

I got my Pismo in Aug. of 2000 (had a beige g3 desktop before that). I was getting into UNIX programming, and ditched Windows for Linux on my PC in early 2000. Although I had a soft spot for OS 9 (having used it since 6.0.5 on an SE/30), I was frustrated by its limitations.

I pre-ordered 10.0 and followed the legendary 'build number' threads on this forum until my copy arrived. I immediately installed it on my pismo and haven't looked back since. My pismo is still my primary Mac, BTW.

FYI, I'm a programmer, so the only apps I really need is email+web browser, a terminal, and a text editor

[new newton]

Originally posted by Toyin:
Does anyone actually read other posts anymore? It was an easy decision for me.

Stop being defensive. No one is saying that no individual could possibly have reason to switch during the PB, but rather that it's highly unlikely that nearly 30% of the respondents to the poll started using OS X full time during the PB.

[lookmark]

There's a choice missing from the poll: I know it's hard for MacNN readers to believe, but a LOT of us out here in the real world still haven't switched yet!.

Originally posted by RTiMac:
I agree completely. You're forgetting about 40% of the Mac community.

Yeah, but this poll is for OS X users. Not every poll has to be about OS X vs. OS 9.

I'm amazed that so many switched to PB and 10.0. I mean, I tried the PB, and had a lot of fun with it for a brief period, and tried switching to 10.0 full-time for a month or so, but... too frustrating, at least for design work.

10.1 for me, and wouldn't have hurt to wait until 10.2. 100% time spent in OS X with 10.2.

[Simon]

Originally posted by new newton:
...but rather that it's highly unlikely that nearly 30% of the respondents to the poll started using OS X full time during the PB.

You're making the wrong assumptions. It's not that people are lying about switching to OS X PB full time. It's just that they don't do the same things you do and thus they may have been able to switch earlier.

I write code and papers. I need the CLI emacs text editor, a g++ compiler and latex. That's stuff that has been running on Unix platforms long before OS X. As soon as PB came along, I switched.

Not everybody relies on Quark and Co. and had to wait for ages, although, judging by all the bitching in these fora, there are quite some...

[lockhartt]

Same here in terms of usage versus true migration, it wasn't really ready for 100% use as primary OS before 10.1. I was at about 20-30% use in public beta, and 50-60% use with 10.0.X.

Unfortunately, I still have to come in contact with OS 9 in the office when I have to troubleshoot one of the other Macs... I'm under OS X, but we can't do a full migration until there's some global method to feed billing/accounting info to our myriad Canon digital copier/printers in the office (of course, it's delaying the deployment of WinXP for the PCs as well). They relied on mechanisms available to provide plug-ins to the AdobePS driver in the past... and that's just not there under X.

Originally posted by SLam:
I switched during the Public Beta days. But I didn't use it 100% of the time. I didn't fully migrated until 10.1. Upgrading my Blue & White to a G4 600MHz also made the migration less painful. (OS X on a G3 300MHz was dog slow) Now I don't remember the last time I used Classic.

[new newton]

Originally posted by Simon:
You're making the wrong assumptions. It's not that people are lying about switching to OS X PB full time. It's just that they don't do the same things you do and thus they may have been able to switch earlier.

The assumption I'm making is that people are answering the question "when did you first use OS X" rather than "when did you switch to OS X?" Seeing as not everyone who has voted has responded, we'll have a tough time determining that.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by new newton:
Stop being defensive. No one is saying that no individual could possibly have reason to switch during the PB, but rather that it's highly unlikely that nearly 30% of the respondents to the poll started using OS X full time during the PB.

I'm not being defensive. I could give a rats ass whether people believe I switched during the PB. The real proof can be found in MacFixit forums of that time, because I remember posting a whole lot over there back then.

The poster asked what the earlier switchers did with the PB. There were at least 2 posts after mine which described how earlier users used the PB. I'm simply saying READ THROUGH THE POSTS

30% doesn't seem that high for a board with ultra mac geeks that sit on the net for hours discussing leaked builds and future features of OSX.

Also the question is ambiguous. I considered it switching when I was in OSX more than OS9, but like I said in an earlier post I wasn't in 100% OSX until later. If the question was when were you 100% OSX I'm sure the 30% would drop.

