Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

zootbobbalu · Dec 13, 2001, 10:32 AM

Why Mac OS X rules!!

I knew this all along, but I never read such a personal account of how the world
wide web came to be. People who haven't tried to program in Cocoa are missing
out, because you don't know how easy it is to take an idea and bring it to life with
NeXTStep/OpenStep/Cocoa. Check out the link below:

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/...1201/213460233

Facts:

1. WorldWideWeb was created on a NeXT computer
2. The first web server was a NeXT computer
3. Macs brought GUI to the masses
4. AOL used to be Mac only
5. Apple/NeXT rules!!

Nice info to help plug your ears when you hear a neo-maxie-zoom-PeeCee user
brag.

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: zootbobbalu ]

Cipher13 · Dec 14, 2001, 05:29 AM

OSX isn't NeXT.

There are key differences; of which I'll tout one.

You see... NeXT was actually FAST.

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

Jerommeke · Dec 14, 2001, 09:18 AM

and OS X is too when you're running it on a non-historical mac

Cipher13 · Dec 14, 2001, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Jerommeke:
and OS X is too when you're running it on a non-historical mac

...but then, so's your Moped, right?

Dec 14, 2001, 09:35 AM

What part of NeXT is faster. The original NeXT cube?

You obviously didn't get the main point I was trying to make. NeXTStep/OpenStep/Cocoa is what makes Mac OS X so great. In the article Tim talks about how NeXTStep empowered him to quickly and easily develop his web ideas. Steven Jobs' philosophy of what a computing experience should be is exemplified in NeXTStep quite well. Cocoa inherits NeXTSteps traits of quick development times and ease of programming.

What part of OS X is slow? If you are referring to the Finder and some parts of Aqua, then I agree with you. But, I bet a foundation class app running under OS X on a G4 is just as fast as a foundation class app running on a comparable NeXT system (if one exists). Apple is taking care of the speed issues with the Finder, so don't be so quick to generalize that a NeXT system is faster than a Mac.

Cipher13 · Dec 14, 2001, 10:17 AM

If what I can feel, what I can touch, feels like sh!t, then it may as well be sh!t, no?

Right.

I don't doubt the guts of OSX are fast; but I don't care either. If we can't INTERACT with it quickly, whats the damn point?

This OS is *NOT* meant to be a server OS, and so the speed of the UI is just as important as the speed at which tasks execute.

OSX is NOT NeXT.

fisherKing · Dec 14, 2001, 10:21 AM

X is (now) fast. nice.
but i need APPS!!
quark, photoshop. dreamweaver etc. reason.ETC ETC.
until i can actually WORK in the OS (as opposed to admiring it for itself ),
9.x is the way to go.

okay...quark will, judging from history, not be ported to X in my lifetime *sigh*

Jerommeke · Dec 14, 2001, 12:49 PM

moped?

i as a dutchy don't know that word

but what i can say
mac os x is way "SNAPPY" at my imac 500 mhz early 2001

Agent69 · Dec 14, 2001, 01:42 PM

Cypher is right. I used to own a NeXTStation (25Mhz 68040, 64MB RAM) and it felt a lot faster then MacOS X does on my iBook (500Mhz, 384MB RAM).

(And, I feel, it was a better OS then too)

Agent69

Stan Jobson · Dec 14, 2001, 11:15 PM

OS X will rule when it's fast enough and has more apps...For now...I'm going to stick with 9.2.1. Oh...OS X will also rule when it fixes al ittle more things, which I don't feel like talking aobut now.

Cipher13 · Dec 15, 2001, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by fisherKing:
X is (now) fast. nice.
but i need APPS!!
quark, photoshop. dreamweaver etc. reason.ETC ETC.
until i can actually WORK in the OS (as opposed to admiring it for itself ),
9.x is the way to go.

okay...quark will, judging from history, not be ported to X in my lifetime *sigh*

I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly call OSX fast.

fisherKing · Dec 15, 2001, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:


I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly call OSX fast.

fast, as in faster now than before, that's all.
reminds me of my first mac, the 6100/60 (60, as in 60mhz)

i took X off my powerbook. there's work to do!

