[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by finboy:
And for whoever posted about X being the "fastest adoption in history": it wasn't by choice!!!! I wonder how fast it would have been adopted if folks had been given a choice between a revised OS 9 and X.

That's the strangest post in this thread. Revised OS 9? You can't be serious... That would have been a complete waste of time and R&D budget. Remember that OS 8 was already becoming old technology in its time, and OS 9 really was just like OS 8 warmed over in many ways. Anyways, Apple's OS 9-capable machines can still dual-boot OS 9 of course even now, and you can even run both OSes simultaneously, with Classic.

For the record, both my machines, a 1.7 GHz Cube and a 1 GHz PowerBook, can run OS 9. I have OS 9 installed on neither, not even for Classic. Like I said before. Good riddance.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Yet Mac users have been flocking to OS X, in droves.

�Flocking�? In droves?

Four years later we got to what, a forced 40% adoption rate? 50% perhaps?
The creative industry, (one of) the largest supporter(s) of Apple over the years has been VERY, very slow to switch to OS X, I wonder why?

First, the reason was �native Photoshop�. Then the cause for the non-existant adoption was �Quark�. Then it was the �slow hardware� (read: the slow system). The G5s arrived and there they are, sleeping on the shelves quarter after quarter.
If anything, I've never seen so many creative Mac users buying their first PC since OS X entered the stage.

And since you mentioned the people who are now looking at OS X as a serious option I don't think the potential switchers from the Unix camp can compensate for the lost sales to the pro graphics market. It's clear who needs the expensive high-end/high-revenue towers and who can do perfectly well on an iBook.

The sad part is Apple could have had both.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
For the record, both my machines, a 1.7 GHz Cube and a 1 GHz PowerBook, can run OS 9. I have OS 9 installed on neither, not even for Classic. Like I said before. Good riddance.

What do you know?

You were using PCs all this time, Eug, remember? You switched from Windows to OS X, I'm afraid you don't know the Mac well enough to say �good riddance�.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
What do you know?

You were using PCs all this time, Eug, remember? You switched from Windows to OS X, I'm afraid you don't know the Mac well enough to say �good riddance�.

We already went over this in other threads. I used OS 9 machines at work, but never BOUGHT a Mac for myself for home until OS X.1 came out. Cuz OS 9 was a POS. Mediocre UI, and 10 times worse under the hood.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
�Flocking�? In droves?

Four years later we got to what, a forced 40% adoption rate? 50% perhaps?
The creative industry, (one of) the largest supporter(s) of Apple over the years has been VERY, very slow to switch to OS X, I wonder why?

First, the reason was �native Photoshop�. Then the cause for the non-existant adoption was �Quark�. Then it was the �slow hardware� (read: the slow system). The G5s arrived and there they are, sleeping on the shelves quarter after quarter.
If anything, I've never seen so many creative Mac users buying their first PC since OS X entered the stage.

And since you mentioned the people who are now looking at OS X as a serious option I don't think the potential switchers from the Unix camp can compensate for the lost sales to the pro graphics market. It's clear who needs the expensive high-end/high-revenue towers and who can do perfectly well on an iBook.

The sad part is Apple could have had both.

I really don't think that the OS 9 interface is what kept designers on the mac. I work with quite a few designers, and none of them like os 9 at all.

The only people that miss OS 9 are the ones that thought messing with extensions made them l33t haxx0rs, such as yourself.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
�Flocking�? In droves?

Four years later we got to what, a forced 40% adoption rate? 50% perhaps?

The OS X adoption rate is pretty damn good. Remember that lots of people, like my mom for instance, are non-technical users and just keep what came on the hard drive and don't have any idea how or why to upgrade it. There are people like this who are still using 7.5.3. Among people who know enough to know what OS X is, the adoption rate is excellent. I never see OS 9 running on a machine that's not ancient these days unless it's a situation like I described above (mostly elderly users for whom it's best not to change anything).

