[zootbobbalu]

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]

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]

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

[Cipher13]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by fisherKing:
<STRONG>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*</STRONG>

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

[fisherKing]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly call OSX fast.</STRONG>

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>

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</STRONG>

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]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly call OSX fast.</STRONG>

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]

Originally posted by lucylawless:
<STRONG>

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</STRONG>

this is a pro-OS X argument?

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

[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 &gt; 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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by lucylawless:
<STRONG>

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</STRONG>

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]

Originally posted by michaelb:
<STRONG>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 &gt; 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.)</STRONG>

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:
<STRONG>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</STRONG>

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]

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

So much hate and negativity....

[zootbobbalu]

oops.....

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

Sorry :-(

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

I honestly cannot comprehend how you can possibly call OSX fast.</STRONG>

Dual 500mhz G4 1.5gb RAM.

The only thing OS9 does faster is scroll.

In OSX copying files happens so quickly that sometimes I have to check to make sure the files were actually copied.

Try this in 9.
Play a DVD, Retrieve a few MB of Email. Surf the net, rip or burn a CD all at the same time

How responsive is the OS 9 GUI then?

In OSX I can perform the above tasks and the GUI is still responsive. I can also right click files in the background and manipulate them with all this activity and I can even apple click windows to resize them or move them in the background with no pause in my other activities.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

Cipher's on a roll again!
My, it's been over six months since the last time you ran a crusade for Against (or was it against For? - can't remember).

And you're putting on your duncecap again to make trolling easier.

The point is, Cipher, that a crash in Explorer (and believe me, rare was the day when Exploder wouldn't crash on me in 9) will result in loss of data in ALL friggin' applications that are open.

You know full well that opening all your apps, files, and what have you, to the state they were before the crash can easily take five to ten minutes, ASSUMING you had all your data saved and none of your files got corrupted.
Which is great if you're really working on something.


And the speed argument has been done to death, don't you think?
Slow and steady wins the race.
And frankly, my OS 9 really didn't feel particularly "snappy" the other day when I was converting and burning some ShrinkWrap disk images. Not being able to do *anything* while your computer's performing elementary chores sucks so bad - I basically had to let the machine sit for about eight hours, returning to it only to start the next conversion. And don't tell me it's because I haven't tweaked the hell out of my system.
OS X is obviously fast enough for enough people.


Oh, and the Dutch word for moped I believe is "GOTTVERDOMME BROMMVIEZEN" or something like that.

-chris.

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Oh, and the Dutch word for moped I believe is "GOTTVERDOMME BROMMVIEZEN" or something like that.

-chris.</STRONG>

Lol. "Godverdomme bromfietser!" It's a joke, of course, and totally true.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Cipher's on a roll again!
My, it's been over six months since the last time you ran a crusade for Against (or was it against For? - can't remember).

And you're putting on your duncecap again to make trolling easier.

The point is, Cipher, that a crash in Explorer (and believe me, rare was the day when Exploder wouldn't crash on me in 9) will result in loss of data in ALL friggin' applications that are open.

You know full well that opening all your apps, files, and what have you, to the state they were before the crash can easily take five to ten minutes, ASSUMING you had all your data saved and none of your files got corrupted.
Which is great if you're really working on something.


And the speed argument has been done to death, don't you think?
Slow and steady wins the race.
And frankly, my OS 9 really didn't feel particularly "snappy" the other day when I was converting and burning some ShrinkWrap disk images. Not being able to do *anything* while your computer's performing elementary chores sucks so bad - I basically had to let the machine sit for about eight hours, returning to it only to start the next conversion. And don't tell me it's because I haven't tweaked the hell out of my system.
OS X is obviously fast enough for enough people.


Oh, and the Dutch word for moped I believe is "GOTTVERDOMME BROMMVIEZEN" or something like that.

-chris.</STRONG>

Well, not really six months; the occasional snide comment inserted in OSX Gen sustained me.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong; a crash in IE (which isn't all that common for me... its my browser of choice now) doesn't take the rest of the system. I find the only app which takes the rest of the system when it crashes is ProTools... heh. An old version.