9.x rules.

sek929 · Dec 16, 2001, 05:06 PM

If OSX is considered fast that I better enter my Nissan pickup in the Daytona 500 asap......

9.x does rule, it does exactly what I want it to do 100% of the time. X does 50% of what I need 50% of the time.....blech.

MikeM32 · Dec 16, 2001, 07:07 PM

and OS X is too when you're running it on a non-historical mac

If a "non-historical" Mac means one that's a year old as opposed to 6 months old then I suppose everyone's screwed. Everything I've read indicates that OSX doesn't even perform well on some of the latest and fastest systems out there.

And here I was thinking it just sucked on my old Beige G3 desktop

Mike

sek929 · Dec 16, 2001, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by MikeM32:


If a "non-historical" Mac means one that's a year old as opposed to 6 months old then I suppose everyone's screwed. Everything I've read indicates that OSX doesn't even perform well on some of the latest and fastest systems out there.

And here I was thinking it just sucked on my old Beige G3 desktop

Mike

Give the man a cigar!

On my brand-new 733 Quicksilver with 640 of RAM 10.1 is a slug. Believe me, you are not alone by a long shot.

lucylawless · Dec 16, 2001, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:


I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly call OSX fast.

it's fast because photoshop brought down classic 3 times today, and the finder and IE each crashed twice, and none of them even broke my dialup connection. On a normal OS 9 day all this nonsense would have cost me hours of backstepping

tinrib · Dec 16, 2001, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by lucylawless:


it's fast because photoshop brought down classic 3 times today, and the finder and IE each crashed twice, and none of them even broke my dialup connection. On a normal OS 9 day all this nonsense would have cost me hours of backstepping

this is a pro-OS X argument?

not only is it slow, it's more unstable than OS 9?

michaelb · Dec 16, 2001, 08:42 PM

OS X is running a top-heavy windowing system where EVERY SINGLE PIXEL is alpha-channeled, double-buffered, and mapped into memory.

With all that extra load to shovel around (and none of it is helped by current generation video accelerators) Mac OS X has to be slower than an OS which doesn't. Anyone who can't see this -- "X is as fast a 9 for me!" -- is deceiving themselves.

For people who are used to having an entire processor devoted to pulling down a menu (OS 9 freezes all app activity to do this) OS X's measly couple of % multitasking allocation can feel very frustrating.

OS X's "problem" is that it is a future-generation OS running on past-generation hardware.

For many people, it will only begin to shine when > 1 GHz processors, and perhaps even 64-bit G5s are commonplace.

For now, Mac OS X is mainly for those who are patient and want to dip their toes into the future or mine the vast resources of unix, and don't drink too much coffee before trying to resize a window!

For the rest of us, OS 9 does nicely until the hardware catches up. (Personally, I run two machines, one 9, one X. I'm still more productive in 9, but I'm hoping that will change during 2002.)

zootbobbalu · Dec 17, 2001, 02:23 AM

michaelb's comments about why Aqua is slow is a good one. Everyone who is complaining about the slow GUI in OS X needs to be patient. But, I'm running a G4 Cube clocked at 450MHz and I don't feel like I'm waiting around for anything. My menus pull down quick, window resizing is slow (but not like molasses) and overall the GUI is pretty snappy to me. I love having dialog boxes that dont force you to close them before you can do something else. I love having a stable OS (haven't had a crash since version 10.0.2). I love how Aqua looks and feels (after I turn off all the animation stuff). Overall I think that OS X is the best OS yet. But all of this is not why I think OS X rules.

OS X rules because of the development tools that come with it. Cocoa is a dream to work with. If you don't code much, all you have to realize about why Cocoa is such a big deal is this. Cocoa will continue to empower creative minds. This means that there will be a good chance that the NeXT great groundbreaking app will be developed for a Mac.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: zootbobbalu ]

OverclockedHomoSapien · Dec 17, 2001, 07:47 PM

OS X is a bit slow, but it still rocks. I use it unless I have real work to do, at which point I go back to OS 9. But when I have all the apps I need in OS X versions, I'll have no need for OS 9.