Oh, and:



This thread is not about OS 9 vs. OS X!

[chris v]

OS 8.1, baybay. I used to get weeks at a time. Best was 61 days. Never ever got more than 3 or 4 days with any of the 9.x variants. Mostly Illustrator brought it down. Often multiple times a day. And don't... talk... to... me... about... trouble-shooting.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
I really don't think that the OS 9 interface is what kept designers on the mac. I work with quite a few designers, and none of them like os 9 at all.

The only people that miss OS 9 are the ones that thought messing with extensions made them l33t haxx0rs, such as yourself.

That and the fact there are costs to upgrading, both in terms of cash and in terms of time. Also, there's the simple truth of inertia.

My friend works at one place and they have uber-old custom software that runs on OS 9, and it seems to work OK. Moving to OS X would mean they'd have to rewrite the software, since AFAIK it doesn't run under Classic, and there's no point anyway, since very old G4s run it fine. The machine does one thing, and one thing only, so even OS 9 is passable for its use.

Most of the other stuff they do isn't too CPU-intensive, so there's no incentive for the bosses to upgrade the hardware either. Fortunately for them though, they're relatively self-contained. They can work with OS 9 software, having dedicated machines for each purpose, and get their work done well enough, except with reboots of some of the machines every now and then. However, it's not as if they love OS 9. They just use it because they have to.

My other friend (who had the luxury of running the dept. and deciding for himself what to use) moved to InDesign on OS X a long time ago, and has never looked back.

Anyways, back on topic:

It depends on how old the computer is:

For general use, and if it's 500 MHz or greater, OS X.

If it's less than 350 MHz, maybe OS 8/9 or Linux. Or better yet, buy a new computer.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
This is simply not true. I run an iMac and Power Mac Beige, and simply like the OS 9 products.

Then keep using them. No one can force you to stop. However, neither can you force anyone to keep going.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
The only people that miss OS 9 are the ones that thought messing with extensions made them l33t haxx0rs, such as yourself.

You just don't get it. It's OK.

[velocitychannel]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
I have to agree with mAxximo to a certain extent. Don't get me wrong, OS 9 was well over the hill by the time Apple retired it, and I really love OS X. Aqua OTOH, well, I don't dislike it (in fact I used the aqua appearance file way back when OS 9 was my workhorse), it's just that it's too big and in-your-face. Platinum was smaller, there was less guff around windows, all windows (except QT player and iTunes) had a common look, and the whole thing just looked sleeker. There's a reason my office has just managed to sell our old Macs to a design house - they don't want to run OS X and so they have to snap up pre-X G3 and G4s wherever possible.

I have to agree with this. I love OSX, but sometimes Aqua is just too distracting and flashy. OS9's (and those before it) UI was plain and subtle and stayed out of your way.

With that said, doesn't anyone here remember the horribly unstable System 7.5.x? I swear I used to have to reboot my PowerBook 540c at least once an hour with all the Type 1 or Type 11 errors or whatever they were. 7.5.x made OS9 look like OSX!

[theolein]

Originally posted by velocitychannel:
I have to agree with this. I love OSX, but sometimes Aqua is just too distracting and flashy. OS9's (and those before it) UI was plain and subtle and stayed out of your way.

With that said, doesn't anyone here remember the horribly unstable System 7.5.x? I swear I used to have to reboot my PowerBook 540c at least once an hour with all the Type 1 or Type 11 errors or whatever they were. 7.5.x made OS9 look like OSX!

I have to agree with that as well. While, OSX is a modern wonder technically, it isn't as easy to use as Classic MacOS was. There really is a lot of graphical fluff in OSX, which can be extremely distracting for sensitive designer types. Most of the places I worked, each designer would set up his desktop to his or her liking and never touch it again. Most of them would have ATM Deluxe or Suitcase, one or two small System extras, their applications and files organised in pop-up folders on the desktop (Of all OS9 features, this is the one I really miss) and that would be that. OS9 was definitely more responsive than OSX is and the GUI was far less intrusive than OSX is.