IE will, AT WORST, drop me into Macsbug, from whence I can recover.

No problemo eh?

Slow and steady wins the race - I can't believe you actually said that regarding computers. Wow. That was... well... unbelievably stupid. I wouldn't have expected it from you, as you usually seem pretty well in touch with most of your brain.

The fact that you said that can pretty much invalidate any other statement you make for the rest of your life...

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>
Slow and steady wins the race - I can't believe you actually said that regarding computers. Wow. That was... well... unbelievably stupid.[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]</STRONG>

I think he was referring to the updates that speed up OSX. And it's the speed/responsiveness of OS X which slowly but steadily appears to improve.

BeOS thought they could cannonball in and make a fast, fast OS and take over the world. On the other hand, UNIX is still going strong.

But without meaning to bitch, I've noticed that you've got nearly 10.000 posts. What do you do with your spare time?

[billybob]

cypher: you are a moron. no one cares about your stupid opinion. STFU already.

dont like X, dont use it. no one gives a flying ****.

[Eugene Fields]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cipher13:
[qb]

Well, not really six months; the occasional snide comment inserted in OSX Gen sustained me.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong; a crash in IE (which isn't all that common for me... its my browser of choice now) doesn't take the rest of the system. I find the only app which takes the rest of the system when it crashes is ProTools... heh. An old version.

IE will, AT WORST, drop me into Macsbug, from whence I can recover.

No problemo eh?

Slow and steady wins the race - I can't believe you actually said that regarding computers. Wow. That was... well... unbelievably stupid. I wouldn't have expected it from you, as you usually seem pretty well in touch with most of your brain.

The fact that you said that can pretty much invalidate any other statement you make for the rest of your life...

---------------------------------------------


Hey Cipher what is your problem? if you don't like it don't use it, plain and simple. I think you forgot your meds this morning! Ranting about bull shit like this!.

Its a NEW operating System Just introed and gestating, your comparing it to an OS that is 20 yrs old and has had alot of time to mature and still its unstable in a modern environment!

OS9 Crashes every day and its simply not up to the task in this interconnected world we have become.

As for all the art in the OS I applaud it, and wait for it to become more of what you find so awful.

I agree there should be a facility to turn it off If extra power is actually needed, though I won't turn it off for a few nanoseconds speed.. It's gorgeous and enhances the time , which is considerable, I spend at the Mac!

I applaud all the changes and think this OS is the cats meow! Imagine how fine it will be this time next year. Maybe by then you'll have grown a little, closer, to appreciating the fine work it is..!!




[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Eugene Fields ]

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Jelle Monkmater:
<STRONG>

I think he was referring to the updates that speed up OSX. And it's the speed/responsiveness of OS X which slowly but steadily appears to improve.

BeOS thought they could cannonball in and make a fast, fast OS and take over the world. On the other hand, UNIX is still going strong.

But without meaning to bitch, I've noticed that you've got nearly 10.000 posts. What do you do with your spare time?</STRONG>

Fair enough, it could have been meant that way; but it still makes no sense.

Do you think BeOS would have succeeded had they made it slower? Heh. I think not.
Either way the comment is... well... yeah. I've said it already.

What do I do in my spare time? The same things most people do; party and the usual stuff. Board, swim, etc.

My time posting on MacNN isn't my spare time; that's when I'm working

Call it multitasking I suppose. How ironic.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Eugene Fields:
<STRONG>Hey Cipher what is your problem? if you don't like it don't use it, plain and simple. I think you forgot your meds this morning! Ranting about bull shit like this!.

Its a NEW operating System Just introed and gestating, your comparing it to an OS that is 20 yrs old and has had alot of time to mature and still its unstable in a modern environment!

OS9 Crashes every day and its simply not up to the task in this interconnected world we have become.

As for all the art in the OS I applaud it, and wait for it to become more of what you find so awful.