Why do I like OS X better? It may be a bit slower, but it's more stable. And that speed is a deceptive issue. While the GUI response is slower in X, I can do several things at once, something that is impossible in OS 9.

Now that I'm used to multitasking in OS X, when I use OS 9 it feels slow. Sure, the GUI is snappy, but the OS is slow at doing tasks.

And this is on a Sawtooth 400 MHz, 576 MB RAM.

edddeduck · Dec 17, 2001, 07:57 PM

I just like the way its bomb proof unlike 9 which I admit can be stable.

But if you wanna talk about fast run a quicktime movie and MS word at the same time in 9 mmm... super jerky vision and dvd is not even worth it. Both of these hand np in X there is something to be said for being able to do other things while burning CD's and/or copying over a network. In 9 its not very easy or fast in X my machine just changes gears and keeps on going...

9 was great and fast for something but bad for multitasking esp compared to a new OS like X.. So I work in X and play games in 9 (my only reason to boot into 9)

wrong way round for some I guess.

Cheers Edd

Cipher13 · Dec 19, 2001, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by lucylawless:


it's fast because photoshop brought down classic 3 times today, and the finder and IE each crashed twice, and none of them even broke my dialup connection. On a normal OS 9 day all this nonsense would have cost me hours of backstepping

Well, OS9 simply wouldn't have crashed

I see no advantage in using X. What the hell good is an operating system that doesn't crash if your apps do???

Tell me how OS9 would have cost you hours of backstepping? It is APP stability that is important! If an app crashes you lose your work; right? If an app in OSX crashes, you lose your work. Same as if the system crashes in OS9. Either way...

Having ultimate system stability is absolutely friggin' useless. It's the apps that need it.

Classic is a shoddy implementation. If you're gonna use classic apps, at least boot into OS9.

Cipher13 · Dec 19, 2001, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by michaelb:
OS X is running a top-heavy windowing system where EVERY SINGLE PIXEL is alpha-channeled, double-buffered, and mapped into memory.

With all that extra load to shovel around (and none of it is helped by current generation video accelerators) Mac OS X has to be slower than an OS which doesn't. Anyone who can't see this -- "X is as fast a 9 for me!" -- is deceiving themselves.

For people who are used to having an entire processor devoted to pulling down a menu (OS 9 freezes all app activity to do this) OS X's measly couple of % multitasking allocation can feel very frustrating.

OS X's "problem" is that it is a future-generation OS running on past-generation hardware.

For many people, it will only begin to shine when > 1 GHz processors, and perhaps even 64-bit G5s are commonplace.

For now, Mac OS X is mainly for those who are patient and want to dip their toes into the future or mine the vast resources of unix, and don't drink too much coffee before trying to resize a window!

For the rest of us, OS 9 does nicely until the hardware catches up. (Personally, I run two machines, one 9, one X. I'm still more productive in 9, but I'm hoping that will change during 2002.)

Don't try to justify it; a the requirements of a "Next Generation OS" shouldn't include shadows, transparency, fading and other special effects. Those are absolutely *USELESS* and completely destroy the experience. For Heaven's sake, Rhapsody felt faster!

Originally posted by edddeduck:
I just like the way its bomb proof unlike 9 which I admit can be stable.

But if you wanna talk about fast run a quicktime movie and MS word at the same time in 9 mmm... super jerky vision and dvd is not even worth it. Both of these hand np in X there is something to be said for being able to do other things while burning CD's and/or copying over a network. In 9 its not very easy or fast in X my machine just changes gears and keeps on going...

9 was great and fast for something but bad for multitasking esp compared to a new OS like X.. So I work in X and play games in 9 (my only reason to boot into 9)

wrong way round for some I guess.

Cheers Edd

Well, looks like your dual processor machine is a little lacking, I can do all that just fine in OS9... Sawtooth 400 with 704 megs of RAM.

iPaul UK · Dec 20, 2001, 11:12 AM

How about bragging/bitching about it in the OS X forum then..

Dec 20, 2001, 12:42 PM

So much hate and negativity....

zootbobbalu · Dec 21, 2001, 02:37 AM

oops.....

I'm new to this forum and didn't know there was as seperate section for OS X stuff.

Sorry :-(