I also know quite a few designers that switched over Win2k in the critical 2000-2001 period. Some of them have switched back but most of them now use Win2k or XP (with the old fashioned GUI) in the same manner as they used OS9.

The thing is that for most designers the machine was similar to a movie cutter's workplace or a painter's canvas and palette: a tool for doing a constrained set of tasks. They're generally a conservative bunch app-wise as they need their machines to work. They don't generally sit and chat online, writing emails and browsing while they work.

Still, I personally prefer OSX. The big commercial apps are starting to get there interface wise (witness PS7 vs. PS8 or Office vX vs. Office 2004) and the stability is extremely good.

[analogika]

Originally posted by theolein:
OSX... isn't as easy to use as Classic MacOS was.

This runs completely contrary to all experience with customers, friends, acquaintances, and my own machines.

The ONLY people for whom OS X is not easier than OS 9 are those accustomed to using OS 9 and working around its idiosyncrasies and limitations.

It starts with mundane stuff like configuring internet/Airport/network connections and being able to access them in parallel, and then things like global drag and drop that actually works in nearly all instances (even across Expos� and cmd-tab). (As for Expos�...say no more.)

Yeah, it's more colourful, and the eye-candy might be a little hard on designers' eyes.

But frankly, Platinum was hard on *my* eyes, and what color the window widgets happen to be until you feel the need to skin them is hardly a fundamental usability issue. (no, mAxx, it's not)

[theolein]

Originally posted by analogika:
This runs completely contrary to all experience with customers, friends, acquaintances, and my own machines.

The ONLY people for whom OS X is not easier than OS 9 are those accustomed to using OS 9 and working around its idiosyncrasies and limitations.

It starts with mundane stuff like configuring internet/Airport/network connections and being able to access them in parallel, and then things like global drag and drop that actually works in nearly all instances (even across Expos� and cmd-tab). (As for Expos�...say no more.)

Yeah, it's more colourful, and the eye-candy might be a little hard on designers' eyes.

But frankly, Platinum was hard on *my* eyes, and what color the window widgets happen to be until you feel the need to skin them is hardly a fundamental usability issue. (no, mAxx, it's not)

Uhm, Cmd-tab works in OS9 as well, as did drag and drop. And I still say that most of the designers I worked with used pop-up folders and spent most of their time in only a few apps. Folders in the Dock are simply too unresponsive to make a comparison there.

Sure, I personally have adpated to OSX and like it (Expose is fantastic), but, for people who spend their day in two or three design apps and don't reconfigure the network etc all the time, and who like the lack of eye candy in default OS9, I can understand the position that OS9 is easier to use.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by theolein:
Uhm, Cmd-tab works in OS9 as well, as did drag and drop.

He was talking about drag and drop that works across command-tab. Pick up a file, then command-tab to another app while the mouse is still down. Or exposé to another window while the mouse is down. You can continue your drag-and-drop. It's handy.

Sigh... I guess this thread is pretty much hosed.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Then keep using them. No one can force you to stop. However, neither can you force anyone to keep going.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I only use OS 9 because Panther isn't supported on the Beige, and gives me errors on the iMac (don't know why.) I'd choose 9 over Linux on the Mac any day - I have my $200 used PCs for Linux. And I have a modern Mac (soon, two modern Macs) running OS X 10.3, and they're my main machines. I use them most of the time, but every now and then, either because my mom is using the computer or for nostalgia's sake, I check out the ol' 9 machines. They're so cute...

[strepidus]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
You just don't get it. It's OK.

LOL, so this is where mAxximo is now...I must say, the MacAch is much more peaceful these days, but it's nice to see that some things will never change...

