[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Every village has its idiot, right SMacTech? Keep it up.

Right you are, keep it up yourself, as I am sure you will try.

Your anti-OS X diatribe is just getting old. You will **** on any thread to espouse this crap.

[OreoCookie]

Knock it off.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Every village has its idiot, right SMacTech? Keep it up.

No name calling here!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by __^^__

Very impractical.

How so?

Each machine needs it's own token.

Certainly each user needs their own token, and I mention that in a later post, but does each user/machine combination necessarily need a unique token? Each key needs to be keyed to a specific user, but could it not be set up to work with multiple machines? The disadvantage is that if there's only one key then the user can't put the key into multiple machines at the same time, but I'm not sure that's a disadvantage after all. I mean, we are trying to establish that the user is in fact present, and the user isn't likely to be present at multiple computers at once, right?

Why not use Kerberos?

As I mentioned later in the post you quoted, this idea uses many concepts from Kerberos, and it's altogether possible that it could actually be implemented using Kerberos. I don't know. However, as I mentioned, I haven't seen any Kerberos implementations which work with this particular idea. All of the Kerberos implementations I've seen were meant more for networks, while I'm trying to apply the concept to single machines.

[smithz4096]

Originally Posted by SMacTech

This made me laugh. You mean it multi-tasked just fine when you clicked the mouse on a menu and held it down, and everything stopped? Or a modal dialog popped up ? I will stop there.

I've to admit I agree with that. Multitasking in OS9 is and was very mediocre. I came from Amiga Computers to Mac due to Job-Reasons. At first the whole Mac-Experience was awful due to the lousy multitasking compared to the flawless and highly effective multitasking of that old C= Machines. Good old days...

Well, I'm became used to the OS 7-8-9 workflow. The graphic-design apps were just insanely great. I'm mainly working as a graphics-designer, font-designer, photoshop-artist, etc. Workflow is really good on my OS9 Machines. As I already said the tools were refined over the years and it simply works. Working in my normal setup I VERY rarely experience crashes.

On OS X I finally got my beloved true preemptive Multitasking back, but packed in a cheesy UI and highly in-effective. You need lots of horsepower to achieve an acceptable, OS9-comparable workflow using OS X. See anandtech.com for more details. OS X threading technique is far less efficient as Linux or Windows. Sad but true.

Comparing the OS X workflow and the OS9 workflow i simply have to realize that OS9 still serves me better. I'm not too proud of the multitasking-strenghts of OS9 but in the end the OS9-Experience still wins. Another plus for me are the consistent crisp fonts on OS9.

I DO know that the special UNIX-Backyards of OS X are highly welcome to coders. This is a fact.
If you're coding along OS X is the OS for you. (or use Linux or windows)

As W-Y already said, it is VERY important to know and finetune your system, otherwise OS9 can be crashy. But so does OS X. Only plus for OS X is, the OS stays uptime while your apps crash and lose data. Marginal.

In the end: Only the results count. Example: I use APP XY, if this App runs on OS9 I use OS9, if this App needs OS X i use OS X. But i don't upgrade for the sake of upgrading. I'm really done with that. Use your (hopeful working) cortex.

eof.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

On OS X I finally got my beloved true preemptive Multitasking back, but packed in a cheesy UI and highly in-effective. You need lots of horsepower to achieve an acceptable, OS9-comparable workflow using OS X. See anandtech.com for more details. OS X threading technique is far less efficient as Linux or Windows. Sad but true.

Comparing the OS X workflow and the OS9 workflow i simply have to realize that OS9 still serves me better. I'm not too proud of the multitasking-strenghts of OS9 but in the end the OS9-Experience still wins. Another plus for me are the consistent crisp fonts on OS9.

I'm not sure what you mean by "workflow". Do you mean UI responsiveness? When I use the term I generally mean the procedures we have in place to channel the work along the process from design to production to pre press to printing, at which I find OS X to be much better than OS 9 – the networking is better, the built-in PDF support is better, it's much more scriptable/programmable, can access much more RAM (vital in Photoshop), is much more stable, etc.