I agree there should be a facility to turn it off If extra power is actually needed, though I won't turn it off for a few nanoseconds speed.. It's gorgeous and enhances the time , which is considerable, I spend at the Mac!

I applaud all the changes and think this OS is the cats meow! Imagine how fine it will be this time next year. Maybe by then you'll have grown a little, closer, to appreciating the fine work it is..!!




[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Eugene Fields ]</STRONG>

New? Just intro'd? I think not. Someone wanna remind Mr. Fields how long OSX has been in circulation for?

See, the whole point is that it *isn't* unstable... try and pick up on that one next time I say it, okay?

OS9 does not crash every day, and it not only is up to the task, but outperforms is so-called replacement. Once again, the fact that you, this time, can make such a blind blanket statement as "OS9 crashes every day" pretty much shows that you don't know sh!t, and if you do, well, it isn't evident here.

Yes, well, wonderful, it enhances *your* time at the computer. Not mine, not others. Problem there, right? I don't care if it speeds it up by turning it off, I just want to be rid of those Godawful effects. Either way it'll be better off, IN MY OPINION. It must cater for as many people as possible, right?
Right.

I appreciate greatness; I don't care that OSX is RELATIVELY new and immature; the very simple fact is it can't outperform its replacement in every respect.
Do you know what would happen to OSX if the "people" treated Operating Systems like the military treats experimental fighter jets? I tell you now, it'd either be FAST, or dead.

The fact that OS9 is still better in MANY way is pathetic. A joke.

Whats even funnier is the number of people who take it seriously

[Jelle Monkmater]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>
Do you think BeOS would have succeeded had they made it slower? Heh. I think not.
Either way the comment is... well... yeah. I've said it already.
</STRONG>

What I meant to say was that BeOS was radically different as an OS, and it simply didn't 'take' with the general public partly because it was introduced too late and partly because it just couldn't communicate with other systems (Windows, Mac) all too well. If BeOS had been developed slower (basing itself on an existing OS), and had it steadily moved away from that base OS, it might have been a lot more healthy than it is now.

OS X could have gone the same route (Rhapsody tried), but it would have suffered from the same problems as BeOS. PhotoShop would never, ever be ported to a new Mac OS if it didn't have backwards compatibility with the old OS (this is why Rhapsody failed -- no Adobe support). Using an existing layer (UNIX) and adding backward compatibility for Carbon apps has helped OS X to still largely be 'in touch' with the Mac community (and even managed to attract a growing number of *NIX hackers), but has also made it impossible to make radical changes to the system.

Interestingly enough, the most radical thing might be the whole bells and whistles Quartz layer, which is exactly what most people complain about being too slow. But up to this day, you still have the choice of using OS 9 with any new machine you get.

Crashing apps are, to me, a sign of bad programming on the application's programmer's side. The few apps that consistently crash (unexpectedly quit) on my machine are OmniWeb and Fire. All other apps have yet to crash on me, and given that I have about 15 open at any given time, that's not a bad track record at all.

So far, also from work (being a BOFH has its perks).

[Arkham_c]

I've been a Mac user since System 6.0.0. I also happen to be a software developer with a lot of UNIX experience.

I run OSX on a G4/450 with lots of RAM, and I love it. It's not as fast as OS9, but I would crash OS9 weekly, if not daily. Maybe OS9 is stable for what you guys do, but the biggest programs that cause crashes in OS9 are MS Entourage and MSIE. Both of those apps can bring down an OS9 system and everything running on it.

With OSX, that doesn't happen. First, I have not had either of those apps crash under OSX, but more importantly, if I did, it would not affect anything else. I can play "Return to Wolfenstein" or "Age of Empires II" on OSX, and people can still hit my web server and download files and pages while I play. That's what OSX is all about.

Also, as a programmer, I love that OSX has a command-line. I write shell scripts and python scripts that make my life easier. I have cron jobs that run things on a regular basis automatically. I never even boot classic anymore now that my SCSI CD burner works in OSX.