But back on topic, OS 8.6 was about as stable as OS 9 for me...they both froze up and bombed occasionally (like maybe once a week), even though I definitely was a 'leet extension master (armed with Conflict Catcher and all).

On OS X though, I've maybe had to force restart twice in the last 2 years...

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
Sorry I wasn't clear. I only use OS 9 because Panther isn't supported on the Beige, and gives me errors on the iMac (don't know why.) I'd choose 9 over Linux on the Mac any day - I have my $200 used PCs for Linux. And I have a modern Mac (soon, two modern Macs) running OS X 10.3, and they're my main machines. I use them most of the time, but every now and then, either because my mom is using the computer or for nostalgia's sake, I check out the ol' 9 machines. They're so cute...

Okay, great. In that case, I agree with you. It's definitely a better idea to use the classic Mac OS (or Linux) on old G3 hardware than OS X, because OS X really is not designed for such old machines.

And for the classic OS, I guess I'd prefer 8.6 over 9 if you don't use some app that requires 9. If some app needs to run on 9, then you're stuck...

[analogika]

Originally posted by theolein:
Uhm, Cmd-tab works in OS9 as well, as did drag and drop.

Not WHILE YOU ARE DRAGGING an object.

You always had to make sure that you pre-arranged your windows just so as to make the exact location you wanted to drag to visible even after the source window popped to the front once you clicked in it (which it invariably did). It was a HELL of a lot better than Windows, but in comparison to how you can work with it in OS X due to Expos� and Cmd-Tab, it was a pathetic, clumsy mess - even with the later addition of the very fragile pop-up folder system.

And drag-and-drop isn't *nearly* as pervasive as in OS X, where it works almost anywhere, with anything, including filepaths.

[analogika]

Originally posted by strepidus:
LOL, so this is where mAxximo is now...I must say, the MacAch is much more peaceful these days, but it's nice to see that some things will never change...

Ah, no, he's just got bored with thalo.net lately, it seems.

And remarkably, he's actually accepted recently that OS 9 was a technological disaster.

[theolein]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
He was talking about drag and drop that works across command-tab. Pick up a file, then command-tab to another app while the mouse is still down. Or exposé to another window while the mouse is down. You can continue your drag-and-drop. It's handy.

Sigh... I guess this thread is pretty much hosed.

You're right about the thread being hosed, and I'm partly to be blamed for that. Sorry.

Still, while we're off on the tangent...

I see what you mean about Cmd-tabbing. Silly of me since I use this (with Expose) fairly often.

[theolein]

Originally posted by analogika:
Not WHILE YOU ARE DRAGGING an object.

You always had to make sure that you pre-arranged your windows just so as to make the exact location you wanted to drag to visible even after the source window popped to the front once you clicked in it (which it invariably did). It was a HELL of a lot better than Windows, but in comparison to how you can work with it in OS X due to Expos� and Cmd-Tab, it was a pathetic, clumsy mess - even with the later addition of the very fragile pop-up folder system.

And drag-and-drop isn't *nearly* as pervasive as in OS X, where it works almost anywhere, with anything, including filepaths.

You can tell all that to the women who bought my 667MHz TiBook in October. You can shout at her as well. She's a designer and specifically wanted a machine that can run OS9, so of course, she must be wrong.

I still don't think that it changes my argument much though. Drag and drop between Adobe applications and bettwen all applications andthe Finder has been around for a long time, and, for those people who focus on only a limited set of design applications, I can see the preference for OS9. As I said, I think it lies mainly in the fact that the OS9 GUI has less fluff and is more responsive when compared to OSX and pop-up folders (and really, spheric, when you start to shout, please point out where I'm wrong about this one). Despite your claim about "the pathetic mess" and "fragile pop-up folders" (just what the hell is fragile about them anyway?), this is one feature that I do miss from OS8/9.