If you mean the UI is less responsive, then, well, yeah, but I have never found that to be a real problem. I encounter all sorts of older Macs when I'm working, and if I can run Photoshop 7 on an 8100/100 running 9.2.2, then I can deal with anything OS X throws at me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

On OS X I finally got my beloved true preemptive Multitasking back, but packed in a cheesy UI and highly in-effective. You need lots of horsepower to achieve an acceptable, OS9-comparable workflow using OS X. See anandtech.com for more details. OS X threading technique is far less efficient as Linux or Windows. Sad but true.

1. Threading efficiency doesn't seem likely to be a major factor in your "workflow" — the speed of graphics routines and blitting operations is much more likely to affect you, I'd think. Threading efficiency would have to be ridiculously wretched in order to have more of an effect. Do you have any actual evidence that it's the efficiency of threading (or specific complaints that you claim are because of the threading)? The majority of apps don't even make heavy use of multithreading.

2. That anandtech article (if you're talking about the Apache and MySQL one) wasn't very revealing. The methodology was so bad as to make the test more or less useless. It was impossible to tell whether he was seeing a problem in the G5, Darwin, MySQL or any number of other pieces of the equation.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by SMacTech

This made me laugh. You mean it multi-tasked just fine when you clicked the mouse on a menu and held it down, and everything stopped? Or a modal dialog popped up ? I will stop there.

No I was talking about the co-operative multitasking. Perhaps you thought multitasking == pre-empetive multitasking



cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

I've to admit I agree with that. Multitasking in OS9 is and was very mediocre. I came from Amiga Computers to Mac due to Job-Reasons. At first the whole Mac-Experience was awful due to the lousy multitasking compared to the flawless and highly effective multitasking of that old C= Machines. Good old days...

Well, I'm became used to the OS 7-8-9 workflow. The graphic-design apps were just insanely great. I'm mainly working as a graphics-designer, font-designer, photoshop-artist, etc. Workflow is really good on my OS9 Machines. As I already said the tools were refined over the years and it simply works. Working in my normal setup I VERY rarely experience crashes.

On OS X I finally got my beloved true preemptive Multitasking back, but packed in a cheesy UI and highly in-effective. You need lots of horsepower to achieve an acceptable, OS9-comparable workflow using OS X. See anandtech.com for more details. OS X threading technique is far less efficient as Linux or Windows. Sad but true.

Comparing the OS X workflow and the OS9 workflow i simply have to realize that OS9 still serves me better. I'm not too proud of the multitasking-strenghts of OS9 but in the end the OS9-Experience still wins. Another plus for me are the consistent crisp fonts on OS9.

I DO know that the special UNIX-Backyards of OS X are highly welcome to coders. This is a fact.
If you're coding along OS X is the OS for you. (or use Linux or windows)

As W-Y already said, it is VERY important to know and finetune your system, otherwise OS9 can be crashy. But so does OS X. Only plus for OS X is, the OS stays uptime while your apps crash and lose data. Marginal.

In the end: Only the results count. Example: I use APP XY, if this App runs on OS9 I use OS9, if this App needs OS X i use OS X. But i don't upgrade for the sake of upgrading. I'm really done with that. Use your (hopeful working) cortex.

eof.

Very good points and post

I know how you feel. I stopped using OS 9 three years ago, except in Classic mode, but there are things about it that I miss and would really want to see as a part of OS X.

I switched to the Mac when it was running System 7 and that says a lot. I switched because I liked what I saw. And then Apple changes everything I switched for, so of course I miss OS 9 and that is what this thread is all about!

I miss OS 9, not because it was so great in multitasking (although its co-operative multitasking worked and ensured that the app running on top got 99% attention), but because it was a refines user experience. Comuters are still about users aren't they? I sometimes ask myself that when I sit alone in the dark.

cheers

W-Y

[Shades of Gray]

I miss most of the older systems for one reason or another (except 7.5-8.0). But I remember how great it was to move from OS 6 to OS 7, and 7.1 was very stable for me. In fact, 7.1, 8.6, and 9.2 were all very reliable/stable for me. While there might be an occasional crash, I never lost anything in the process (a few typed paragraphs, but nothing major). I used MS Word, PageMaker, Nisus Writer, and in the last four years FrameMaker. If I could have a machine to still run FrameMaker, I would (Classic does not work correctly, and there is no future in FM, so I have abandoned even trying to make it work).