Like many of you here, I have my complaints about OSX, but 90% of them have been addressed by good third party tools like ASM and TinkerTool. Once Apple gets the OSX Finder speed up a little more, fixes some of the font-wrapping issues, and cleans up the metadata problems everyone is arguing over elsewhere, OSX will be my dream OS.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>No, I'm afraid you're wrong; a crash in IE (which isn't all that common for me... its my browser of choice now) doesn't take the rest of the system. I find the only app which takes the rest of the system when it crashes is ProTools... heh. An old version.

IE will, AT WORST, drop me into Macsbug, from whence I can recover.</STRONG>

Can you see why I inserted the little comment: "And don't tell me it's because I haven't tweaked the hell out of my system."?

Because, you see, for us non-programming types (which I'd venture are 98% of users), IE DOES crash the entire system. Daily. Less so, if I open it as the very last app - which is the sort of flexibility I love about OS 9. &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

And I'm sure you're proud of your specialized knowledge and finely tuned system, but really, if you look at the time you spent with setting all that up to the point where it's actually stable, what with tried and tested versions of almost every Extension IIRC, you can't really claim that your system is what Apple sends out.

I myself stopped fiddling with the system guts after 8.6 - I realized that I didn't have the patience, interest, or time to do Apple's work for them.

I wanted to work *with* my computer, not *on* it.

After all, that's why I was using a Mac in the first place.

And using stock installs from then on made apparent how problematic the Mac OS really had become.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>No problemo eh?</STRONG>

On the contrary.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>Slow and steady wins the race - I can't believe you actually said that regarding computers. Wow. That was... well... unbelievably stupid. I wouldn't have expected it from you, as you usually seem pretty well in touch with most of your brain.

The fact that you said that can pretty much invalidate any other statement you make for the rest of your life...</STRONG>

I've ragged on your reading (and arguing) skills extensively in the past, so I'll leave it at this comment regarding that.

But:
Notice the advanced tactic of using examples to illustrate and exemplify the intended meaning of statements made:

Slow and steady wins the race.
And frankly, my OS 9 really didn't feel particularly "snappy" the other day when I was converting and burning some ShrinkWrap disk images. Not being able to do *anything* while your computer's performing elementary chores sucks so bad - I basically had to let the machine sit for about eight hours, returning to it only to start the next conversion. And don't tell me it's because I haven't tweaked the hell out of my system.
OS X is obviously fast enough for enough people.

The point I was really trying to make - and I KNOW that you disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong - is that *I* VASTLY prefer a system that may not be as snappy as David Garibaldi's drumming, but that keeps on chugging at that same level regardless of what I'm doing. (Hint: interpret the little story about OS 9 as a counterexample, to illustrate the behavior I so despise about OS 9. It will explain how OS 9 can become *totally* UN-responsive when the system is working on routine tasks.)

So, let's try this again, shall we:
It is my conviction that a system I can actually USE will always get things done faster than a system which is entirely unusable for hours on end while performing what should be routine chores.
It is my conviction that a system which doesn't force me through the process of rebooting, opening all my apps and documents, and probably having to re-do lost work is inherently faster than one that does. Even if it seems a little slower for some tasks.

It is my conviction that a slower, but stabler system with true multitasking will ALWAYS come out on top in terms of work done.

"Slow and steady wins the race."

But frankly, someone who has explained elsewhere how he spends painstaking hours honing his system(s), only updates certain extensions, using aliases to other versions, and who has Macsbug installed to save his ass when his machine crashes, has very little credibility at all in my eyes when talking about the stability of the system in general.

-chris.

[Cipher13]

The Macsbug comment relates to WHEN IE crashes; extremely rarely. I can't remember the last time it crashed, since adding RAM...

It's 2AM and I'm not gonna reply to your post now; maybe tomorrow or something.

I'll just say this; I know you prefer something else. Fine. I really don't care. You know what I prefer. Wonderful! Let's all get along and hold hands and dance around a rainbow or something equally disturbing.