Remember, I'm not talking about myself. I have no classic Mac OS machine anymore. My old Lombard runs Panther as a test bed for experimental stuff and Classic on my Powerbook gets used very seldom. I'm simply pointing out that there were numerous designers who switched only very slowly or still haven't. I know, dammit, because I sold my 667MHz TiBook to one via a shop last October. She wanted a machine that ran OS9 without the burden of Classic. The guy in the shop where I did the trade-in told me that he still gets regular requests for second hand machines that run OS9 from designers.

I make no claims about numbers, but it's pretty obvious that there is a crowd out there who still prefer OS9.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by velocitychannel:
I have to agree with this. I love OSX, but sometimes Aqua is just too distracting and flashy. OS9's (and those before it) UI was plain and subtle and stayed out of your way.

I don't follow. What's distracting about Aqua?

With that said, doesn't anyone here remember the horribly unstable System 7.5.x? I swear I used to have to reboot my PowerBook 540c at least once an hour with all the Type 1 or Type 11 errors or whatever they were. 7.5.x made OS9 look like OSX!

7.5.x was never quite that unstable for me, though 7.1 and 8.0 were certainly both much better, to say nothing of 8.6 (which is probably my favorite of the older versions).

The one thing I really miss from the 7.5 days -aside from the much-lamented OpenDoc- is Apple Guide. Aside from providing text and automating some simple things, AG was the only system I ever saw that could draw "coach marks" around controls. This let the system call attention to a control you needed to use, by drawing a big circle or checkmark around or near it. The effect was animated, so it looked like someone was drawing on your screen with a thick marker. I was also a fan of Balloon Help, which I always felt one-upped tooltips by pointing straight at the object it was describing in addition to floating nearby.

[analogika]

Originally posted by theolein:
You can tell all that to the women who bought my 667MHz TiBook in October. You can shout at her as well. She's a designer and specifically wanted a machine that can run OS9, so of course, she must be wrong.

I still don't think that it changes my argument much though. Drag and drop between Adobe applications and bettwen all applications andthe Finder has been around for a long time, and, for those people who focus on only a limited set of design applications, I can see the preference for OS9. As I said, I think it lies mainly in the fact that the OS9 GUI has less fluff and is more responsive when compared to OSX and pop-up folders (and really, spheric, when you start to shout, please point out where I'm wrong about this one). Despite your claim about "the pathetic mess" and "fragile pop-up folders" (just what the hell is fragile about them anyway?), this is one feature that I do miss from OS8/9.

Sorry about the shouting - I meant emphasis, not shouting, really.

And pop-up folders *are* a very fragile system. Drag something on a folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the target, drag to the appropriate folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the target, drag to the appropriate folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the targe...WHOOOPS your mouse was over a folder as you were looking around and the WRONG ****ING FOLDER WINDOW opened, so you drag outside that window and *fwup* you start ALL OVER.

And as for drag-and-drop: Now draggable - folders (into open/save dialogs for file paths - yes, those same dialogs that used to completely block the entire system -, into Terminal for file paths. Internet links (into all application windows of all applications that can deal with internet protocols). Pics (this worked much of the time in Classic OS, but not nearly as pervasively). vCards. I could just drag the Outlook Express 5 contacts file into the Address Book on a client's machine yesterday to import all his contacts.

I'm not discounting that your designer friends have solid reasons for preferring OS 9. I'm sure they do. (Most of them are to do with accustomed workflows and previous investment, I'm sure, but there is Platinum and Snappy�.)

I'm saying that in OS X, Macintosh has undergone a fundamental redesign that has *finally* made it worthy of the name "Macintosh" again - as a system whose hallmark is not making complex processes manageable, but making complex processes *simple*, and empowering not the expert, but Empowering the Rest of Us�.

Something Apple had lost the knack for sometime after System 7.X, due to inherent technical limitations of the System.