I miss Kaleidescope - I enjoyed changing the theme every few days. there were some good ones (Greg Landweber and Arlo Rose!).

I miss Nisus Writer Classic. Some of the GREP capabilities are not availabe for the average writer on OS X (at least that I know and can afford the time). Great macros - worked flawlessly.

I miss Personal Press (low end page layout, that was ahead of its time), produced by Silicon Beach, later Aldus, then bought out by Adobe [I think that was the last owner] - and yep, you guessed it, it was killed; hmmmm sounds like FrameMaker.

[Demonhood]

i'm phasing out the last of the 9.x machines at my work this month.
so no, i don't think i'll miss it much.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No I was talking about the co-operative multitasking.

Which is what he described. Most of the time everything stopped.

Regarding workflow, you couldn't set QXP to print a large job and then go into PS and continue your work there.

The thing I remember most about Mac OS 7-9 was: waiting

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by JLL

Which is what he described. Most of the time everything stopped.

Regarding workflow, you couldn't set QXP to print a large job and then go into PS and continue your work there.

The thing I remember most about Mac OS 7-9 was: waiting

I still have that funny memory: when I used to click a menu and hold the button, the whole computer held its breath … for me! Something OS X would never do for me

I remember encoding in the pre-iTunes days with LAME: continue working with any other app was basically impossible.

However, I do think if people compare OS 9 and OS X with each other, they usually forget that the way we are working has changed. I usually have 8-10 apps + Finder concurrently running in OS X, with OS 9 2 + the Finder tops. So the OS 9 GUI had (in my case) never to deal with a similar mess of windows and amount of apps running side by side. This alone skews any comparison IMHO.

Ditto for the amount of files and information, there is going to be a point at which a concept stops working.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

I'm not sure what you mean by "workflow". Do you mean UI responsiveness? When I use the term I generally mean the procedures we have in place to channel the work along the process from design to production to pre press to printing...

I was going to say; this is the only definition of 'workflow' I've ever seen. As far as that goes, neither OS9 nor OSX has any advantage that I've been able to figure out.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by JLL

Which is what he described. Most of the time everything stopped.

Regarding workflow, you couldn't set QXP to print a large job and then go into PS and continue your work there.

The thing I remember most about Mac OS 7-9 was: waiting

No, he drew that as an example of that the multitasking didn't work very well.

What I remember the most about System 7 to Mac OS 9 (Mac OS 7? what is that?) is getting a lot of work done effectively through a beautifully designed UI.

Not what I can say about OS X.

cheers

W-Y

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No I was talking about the co-operative multitasking. Perhaps you thought multitasking == pre-empetive multitasking



cheers

W-Y

Perhaps you could be a little more verbose next time. You simply said it multi-tasked very well. I would hardly call what I described as being able to perform multiple tasks. So why are you confused?

Preemptive or cooperative , it doesn't matter, OS 9 did cooperative multitasking very poorly.

I do know the difference between the two, as I started programming in 1977. Regardless of another who must denigrate me as an esteemed member of some village, I have managed to learn something about programming and computers. Enough to have fed my family by doing it for almost 30 years.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, he drew that as an example of that the multitasking didn't work very well.

Bingo! It didn't.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

is getting a lot of work done effectively through a beautifully designed UI.

You mentioned printing earlier. Print something from QXP and you couldn't do anything else while it was processing.

Beautifully designed UI? Well, that's your opinion.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Not what I can say about OS X.

No, since you seem to want it to work and act like Mac OS 9 instead of doing what you should.

I can get a lot more work done in Mac OS X than in Mac OS 9.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I was going to say; this is the only definition of 'workflow' I've ever seen. As far as that goes, neither OS9 nor OSX has any advantage that I've been able to figure out.