[John123]

Originally posted by maceye:
Not to be rude, but why? I can't think of any reason to stay with 9, and I can say that I prefer using WIndows XP to OS 9 as, despite it's inefficiencies, it is capable of getting the job done without crashing (and it can do real multitasking, almost like OS X). I know there are a few apps and/or hardware devices that require OS 9, but that's why you can change your startup disk.

Like the guy who made the original post saying he preferred OS 9...I do too. And before someone tries to slam me and say that I should try OS X before dissing it...I've made the switch almost full-time. I just don't like it, which is why I refuse to buy one of the new PowerBooks (and money isn't even an object).

My personal reasons:

(1) It's faster if you don't really care about true multitasking, which I don't. (People talk lots about changing the way you work...but for me personally, OS 9 speeds up my life.)

(2) I really enjoy the zippiness I get out of the GUI when I start my 1Ghz PowerBook in OS 9 versus OS X. I can't imagine how fast a machine I'd need to make OS X's GUI that resopnsive to me.

(3) I hate the implementation of antialiased fonts in OS X as it's far less readable to me. I can read my screen in OS 9 without my glasses or contacts. It's tough for me in OS X. And yes, I've tried all 3 levels of font smoothing in OS X.

(4) I really never had a huge problem with crashes in OS 9. I ran a very lean System Folder and kept my machine in good shape. Very rarely have I lost work or even been dramatically slowed down by crashes, but I know that the experience of others has been different.

Those are my major thoughts and reasons. I'm well aware of all of the advantages, from multitasking to stability, of OS X. I just wish that I could have the best of both worlds.

[goMac]

I remember I hated OS X when I first heard of it (I actually didn't have the internet when it was announced, so I didn't even know it existed for a little while. I was still waiting for Copland ). I thought the idea of Apple using someone elses core was entirely stupid. I was actually preparing never to move to OS X and hold out on OS 9. I was even considering moving to 2k.

At work though we were on a DP program for OS X Server, which I was forced to use as my desktop OS. So in the end I got used to it and realized it wasn't so bad. I usually ended up using public beta at school in AP Programming, dual boot at home, and OS X server DP at work. When 10.0 came out I finally stopped booting into OS 9 at home, but I guess I really adopted back in the public beta days. The first OS X machine I actually used was running DP3.

[MacTheRiverRat]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
When did you move into the dark, untouched lands of OS X from the warm, comforting home of OS 9 or OS 8?

------------
Ok so I just got a refurbished ibook with OS X on it and have 10.3 from Apple waiting in the box. I can see I have alot of catching up to do . I've been stuck in 8.5.1 for awhile (way too long). I know, everyone's been telling me I need to upgrade but that takes money.

[adamschneider]

Originally posted by maceye:
Not to be rude, but why?

Because (a) OS 9 is a LOT faster on my WallStreet, even with a G4/500 upgrade; (b) I don't like the poofy interface with useless window edges and smoothed (blurry!) fonts; and (c) I would have to spend over $1000 in new software to avoid the hassles of using Classic mode. To get up to a truly usable speed, I'd also have to spend another $1000+ on a brand new laptop! $129, my foot.

I do have Jaguar installed on this thing, and I fiddle with it from time to time (if not for FruitMenu, I wouldn't be able to tolerate even that), but aside from the very cool ability to test things in Apache without being connected to the Internet, OS X doesn't really enhance my life much. Seriously.

I know it's tough for the hard core X-heads to accept, but there really are very good reasons for many people to stay with OS 9. If it ain't broke...

[John123]

Originally posted by adamschneider:
I know it's tough for the hard core X-heads to accept, but there really are very good reasons for many people to stay with OS 9. If it ain't broke...

This is so true. You know, when I've been in forums before and the "9 vs X" discussion comes up, I've seen some X users get downright belligerent. The way some of the diehards react, one would think I'd just called their wives a filfthy name!

I'm of the opinion "to each his own." If you can get your work done on 9 faster and better than you can with X, more power to you. If that's your situation, you shouldn't feel bullied into "upgrading" just because that's the path Apple has elected to follow.

[Stephane]

PM G4 400 Mhz during the PB, 10.0 and 10.1 times, then a PB G4 550 Mhz and 800 Mhz iBook since 10.1

As I recall, I used Public Beta at home for 95 % of my time (Web browsing, Writing and playing with the GUI) but kept OS 9 for work since as a graphic designer, PB was out of question.