The entire problem is this; Mac OS X is inferior to Mac OS 9 in certain ways. Right? I think we can all agree that OS9 is faster GUi-wise. Forget the guts for the moment.

It SHOULDN'T be. It cannot be. I'd use it in a second if only the GUI was as fast as 9's... AND if I had control over what it looked like, as I do in 9...

A lot of my methods aren't exactly normal; but anything you can do in OSX, I can do in OS9, including multitasking to the same level; sure, I have to control it myself, but just personally, I prefer that.

You don't like tasks like compressing a file locking down OS9? Install Peek-A-Boo and drop its priority; it works wonders.

*sigh*

I like to have things done when I ask them to be done; not later while my window manager or something equally unimportant (in this situation) steals processor time that should be going to Final Cut while it's rendering.

Oh well. It's late. Whatever.

[xi_hyperon]

Naming the topic "why OS X rules" is bound to bring out all the riffraff who've got nothing better to do than flame. Having said that, I think someone who clamors for OS 9 and feels it's superior to a real multitasking OS is the person who's got the credibility problem. But then again, that's an inherent characteristic of a troll. All flame, no substance.

I don't miss giving presentations in OS 9, only to have the whole fscking system crash. That gives *me* a credibility problem. I don't miss waiting for a lame app like MS Outlook to load for 10 minutes while I study every freaking pixel on its splash screen. I don't miss the ridiculous performance degradation just from copying a batch of .jpg files to a network. Now I don't have to deal with these issues, because if something takes awhile to load, copy or whatever, I can work on something else. If something crashes, I don't have to reboot. As a result I do work faster. Do you understand the point? Working faster ain't all about scroll speed.

If you would like to stay in 9, and I don't just mean Cipher, I mean anyone who wants to take the opportunity to whine about the old days, then by all means stay in fscking OS 9. Wow. We're happy for you, we really are, just like we're happy for all the Amiga and Be owners out there who still love their system. Enjoy. Good luck on the updates and new apps in the future.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>
The entire problem is this; Mac OS X is inferior to Mac OS 9 in certain ways. Right? I think we can all agree that OS9 is faster GUi-wise. Forget the guts for the moment.

</STRONG>

Define inferior? Quartz smokes Quickdraw. Boot into OS9 without your video card drivers and then compare the 2 GUIs. When (if) Apple ever get's a clue and figures out how to use hardware to accelerate Quartz it will make OS9 look like it's standing still. Also the ability to manipulate windows on multiple levels could never be done in OS9

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>
A lot of my methods aren't exactly normal; but anything you can do in OSX, I can do in OS9, including multitasking to the same level; sure, I have to control it myself, but just personally, I prefer that.

You don't like tasks like compressing a file locking down OS9? Install Peek-A-Boo and drop its priority; it works wonders.

*sigh*

I like to have things done when I ask them to be done; not later while my window manager or something equally unimportant (in this situation) steals processor time that should be going to Final Cut while it's rendering.

</STRONG>

Well you must be supernatural. If you really can get OS9 to multi-task like OSX and to be as stable as OSX then you've succeeded where 100s of Apple software engineers have failed over the last decadet. I've done the extension juggle in OS9 and if I'm just surfing and listening to music it's speed and stability rivals OSX. I would love to see you make my machine back up 4gb of data (in OS9) onto a DVD-RAM disk and perform other tasks as well as OSX. It's ironic, before OSX I never used my DVD RAM drive and never indexed my Hardrives, because I couldn't do anything else well at the same time. In OSX these things occur in the background and I don't even notice a slow down.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>The Macsbug comment relates to WHEN IE crashes; extremely rarely. I can't remember the last time it crashed, since adding RAM...
</STRONG>

Ah, thanks, you reminded me of another GREAT pleasure of OS 9! Memory fragmentation. That's got to be one of the toppers. Forget about crashing because it doesn't matter!! Open and close enough apps, long enough (less than a day usually) and wow! Where did my RAM go? I know it's there somewhere. You know what, it doesn't look like crashing is a requirement for rebooting everyday. That's a wonderful feature, certainly worthy of one's time. Just remembering doing this brings back memories I'd long ago stored away in some dark corner of my mind.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>The Macsbug comment relates to WHEN IE crashes; extremely rarely. I can't remember the last time it crashed, since adding RAM...</STRONG>

iMac DV 400, 192 MB RAM. Daily. Not exaggerating.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>It's 2AM and I'm not gonna reply to your post now; maybe tomorrow or something.