I have seen a few. As I mentioned, OS X's networking is much better, so getting Macs to play nice on a heterogeneous network requires much less hair-pulling. Having the display model based on PDF is a joy. For simple jobs I can just Save as PDF. . . from the print dialog – no need for Acrobat or Distiller. I've also seen fewer weird Postscript errors. One of the places I work at has a set of scripts which run at logout (you logout of your machine at the end of every day/night) which does a lot of cleanup and housekeeping. As a result, the machines are almost completely trouble free.

Those are off the top of my head. My overall impression is that the OS is a lot less finicky.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by SMacTech

Perhaps you could be a little more verbose next time.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by SMacTech

Preemptive or cooperative , it doesn't matter, OS 9 did cooperative multitasking very poorly.

I disagree, as a cooperative multitasking system it did what was expected of it 100%. It multitasked in the way it was designed very well.

Cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by JLL

Bingo! It didn't.

Wrong. It did. Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by JLL

You mentioned printing earlier. Print something from QXP and you couldn't do anything else while it was processing.

It was not a pre-epmetive multitasking system. I sure didn't expect it to do such a thing. Did you? How stupid.

Originally Posted by JLL

Beautifully designed UI? Well, that's your opinion.

It is good to have you here to tell us these things!!

Originally Posted by JLL

No, since you seem to want it to work and act like Mac OS 9 instead of doing what you should.

You don't have a clue as to what I want.

Originally Posted by JLL

I can get a lot more work done in Mac OS X than in Mac OS 9.

In your opnion, not mine and many other's.

cheers

W-Y

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I disagree, as a cooperative multitasking system it did what was expected of it 100%. It multitasked in the way it was designed very well.

I disagree, it didn't multitask well at all. If your argument is that an inferior way to do multitasking worked `100 %' (whatever that means), then it still falls short of what it should have done as multitasking. Having 2 or 3 apps idling around while you're doing something in the 4th is hardly real multitasking.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It was not a pre-epmetive multitasking system. I sure didn't expect it to do such a thing. Did you? How stupid.

I don't think anyone cares what kind of multitasking method is used, as long as it works well and seamlessly. It did not measure up to the kind of multitasking you could have with Windows NT, Linux, BeOS or the various *nix flavors.

I expect that things works well. Intel cpu, IBM cpu, who cares. I expect it to work. I find it remarkable from someone who demands perfection from a GUI (which is not necessarily a bad thing) drops his standards for other parts of the system: integration into heterogeneous networks, multitasking, etc.

I wish OS 9 would have been capable to do multitasking in a much better way. But it didn't. Is it stupid to expect that things work?

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I disagree, it didn't multitask well at all. If your argument is that an inferior way to do multitasking worked `100 %' (whatever that means), then it still falls short of what it should have done as multitasking. Having 2 or 3 apps idling around while you're doing something in the 4th is hardly real multitasking.

Right you are. OS 9 often was not very cooperative either.

[smithz4096]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

I'm not sure what you mean by "workflow". Do you mean UI responsiveness? When I use the term I generally mean the procedures we have in place to channel the work along the process from design to production to pre press to printing, at which I find OS X to be much better than OS 9 – the networking is better, the built-in PDF support is better, it's much more scriptable/programmable, can access much more RAM (vital in Photoshop), is much more stable, etc.

If you mean the UI is less responsive, then, well, yeah, but I have never found that to be a real problem. I encounter all sorts of older Macs when I'm working, and if I can run Photoshop 7 on an 8100/100 running 9.2.2, then I can deal with anything OS X throws at me.

By workflow I mean the whole process of getting a job done. OS9 still serves me better. The UI plays a dominant role here. All those transition FX of OS X sum up to a decent lag compared to OS9 - i simply prefer DIRECT response instead of FX. May it a few milliseconds. That are a few milliseconds too much for me. It's too bad it's impossible to tweak the OS-X UI a lil' more.

Networking of OS X may be theoretically better, but if a OS9 Machine is set up properly all is going perfectly along. No problem here. Doesn't affect my workflow at all.

Built-in PDF functions of OS X are nice, but i wouldn't trust them for jobs. I would still need that damn Acrobat, because it's the industry standard. That's what counts. I don't split "important" or "non-important" jobs. A Job is a Job and must be done 100% accurate. In the End, OS9 PDF capabilities serves me fine, while OS X would also serve me good. But everything's slower in X.