With 10.0, I began to work with it (a lot in classic mode) just to learn the new OS and because of stability improvements. Also, I had little work at this time. I booted in OS 9 just when I was in a hurry for some works.

With 10.1, I was full time OS X and booted in OS 9 only to run games.

With 10.2 and 10.3, I erased OS 9.

I am still a bit envious of 0S 9 responsiveness but I think my soon to be bought Dual G5 should improve things... a lot.

[Stephane]

Originally posted by adamschneider:
Because (a) OS 9 is a LOT faster on my WallStreet, even with a G4/500 upgrade

I must say for OS X defense than while OS X GUI responsiveness, even improved through several upgrades, is far from being on par with OS 9, overall OS X celerity is superior to OS 9 for me (I manage faster a huge amount of files, stability is nearly perfect, and calculations are often faster)... even if It took me some months to tame the beast.

Just a question : is it just me or 8.1 was faster than 9.x.x ?

[John123]

Originally posted by Stephane:
I must say for OS X defense than while OS X GUI responsiveness, even improved through several upgrades, is far from being on par with OS 9, overall OS X celerity is superior to OS 9 for me (I manage faster a huge amount of files, stability is nearly perfect, and calculations are often faster)... even if It took me some months to tame the beast.

Just a question : is it just me or 8.1 was faster than 9.x.x ?

8.1 was a beast. It was, in my opinion, the best balanced OS in terms of functionality and raw speed that Apple ever designed. 8.5.x through 9.2.2 were more bloated, and performance took a hit as a result.

On the issue of speed of OS X: how exactly do you manage your huge amount of files? Scrolling through a folder of hundreds -- never mind thousands -- of items in the Finder in OS X is painfully slow. As for calculations, that's true in some instances and not in others (try filling down 10,000 cells in Excel 2001 versus Excel X for two *very* different experiences).

[Zadian]

Originally posted by John123:
On the issue of speed of OS X: how exactly do you manage your huge amount of files?

Column view without preview icons. It's fast - in fact, on my Mac it's faster than the Mac OS 9 Finder - and offers a very good overview of the folder structure.

[l008com]

Yeah I agree that last time scrolling was slow was like 10.0 wasn't it? For me 10.3 feels every bit as fast as 9. And where X really excels is managing files and working between applications when you have many open at once. With 9, you often CAN'T do two things at once, where in X you can do 2, 3 4 without even feeling a slowdown. Productivity goes through the roof. Which was the case even with PB, which is why I switched. Sure menus took an extra tenth of a second to draw? I can get over that, the net gain is still hugely in OS X's favor.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Toyin:
The poster asked what the earlier switchers did with the PB. There were at least 2 posts after mine which described how earlier users used the PB. I'm simply saying READ THROUGH THE POSTS

Actually, I asked why people switched to the Public Beta and what they did with it. I really can't say I've seen a single post that answers the first question. As for the second, the only thing I could detect in your previous posts is that you ran several apps under Classic because OS 9 was giving you problems. Unless I'm mistaken, running apps under Classic doesn't remove hardly any of the problems inherent in OS 9. Please let me know if I've misunderstood.

[MUGlover]

I first got to use X on a 2001 iBook with dual boot. By 10.2 I was interested in switching, but I had to wait until software for my wife's dissertation was upgraded.

Yesterday she ordered Endnote 7 and I discovered Remember? now has an OS X version. So you could say we finished the migration yesterday.

Now I only need Classic for old CD-ROMs and Inspiration (which has an OS X version I don't wish to buy), and ConcertWare, from which I am migrating to Sibelius. It also helped that TechTool Pro came out in a Panther-friendly version recently.

It's a fun poll, but not every big change occurs with the speed of the Berlin Wall going up (or down). Especially if people need to get their work done.