I'll just say this; I know you prefer something else. Fine. I really don't care. You know what I prefer. Wonderful! Let's all get along and hold hands and dance around a rainbow or something equally disturbing.

The entire problem is this; Mac OS X is inferior to Mac OS 9 in certain ways. Right? I think we can all agree that OS9 is faster GUi-wise. Forget the guts for the moment.</STRONG>

Actually, I think now that we've both let off steam, it's time we tried to keep it a little more civil.
This, btw, we CAN agree on.
We disagree over how relevant it is.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>It SHOULDN'T be. It cannot be. I'd use it in a second if only the GUI was as fast as 9's... AND if I had control over what it looked like, as I do in 9...</STRONG>

OS X is just as themable as OS 9.

Why the GUI is slower, and why it CANNOT be as fast as OS 9 on equivalent hardware, has been explained in detail. Quartz, if it was to happen at all, had to happen NOW. Every increase in the complexity of software has always resulted in more overhead for the machine. There's no way you can deny that. But machines have gotten faster.
You wouldn't dream of installing System 8.6 on an LC II, and it runs fine under 7.1. Some others swear by 6.0.7.

It's always a trade-off. If you can't handle it, don't install it, but leave us the hell alone, because it ain't gonna go away. (Well, maybe it will, but it definitely won't have been your achievement.)

As it is, it's apparently good enough for a *LOT* of people - so good, in fact, that there's been more positive reviews and reactions to Mac OS in usually Mac-ignorant media in the last six months than probably in the ten *years* prior to X's release.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>A lot of my methods aren't exactly normal; but anything you can do in OSX, I can do in OS9, including multitasking to the same level; sure, I have to control it myself, but just personally, I prefer that.

You don't like tasks like compressing a file locking down OS9? Install Peek-A-Boo and drop its priority; it works wonders.</STRONG>

I didn't know about Peek-A-Boo. And I'm not sure I think I should need to.

But it illustrates my point of having to hack and tweak the system before it actually becomes usable. You *HAVE* to. In OS X, you CAN.
But it works out of the box, even if you just open up a big jumble of apps in random order.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>I like to have things done when I ask them to be done; not later while my window manager or something equally unimportant (in this situation) steals processor time that should be going to Final Cut while it's rendering.</STRONG>

Well, you know, if you want the entire system dedicated to rendering your film, you're absolutely free to just leave it alone while it does so. It's *being able* to do something alongside - like firing off that urgent memo, or just passing the time - that makes the system so comfortable. Leave it alone, and Stuffit or Final Cut Pro will hog the processor just as under 9.

From here:
The Mac communities are much better than the Windows and Linux communities as far as signal/noise ratio goes, but suffer from
a different kind of problem: Stubborn-ness. There seem to be endless armies of Mac users who feel that the old ways are the
best. Who kick and moan and bitch about OS X and its cursed Unix underbelly and how evil the command line is and how Apple
is off its rocker. These people would rather keep using a slow, crashy, OS with no remote administration and no appeal to
command-line power users and no position in the server niche than be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.

Granted, these voices seem to grow a little less loud and a little less prolific with every passing month. But they're still there, and
the fact that they're clinging to OS9 for reasons mostly beyond my comprehension are bad for us all. App vendors who haven't yet
ported point to a lack of wide-scale adoption of OS X. And whose fault is that? The very Macintosh userbase those app vendors
are here to support! Note to the stubborn ones: You're a drag on us all. Get on board.

-chris.