Can access more RAM? :-/ As I already said, it's all about perfect setup. OS9 Photoshop can access massive amounts of RAM if you like. Both 9 and X Versions use VM, so there's hardly any difference. But then again, the UI is lag-free in 9. On X i got all these annoying FX, transitions that slow me down.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

Can access more RAM? :-/ As I already said, it's all about perfect setup. OS9 Photoshop can access massive amounts of RAM if you like. Both 9 and X Versions use VM, so there's hardly any difference.

There's a humonguous difference between the two. OS X has memory management and OS 9 basically doesn't (The user is the memory manager )

[smithz4096]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

1. Threading efficiency doesn't seem likely to be a major factor in your "workflow" — the speed of graphics routines and blitting operations is much more likely to affect you, I'd think. Threading efficiency would have to be ridiculously wretched in order to have more of an effect. Do you have any actual evidence that it's the efficiency of threading (or specific complaints that you claim are because of the threading)? The majority of apps don't even make heavy use of multithreading.

Absolutely disagree about that. The problem lies in the kernel. It slows everything down a tiny little bit. In a Multitasking-Envoriment as OS X tons of Tasks and Threads are running. So an ineffective Kernel SUMS up smoking fast to a experienceable lag in core system speed.

Mac-People tend to say that Multitasking itself eats up that much CPU-Power. Wrong. It's Apples implementation of that BSD/Mach Hybrid Kernel. It's simply not very CPU-Effective.
That's why Apple needs those massive amounts of CPU-Power. I really like the hardware-design of the G5, esp. the core CPU, but the resulting performance is somehow disappointing to me.
It's also mentioned in the anandtech-article. The non-effectiveness affects EVERYTHING.

[smithz4096]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

There's a humonguous difference between the two. OS X has memory management and OS 9 basically doesn't (The user is the memory manager )

Sure, OS X has some kind of memory management.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

Sure, OS X has some kind of memory management.

Point is: you don't have to do it yourself and memory requirements are not mutually exclusive anymore Dynamic allocation and deallocation of memory. Swapping of memory for inactive processes … list goes on and on and on.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

Absolutely disagree about that. The problem lies in the kernel. It slows everything down a tiny little bit. In a Multitasking-Envoriment as OS X tons of Tasks and Threads are running. So an ineffective Kernel SUMS up smoking fast to a experienceable lag in core system speed.

You didn't say "ineffective kernel," you said "threading efficiency." Please explain exactly what your claim is here.

Originally Posted by smithz4096

Mac-People tend to say that Multitasking itself eats up that much CPU-Power. Wrong. It's Apples implementation of that BSD/Mach Hybrid Kernel. It's simply not very CPU-Effective.
That's why Apple needs those massive amounts of CPU-Power. I really like the hardware-design of the G5, esp. the core CPU, but the resulting performance is somehow disappointing to me.

Can you please explain this with specifics?

Originally Posted by smithz4096

It's also mentioned in the anandtech-article. The non-effectiveness affects EVERYTHING.

You haven't linked to this article, and I already explained that the only article I've seen there on the subject was using a flawed test that failed to demonstrate anything except that among their random selection of setups, that one was the slowest.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

Networking of OS X may be theoretically better, but if a OS9 Machine is set up properly all is going perfectly along. No problem here. Doesn't affect my workflow at all.

It's not theory. Getting OS X to play in large heterogeneous networks (1,000+ machines spread across three OSes) is a cakewalk compared to OS 9's hacked networking.

Built-in PDF functions of OS X are nice, but i wouldn't trust them for jobs. I would still need that damn Acrobat, because it's the industry standard. That's what counts. I don't split "important" or "non-important" jobs. A Job is a Job and must be done 100% accurate. In the End, OS9 PDF capabilities serves me fine, while OS X would also serve me good. But everything's slower in X.

1) Someone in-house needs a quick and dirty PDF. Save as PDF. . . just saved me a couple minutes;
2) Since I can make very complicated PDFs in the background while getting other work done in OS X, and can't in OS 9, I've just saved more time.