-s*

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by analogika:
And pop-up folders *are* a very fragile system. Drag something on a folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the target, drag to the appropriate folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the target, drag to the appropriate folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the targe...WHOOOPS your mouse was over a folder as you were looking around and the WRONG ****ING FOLDER WINDOW opened, so you drag outside that window and *fwup* you start ALL OVER.

Pop-up Folders are amazing. My whole workflow on the Mac was centered around them. What seems to be fragile here are your drag and drop abilities.

I'm saying that in OS X, Macintosh has undergone a fundamental redesign that has *finally* made it worthy of the name "Macintosh" again - as a system whose hallmark is not making complex processes manageable, but making complex processes *simple*, and empowering not the expert, but Empowering the Rest of Us�.

Funny you'd say that of NeXTSTEP, a unix-based system that only the propellerheads are able to squeeze all of its real power out. The good old �geek aristocracy� that used to monopolise the computer world before the Mac became �The Computer for the Rest of Us�. Where do you think that slogan came from?

Seriously, I can't think of anything that defies the Macintosh philosophy in a more flagrant way than Unix.

[analogika]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Pop-up Folders are amazing. My whole workflow on the Mac was centered around them. What seems to be fragile here are your drag and drop abilities.

Yes, quite probably.

Thank God Macintosh was never about expert abilities (until you needed real troubleshooting expertise to run it back around 8.6 - and even that largely failed in OS 9)

I've already replied to the rest of your troll a hundred times over, in this, the previous, and numerous other threads on this, and the previous, forums.

[kemuri]

Pre-OS X: A computer for the minority, designed to keep a small segment of people (designers) happy.

OS X: A computer for the rest of us, in a world of Windows.

[Moose]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Seriously, I can't think of anything that defies the Macintosh philosophy in a more flagrant way than Unix.

The Macintosh philosophy is elegant simplicity. As it happens, so is the Unix philosophy. They do, however, approach them slightly differently.

Unix does exactly what you tell it to do, assuming you have the permissions to do it. Classic Mac OS does exactly what you tell it to do, but prevents you from doing some completely foolish things, assuming that can't possibly have been what you wanted to do.

As somebody who's had data eaten by fat-fingering some commands in Terminal before, I still prefer the Unix "I'm going to do what you told me to do" way instead of the "I know better than you do" hand-holding way.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by kemuri:
Pre-OS X: A computer for the minority, designed to keep a small segment of people (designers) happy.

No, no it wasn't, and that's what people like mAxximo and the thalo.net folks don't understand. That designers latched onto the Mac in the beginning has very little to do with the interface, and everything to do with the fact that most moden desktop publishing and graphics apps got their start on the Mac. They went there because that's where the action was.

The entire point of the Mac was that it was designed for "the rest of us". That is to say that it was designed specifically for people who don't use their computers for a living. This is not to say that people can't use Macs for a living; in fact, the ease of use of a Mac tends to help in this regard. However, that is a coincidence.

Macs were designed to make computing easy and safe. "Easy" means nothing more than making sure that a user can figure out the basics of how a new app works without the need for documentation. This is not to say that documentation isn't necessary for certain things, only that the user should be able to figure out how to do the most basic actions based on apps with which he's already familiar. Ease of use has never been an option; the userbase simply does not tolerate apps which don't conform to basic standards in one way or another. Microsoft learned that the hard way with Word 6.

In the days when the Mac was designed, "safe" pretty much just meant that the user wouldn't delete his own data by accident. Nowadays, it also means protecting the user's data from more actively-malicious forms of harm. Safety has never been an option either; it has always been mandatory, and for good reason. As the definition of safety has changed, its importance has not.

When mAxximo and the thalo crew figure this out, many of their complaints will evaporate. But as long as they insist that the Mac was designed for their specific market, they will never get this, because they don't even understand the most basic thing about Macs: namely, that it has always been "the computer for the rest of us".

[Millennium]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Funny you'd say that of NeXTSTEP, a unix-based system that only the propellerheads are able to squeeze all of its real power out.