[apple4ever]

I pre-ordered 10.0 when it was announced. I waited by my door on Sat. March 24, 2001 for it to be delivered. As soon as the FedEx guy dropped it off, I ran upstairs and installed it on my iBook SE/366(that's right!) with 320MB of RAM. I never looked back. Sure, I booted into 9 for Norton and Games, but I used 10.0 full time. I was(and still am) a CompSci student, and we used linux, so I loved the Unix underpinnings. OmniWeb and Mail were(and still are) the best Web/Email apps out there. I pre-ordered 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, and each time I was blown away by the improvements.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by hudson1:
Actually, I asked why people switched to the Public Beta and what they did with it. I really can't say I've seen a single post that answers the first question. As for the second, the only thing I could detect in your previous posts is that you ran several apps under Classic because OS 9 was giving you problems. Unless I'm mistaken, running apps under Classic doesn't remove hardly any of the problems inherent in OS 9. Please let me know if I've misunderstood.

01-25-2004 08:10 AM posted by me.

Originally posted by Toyin:
The PB was my savior. PM 6500 (with G3 L2 card) and OS 8.6 was my most stable Classic OS. I spent hours fine tuning that OS (It also ran Linux PPC). Then came my Dual 500 with OS 9. I could never get this running well. Daily reboots were common and I didn't have the patience to sit through extension juggling like I did with 8.6 (probably because I had other options). I much preferred having to re-launch classic than reboot the entire machine.

In other words it was either OSX or Win2k for my next machine.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by adamschneider:
I know it's tough for the hard core X-heads to accept, but there really are very good reasons for many people to stay with OS 9. If it ain't broke...

I can understand staying with what works, especially if you make a living on the machine. However, I don't and I can name several reasons why I'd have to move on:
iTunes 4 + 3gen iPod
iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and Garageband
iChat AV
iSync synchronization using .mac (1st time I've ever had all my computers, webmail, and cellphone all in sync)
X11
Launchbar, Synergy and a plethora of very cool 3rd party enhancements

Originally posted by adamschneider:
I do have Jaguar installed on this thing, and I fiddle with it from time to time (if not for FruitMenu, I wouldn't be able to tolerate even that), but aside from the very cool ability to test things in Apache without being connected to the Internet, OS X doesn't really enhance my life much. Seriously.

I believe you, but you can't expect to function exactly the same in both environments. One of the reasons I moved over so early was to figure out the best ways to keep my work flow. In time I found my solutions on OSX were much faster than those on OS9

Originally posted by adamschneider:
Because (a) OS 9 is a LOT faster on my WallStreet, even with a G4/500 upgrade; (b) I don't like the poofy interface with useless window edges and smoothed (blurry!) fonts; and (c) I would have to spend over $1000 in new software to avoid the hassles of using Classic mode. To get up to a truly usable speed, I'd also have to spend another $1000+ on a brand new laptop! $129, my foot.

As it probably should be. OSX needs RAM and fast bus speed. However I've seen a Wallstreet with Jaguar and it wasn't too bad (not nearly as fast as OS9 but tolerable). I think with the GUI improvements in 10.3 it would be comparable.

Let's face it, you're going to have to buy new hardware someday. Then you can decide which OS you want to learn. The two main OS (XP and OSX) both have 'blurry' fonts (which can be disabled) and both main OS you're going to have to spring for new apps.

[John123]

Originally posted by Toyin:
I believe you, but you can't expect to function exactly the same in both environments. One of the reasons I moved over so early was to figure out the best ways to keep my work flow. In time I found my solutions on OSX were much faster than those on OS9

This is one of the statements that kind of burns me up (no offense, Toyin). The attitude of many (maybe most?) OS X users is that you should have to accept OS X as it is, beauty and warts together.

But if you look at what Adam Schneider said after I made my post, you'll notice a LOT of similarities in our defense of OS 9. And the kicker is that it would not be *that* technologically difficult for Apple to provide, within OS X, CHOICES to give users the best of both worlds. Example: system-based option to make fonts exactly as they were in OS 9, for those of us who prefer them pixel-y as opposed to blurry. Example: Apple menu functionality built-in, which I suspect would resolve some of the performance lag in hierarchical menus that you can see with FruitMenu.

The responses I have received in the past on these two examples is "Deal with it," and "Deal with it/use LaunchBar," respectively. But why?

The entire premise of the Macintosh has been about offering users a choice -- an alternative from what was stuffed down users' throats by Microsoft et al. Yet when some of us longtime Mac users ask for that same thing -- choice (this time within the OS, rather than between OSes) -- we often get blasted.