Can access more RAM? :-/ As I already said, it's all about perfect setup. OS9 Photoshop can access massive amounts of RAM if you like. Both 9 and X Versions use VM, so there's hardly any difference. But then again, the UI is lag-free in 9. On X i got all these annoying FX, transitions that slow me down.

1) Applications in OS 9 are limited to a maximum of 999 megs of RAM, which means that's as much as Photoshop is going to get. I work on Photoshop files which take 2 and 3 gigs of RAM, so a system which can only give me ~900 megs doesn't cut it for me;
2) Comparing the virtual memory in OS X and OS 9 shows me you don't know what you're talking about it. Adobe always recommended turning off the VM in OS 9 the scheme was so bad. Under OS X it's much better and, given that I can grab up to 4 gigs of RAM, I don't hit it as much. When I do hit it, it's much faster than OS 9.

[OogaBooga]

One of the main reasons the OS feels laggy is because everything you see is double-buffered. That alone cuts GUI speed in half. But, I'd rather have a smooth double-buffered GUI than something similar to the Windows implementation. Even on an LCD monitor, dragging windows in Windows results in tearing.

[smithz4096]

1) Applications in OS 9 are limited to a maximum of 999 megs of RAM, which means that's as much as Photoshop is going to get. I work on Photoshop files which take 2 and 3 gigs of RAM, so a system which can only give me ~900 megs doesn't cut it for me;

OK, i never had such large PS Files in the works. Sureley this point goes to OS X.

2) Comparing the virtual memory in OS X and OS 9 shows me you don't know what you're talking about it. Adobe always recommended turning off the VM in OS 9 the scheme was so bad. Under OS X it's much better and, given that I can grab up to 4 gigs of RAM, I don't hit it as much. When I do hit it, it's much faster than OS 9.

Boy, Keep cool, I was talking about the VM Photoshop uses, which is managed by Photoshop itself.
Maybe i hadn't pointed that out clear enough. The OS VM of OS9 is always switched OFF, of course.

[smithz4096]

You haven't linked to this article, and I already explained that the only article I've seen there on the subject was using a flawed test that failed to demonstrate anything except that among their random selection of setups, that one was the slowest.

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520

e.g.

"What can we conclude from this? First, the above tables demonstrate clearly that the creation of UNIX processes is much slower on MAC OS X, and the G5, the CPU, is not to blame. In the first test, the G5 2.5 GHz running Linux is only slightly slower than a Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz. The third test shows that the G5 is even capable of outperforming the other CPUs, which points towards Mac OS X being the problem here. Even with a faster CPU, the OS X scores are all slower than the Linux scores on the G5."

Very interesting article, i think it's the follow-up article to the one you mentioned.

[OreoCookie]

It still doesn't show these effects are relevant/responsible for what you do. As you can read from the conclusion, these effects will largely affect servers and workstations to a lesser degree as they spend less cpu time for system-related things.

I remember scaling tests on Panther where they were testing how the system scales with the number of processes. At a specific point, the performance was abysmal (somewhere in the four digit range), because a kernel parameter was basically limiting the number of processes which could be handled by the kernel. Thing is that this number was so high, it had zero relevance for regular users.

Another thing that came out was that the response time under low load is large, but doesn't decrease significantly when the system is under heavy load. It would be interesting to see this benchmark being done again, including NetBSD 2.0, the latest version of FreeBSD, OS X and DragonFly BSD.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It was not a pre-epmetive multitasking system. I sure didn't expect it to do such a thing. Did you? How stupid.

Did I say that? I just outlined one of the many irritating things in Mac OS 9 and earlier.

So it's a perfect system if it let you wait because it was designed to let you wait? I would call it a design flaw (or in that case it's a technical limitation in the design of Mac OS 9).

Mac OS X must be perfect too in your eyes then, since it does what it's designed to do.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

You don't have a clue as to what I want.

A spacial [sic] Finder is one of them.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

In your opnion, not mine and many other's.

That I can get a lot more work done in Mac OS X is not an opinion - that's a fact.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by SMacTech

Right you are. OS 9 often was not very cooperative either.

That doesn't matter - it was designed not to be that in most cases

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I disagree, it didn't multitask well at all.