According to whom? Let's see your data on this. I doubt you've ever used NeXTStep, so kindly point us at a comparative analysis. NeXTStep had its flaws, but it was most definitely not what you claim it to have been.

[theolein]

Originally posted by analogika:
Sorry about the shouting - I meant emphasis, not shouting, really.

And pop-up folders *are* a very fragile system. Drag something on a folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the target, drag to the appropriate folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the target, drag to the appropriate folder, wait, have the new window pop up, look around for the targe...WHOOOPS your mouse was over a folder as you were looking around and the WRONG ****ING FOLDER WINDOW opened, so you drag outside that window and *fwup* you start ALL OVER.

Try hitting the space bar on accasion. You'll save the "wait" time you talked about. And, for the love of pete (who is pete anyway?) pray tell, how is this different from OSX? If you use the icon and list view instead of columns, and have OSX set to open all folders in new windows it's very much the same experience, down to hitting the space bar, with the exception that you still don't have pop-up folders.

And as for drag-and-drop: Now draggable - folders (into open/save dialogs for file paths - yes, those same dialogs that used to completely block the entire system -, into Terminal for file paths. Internet links (into all application windows of all applications that can deal with internet protocols). Pics (this worked much of the time in Classic OS, but not nearly as pervasively). vCards. I could just drag the Outlook Express 5 contacts file into the Address Book on a client's machine yesterday to import all his contacts.

I know. OSX is fantastic. Really. that's why I use it. I'm not a designer however.

I'm not discounting that your designer friends have solid reasons for preferring OS 9. I'm sure they do. (Most of them are to do with accustomed workflows and previous investment, I'm sure, but there is Platinum and Snappy�.)

Being sarcastic doesn't make your point any better. This was the comment of a salesman in Mac store, who would have more interest in saying that OSX is better, since he sells it. It's your opinion that it has to do with accustomed workflows and previous investment, and I agree that they probably do play a role, but I am pretty sure that simplicity of the Platinum UI and response times also play a role.

I'm saying that in OS X, Macintosh has undergone a fundamental redesign that has *finally* made it worthy of the name "Macintosh" again - as a system whose hallmark is not making complex processes manageable, but making complex processes *simple*, and empowering not the expert, but Empowering the Rest of Us�.

Something Apple had lost the knack for sometime after System 7.X, due to inherent technical limitations of the System.

-s*

That sounds very much like you're trying to sell me the OS by repeating Apple's marketing literature. I already use OSX, as I stated above and I like it very much. It's my favourite OS, by far. This doesn't change the fact that there are people out there who give a rat's arse for fundamental redesign, making complex processes simple or the rest of us. Those people mostly have deadlines to meet and regard the machine they use as a tool to make a living, not a way of life.

There are good reasons Adobe's and Macromedia's products sold so well on Windows in the 2000 to 2001 period. Windows 2000 was a lot more useful than either OS9 or OSX at the time (far more stable than OS9, actually had shipping applications unlike OSX) and that is the time a lot of designers switched to Windows. They made the switch and the accompanying investment in new software, sidegrades etc, and most of them have not switched back, since it is simply too expensive in terms of workflow, time and money to do so, regardless of whether OSX is now lightyears ahead of Win2k or XP. For those people it's a tool to get a job done. I know that some of people also feel that the classic Windows interface is less intrusive than OSX.

The same is true for many who stuck with OS9.

Anyway, I don't care. I would use and have used Windows if I had to. It works, get's the job done. My favoutite GUI in terms of lack of fluff and simplicity is GNOME in any case.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
When mAxximo and the thalo crew figure this out, many of their complaints will evaporate. But as long as they insist that the Mac was designed for their specific market, they will never get this, because they don't even understand the most basic thing about Macs: namely, that it has always been "the computer for the rest of us".

This is simply not true.