[vsurfer]

Public Beta in an iMac DV 400

Funny my iMac is my first Machine to go Panther, but I have to wait awhile before I Pantherize my Jaguar TiBook

[l008com]

I've always wanted to check out early versions of OS X, before they integrated Aqua. That would be very interesting to see OS X that looks like OS 9!! If anyone has one of these really old DP's, msg me!

[randymc]

I just got a g4 with panther. My first foray into OS X and I am lost, but gaining ground. Now I need to create a separate boot folder for OS 9 so I can use my software. randymc

[Randman]

Why did you revive a thread almost a year old just to post your short sentence?
Why do you add your name when it's already listed in your threads?

[Geezus_Aach]

just switched to panther 3 days ago! never seen jaguar or 10.1 ...before that, I had OS 9.2 ...which I had running for less than a 5 days. total time spent with a mac...1 week!

and lovin' every minute!!

[jamil5454]

I switched next week, when I will receive my first iBook.



PS - the whole forum/Satan knows about this, so don't feel special.

[Webscreamer]

Originally posted by randymc:
I just got a g4 with panther. My first foray into OS X and I am lost, but gaining ground. Now I need to create a separate boot folder for OS 9 so I can use my software. randymc

Are you running Mac OS X 10.3, and what kind of Mac? Just curious ;p

[theolein]

Since this ancient thread has been revived and I missed it the first time (and can't sleep), I'll post as well.

I've used Macs since 1990 (System 6.5) and they were a real blessing compared to PC's and Win3.x in those days. Then I left the computing world for a couple of years, and switched really, really early when I cam back: I bought a NeXT Cube in 1995. That was a fantastic machine, and the monitor was one of the best I've ever seen. I still miss the NeXT workspace and wish, as do some of the OS9'ers, that Apple had made skinning and customising the GUI more flexible than it is.

Then it was Macs and WinNT at work until 1999, when I had the opportunity to try out the DP4 release at work (We even had the Rhaspody Intel release running far faster than WinNT on a PC). I bought the Public Beta, but although it was fun, I considered it a bit lame next to PPC Linux and Mac OS8.6 on my 333MHz Lombard. I considered, and still do consider, Mac OS8.6 to be one of the most rugged OSes ever made. By that I mean that it could crash all over the place, but apart from an occasional disk doctor visit and a desktop rebuild, it would always come back up. I still have the same OS 8.6 install on my Lombard from 1999.

However, as soon as 10.0 came out, I switched. I was amazed by the power of all the Unix tools and the flexibility of web apps allowed by it.

I am now on my second G4 Powerbook since then, and have not booted into OS9 for over a year. Mac OSX just becomes more and more powerful with each release. That said, I think it actually took Expos� to make the OS as flexible as OS9. I've found that several of the OS9 features that were very useful, such as Windowshades, the Applemenu and the tabbed Windows at the edge of the screen, now have other ways of being done. For instance, instead of tabbed windows, I now make a folders full of application and data aliases which I put in the dock and right click on, and Expos� eliminates the need for Windowshades.

The OS9 debate:
I can understand some people not switching. I mean, after all, my sister still uses Win98 on her PC with Photoshop etc (as do some 25% of Windows users), even though its memory management is as bad as OS9's and it crashes on her frequently. She's simply scared of Win2k and XP. She says they're too complex for her. I can also understand the argument that if you're happy with OS9, and don't feel comfortable in OSX, then why spend the money on software upgrades? I even sold my last 667MHz TiPB to a lady who only wants to use OS9.

However, I recently was at a motorcycle club's clubhouse, and some Mac guy had just got them to switch from their virus infested PC to a Mac and had sold them a dual 1.25GHz machine. But the machine only had 256MB RAM, and the guy had sold them a bunch of older software and installed OS9 on it. What a mess.

The motorbike guys of course didn't know about OS9 specialities, such as allocating memory and stuff like that, and as a consequence were confronted with out of memory errors and crashes almost constantly when they opened a whole load of applications at once. They were really pissed off and were asking why the Mac is supposed to be so good. I got them some cheap RAM and am installing OSX on their machine next week. After they saw OSX on my laptop and had tried it out they found it a lot simpler than OS9.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by theolein:
I've used Macs since 1990 (System 6.5)

<anal retentive nitpick>
Actually, I think you meant System 6.0.5.
</anal retentive nitpick>

Yes, 6.0.x was a great OS...

[timmerk]

I switched when DP4 came out.