Disagree all you want, your logic amuses me

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If your argument is that an inferior way to do multitasking worked `100 %' (whatever that means), then it still falls short of what it should have done as multitasking.

I don't recall saying cooperative multitasking was inferior. Those are your words.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Having 2 or 3 apps idling around while you're doing something in the 4th is hardly real multitasking.

Are you saying we hardly have multitasking in OS X then? All the background apps are idle now. Your logic is very strange.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think anyone cares what kind of multitasking method is used, as long as it works well and seamlessly.

Yep, and it did for me in OS 9. IMO it is the protected memory that is far more impressive technology in OS X.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It did not measure up to the kind of multitasking you could have with Windows NT, Linux, BeOS or the various *nix flavors.

For some reason I expected you to mention the Amiga too.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I expect that things works well. Intel cpu, IBM cpu, who cares. I expect it to work.

Amen!

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I find it remarkable from someone who demands perfection from a GUI (which is not necessarily a bad thing) drops his standards for other parts of the system: integration into heterogeneous networks, multitasking, etc.

Did I ever say I missed the cooperative multitasking in OS 9? Please show me where I said that. I think I specifically said I missed the UI.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I wish OS 9 would have been capable to do multitasking in a much better way. But it didn't. Is it stupid to expect that things work?

Nope, absoloutly not. It is stupid to assume that someone who misses OS 9 must miss all the technology (flawed as it was) that came with it. When I say "I miss the UI in OS 9" and people ask "uh are u 4 reel like teh multitasking suxxored!!1" then they missed what I said *completely*.

cheers

W-Y

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Are you saying we hardly have multitasking in OS X then? All the background apps are idle now. Your logic is very strange.

Perhaps yours are, but others do have many apps doing stuff at the same time. Last week I had Photoshop batch converting 15,000 images while doing my regular stuff during the day.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by JLL

Did I say that? I just outlined one of the many irritating things in Mac OS 9 and earlier.

Then why were you quoting me? If you wanted to dish out your irritation at OS 9, go ahead but since you quoted me I assumed you were trying to make a counterpoint.

Originally Posted by JLL

So it's a perfect system if it let you wait because it was designed to let you wait?

I can't say I have a decisive opinion about the OS 9 multitasking other than that it worked ok for me and allowed me to multitask. I'm sure pre-empetive is better, but I don't really care. I said I missed the UI, the rest I am rather ambivalent about.

Originally Posted by JLL

I would call it a design flaw (or in that case it's a technical limitation in the design of Mac OS 9).

I just didn't experience all this waiting you talk of. When I printed my doc in QXP I usually didn't have anything to do until I saw the hardcopy. The bottleneck was the printer, not the Mac running OS 9. I needed the hardcopy to see if there was more work to be done.

Originally Posted by JLL

Mac OS X must be perfect too in your eyes then, since it does what it's designed to do.

No Mac OS X is not perfect in my eyes. Windows does what it is designed to do and I'm no big fan of that either. 10.4 is the first usable version of OS X. Better late than never I suppose.

Originally Posted by JLL

A spacial [sic] Finder is one of them.

Yes a spacial Finder is one of them. FYI "spacial" is a perfectly viable form of "spatial". So you're wrong there.

Originally Posted by JLL

That I can get a lot more work done in Mac OS X is not an opinion - that's a fact.

That the OS 9 UI was lightyears ahead of the OS X UI is not an opinion - that's a fact. That it *still* is lightyears ahead is a *sad* fact. And also the point I have been making. Nothing else, but since you mention it I got about exactly the same work done in OS 9 and OS X. No difference. Only thing is I have to suffer this crappola UI.

And that is a fact.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by JLL

Perhaps yours are, but others do have many apps doing stuff at the same time. Last week I had Photoshop batch converting 15,000 images while doing my regular stuff during the day.

And this is something I don't have to do nor worry about hence my ambivalence to all this "multitasking" discussion. Multitasking worked for me in OS 9 just fine, that is a fact. The UI in OS 9 worked for me too IIRC. Maybe we should discuss that? I can see fans of OS X shy away from discussing the true horrid weakness of the system. The UI.

cheers

W-Y

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I don't recall saying cooperative multitasking was inferior. Those are your words.