I and the others (namely thalo himself) have always said that the beauty of the Mac's interface and functionality lied in that it fitted equally well for *everyone*. Nobody ever complained about the Mac's GUI, be it designers or internet moms. The same interface was equally capable of serving the high-end needs of graphics artists as well as the basic and simple tasks my mother would need to do in her computer.

I never claimed it was designed for my specific market. Rather, that it was so well conceived from the beginning that everyone was happy with it regardless of age, profession or technical background.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
This is simply not true.

I and the others (namely thalo himself) have always said that the beauty of the Mac's interface and functionality lied in that it fitted equally well for *everyone*.

Then why the constant complaing about "pro users", particularly when your definition of "pro user" actually only fits one narrow category of people who use their computers for a living, even in the Mac world? And then, you go and describe them as the "core userbase" of the Mac, while deriding the very "digikids" who make up the rest of us.

Nobody ever complained about the Mac's GUI, be it designers or internet moms.

You really are ignorant about Mac history, aren't you? The complaints about the Mac interface were many and varied. The only difference, I suppose, is that you weren't writing them back then. However, if you'd like to see some of these articles, I would be more than happy to oblige.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I and the others (namely thalo himself) have always said

So you are one of the thalo.net trolls. Great, I was wondering if that was the case since you seem completely devoid of reason.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm devastated.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I and the others (namely thalo himself)

Heh. I figured as much.

[analogika]

Originally posted by theolein:
Try hitting the space bar on accasion. You'll save the "wait" time you talked about. And, for the love of pete (who is pete anyway?) pray tell, how is this different from OSX? If you use the icon and list view instead of columns, and have OSX set to open all folders in new windows it's very much the same experience, down to hitting the space bar, with the exception that you still don't have pop-up folders.

The "waiting" part wasn't my point; the "start all over" part was. The space bar does not help in this regard.

OS X has column view, which makes regressing in the folder hierarchy WORLDS easier when using "pop-up" functionality - which of course it isn't when the colums simply shift over to the left.

Originally posted by theolein:
Being sarcastic doesn't make your point any better. This was the comment of a salesman in Mac store, who would have more interest in saying that OSX is better, since he sells it. It's your opinion that it has to do with accustomed workflows and previous investment, and I agree that they probably do play a role, but I am pretty sure that simplicity of the Platinum UI and response times also play a role.

I wasn't being sarcastic in the least.

Seriously, most of what few complaints I do hear from users is to do with workflows, investment, and simple force of habit. Gumdrop buttons do not inhibit productivity, not even for designers.

The Dock is hideable; everything else just looks different - that alone makes it distracting to a graphic person. For the first two weeks. Then, it's either a non-issue, or said graphics person has figured out a way to skin it.

-s*

[Detrius]

I've been holding back, but you guys really deserve this photo this time.




This thread is off topic, immature, ignorant, and just down right dumb. OS 9 blows big chunks and is FLAT OUT not fixable. If it were fixable, we would have had System 8 before Windows 95 came out, and it would have had protected memory and preemptive multitasking. After a couple of years of hard-core R&D, Apple gave up and decided that it would be cheaper and provide a better user experience if they bought a UNIX platform and hacked the Mac Toolbox to kind-of run Mac programs on it. (UNIX being the epitome of user-un-friendly)

Keep in mind how much people HATE classic. Apple decided that this Classic that we hate with such a passion is the preferable alternative to fixing Mac OS 9 to make it modern.

How dumb do you have to be to not get this? OS 9 blows chunks and could not be fixed. OS X is what we have.

For the foreseeable future, I will lock any thread that is having this discussion, as you guys clearly are incapable of coming up with a theoretically possible explanation for how to fix OS X to satisfy your lusts for OS 9. Stoppit!


With respect to 8.6 vs. OS 9... well, whatever floats your boat. Neither was stable, as any application could crash the OS. In OS 9, you had a 1% chance of force-quit working, while with 8.6, you only had a .0001% chance of it working.