[Dr_Doom]

I find all you 'serious' mac-heads very funny. I am a recent convert to the Mac platform specifically because of OS X. It runs great on my machine DP450 with 640MB of RAM. I don't have any problems at all with it and all of my classic apps work just fine. Coming from a Unix admin background and having been forced to admin my share of NT boxen I can imho tell you that this OS is a serious contender in the desktop and user space. The interface is fantastic. It is not sluggish one iota in my experience. The application packaging is a fantastic solution to the windows issue of shared files and DLL hell. I mean, you can actually just delete the .app directory and voila it's gone! I don't think this operating systems is about market share retention at all, it is about growing the marketshare beyond the loyalist and getting more people like me to become Mac users and it is working. The truth of the matter is that no matter how much you rationalize your comfort with 9.X, the fact remains that it is now legacy and obsolete. It is fortunate for me and other new Mac family members that the time to move on to a better, stronger OS with a long term future rather than pandering short term minority comfort with only the ability to raise the loudest outcry. Remember: It's all about the other 95% that is what will keep everyone's beloved Mac around.

Kind Regards,

Dr_Doom

[Boondoggle]

OS 9 can be easily made almost as stable as OSX. Just hold down the shift key when you boot. Send me an email from that boot session and let me how successful it was.

bd

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Boondoggle:
<STRONG>OS 9 can be easily made almost as stable as OSX. Just hold down the shift key when you boot. Send me an email from that boot session and let me how successful it was.

bd</STRONG>

[juanvaldes]

Who uses the finder anyway?

Seriously, I have my most used apps in the dock, my home folder and app folder also in there letting me access any file on the system I need to. About once a month or so I might go in and clear out some old files, but otherwise I just save files where I need them. And can access ANYTHING from the dock.

[Deicide]

When MacOS X first came out I was one of the most vocal opponents of it. I was so mad at Apple I wanted to kick Steve�s ass( still do!). So I bitched, moaned and waited for MacOS 10.1. When it finally came I felt it was now bearable on my dual 533 G4. I have been using it ever since. It is getting better with every update. The UI speed is the only remaining major problem. We need Mac users like Cipher that will bitch and complain. It makes Apple get on the ball and fix things.


About MacOS 9 and some of you with stability problems? I don't know what to say, IE under 9 has only ever crashed on me twice. I even tracked how long it took to crash under MacOS 9.x once. 14 days! Thats a pretty good uptime for having no protected memory. That�s running IE, BBedit, Word, Excel, Entourage, Apple network assistant, Seti screen saver after work, etc.

[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Deicide ]

[mar]

try this: copy about gig of files to DVD-RAM in 9 and try doing anything else then try in X, you'll feel like you have a "speed demon" then.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Toyin:
<STRONG>

Well you must be supernatural. If you really can get OS9 to multi-task like OSX and to be as stable as OSX then you've succeeded where 100s of Apple software engineers have failed over the last decadet. I've done the extension juggle in OS9 and if I'm just surfing and listening to music it's speed and stability rivals OSX. I would love to see you make my machine back up 4gb of data (in OS9) onto a DVD-RAM disk and perform other tasks as well as OSX. It's ironic, before OSX I never used my DVD RAM drive and never indexed my Hardrives, because I couldn't do anything else well at the same time. In OSX these things occur in the background and I don't even notice a slow down.</STRONG>

Well, I must be then, mustn't I?
Actually, re. the multitasking, you must give credit to the creator of Peek-A-Boo. As for the stability, anybody who knows what the hell they're doing can make OS9 as stable as OSX.

<STRONG>Define inferior? Quartz smokes Quickdraw. Boot into OS9 without your video card drivers and then compare the 2 GUIs. When (if) Apple ever get's a clue and figures out how to use hardware to accelerate Quartz it will make OS9 look like it's standing still. Also the ability to manipulate windows on multiple levels could never be done in OS9</STRONG>

Um, okay, just booted without extensions on my 5500, and it's still faster than Aqua on my G4... your point lies where? I don't see it... wait, is that it over there? Dammit, nope, that's just a pile of sh!t. Damn dogs.