Yes, I did, because it is. I don't know one single operating system which abandoned pre-emptive multitasking and implemented cooperative multitasking instead. Windows, Linux, *BSD, *nix, MacOS X, Copland, BeOS, the list goes on. But you're right, I did say that, now you.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Are you saying we hardly have multitasking in OS X then? All the background apps are idle now. Your logic is very strange.

No, it's not. Just because your apps in the background are idling around, doesn't mean it's true for all of us

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yep, and it did for me in OS 9. IMO it is the protected memory that is far more impressive technology in OS X.

But that is intimately tied with multitasking.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

For some reason I expected you to mention the Amiga too.

I could, but there's no point comparing an OS which ran on a 4.77 MHz CPU with an OS which runs on CPU several orders of magnitude faster. There's no point.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Nope, absoloutly not. It is stupid to assume that someone who misses OS 9 must miss all the technology (flawed as it was) that came with it. When I say "I miss the UI in OS 9" and people ask "uh are u 4 reel like teh multitasking suxxored!!1" then they missed what I said *completely*.

What is stupid is to call others stupid all the time for their opinions and expectations.

It was not a pre-epmetive multitasking system. I sure didn't expect it to do such a thing. Did you? How stupid.

So you brought it up and called people stupid for pointing out the flaws of cooperative multitasking. There's no need to be patronizing.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Then why were you quoting me? If you wanted to dish out your irritation at OS 9, go ahead but since you quoted me I assumed you were trying to make a counterpoint.

I quoted this: What I remember the most about System 7 to Mac OS 9 (Mac OS 7? what is that?) is getting a lot of work done effectively through a beautifully designed UI.

Not a word about multitasking.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

That the OS 9 UI was lightyears ahead of the OS X UI is not an opinion - that's a fact.

That two cups can hold twice as much liquid as one is a fact. That one is nicer than the other is an opinion!!!!

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Nothing else, but since you mention it I got about exactly the same work done in OS 9 and OS X.

I feel sorry for you - almost.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

And this is something I don't have to do nor worry about hence my ambivalence to all this "multitasking" discussion. Multitasking worked for me in OS 9 just fine, that is a fact.

No, you probably just didn't run into it since you seem to do one thing at a time.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I can see fans of OS X shy away from discussing the true horrid weakness of the system. The UI.

Well, we don't see at as a weakness at all.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by smithz4096

Built-in PDF functions of OS X are nice, but i wouldn't trust them for jobs. I would still need that damn Acrobat, because it's the industry standard. That's what counts.

No, that's not what counts. The standard is PDF, not Acrobat. If OSX supports all of the PDF standard, then there is no problem here.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by JLL

That doesn't matter - it was designed not to be that in most cases

I was agreeing with you, so why the rolling eyes?

[JLL]

They're rolling at W-Y

[Horsepoo!!!]

The big problem with W-Y is that simply cannot grasp the future that computers are heading into. We're heading into an era of multi-core CPUs that will eventually truly be the digital hub and the center of our digital life. Computers will be streaming a huge library of music to speakers, huge library of video to TVs, and will allow family members to access their computer accounts via terminal screens that will be in constant wireless communication with the multi-core computer...

...and, somehow, cooperative multitasking, spatiality, and the old UI made 1984 are still important to him.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

The big problem with W-Y is that simply cannot grasp the distant future that computers are heading into.

Fixed that for you....

Let me tell you, I don't blame him. Screw the Jetsons and all those science-fiction scenarios where my computer will tell me that I'm out of milk. BFD. While that won't happen for the next 5-10 years I need an efficient way of working with my computer right here, right now. And OS X is still far from truly delivering that.

You know what I'm saying?

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Fixed that for you....

Let me tell you, I don't blame him. Screw the Jetsons and all those science-fiction scenarios where my computer will tell me that I'm out of milk. BFD. While that won't happen for the next 5-10 years I need an efficient way of working with my computer right here, right now. And OS X is still far from truly delivering that.

You know what I'm saying?

How is it that you stay employed if you are not efficient at your job? Or are you self-employed?