[Apple Pro Underwear]

I posted this here bacause i'm serious and so that means i don't want to act like a troll in the OSX section

OSX is just not fast enough for me. All the effects and docks and etc to me don't make it better than OS9. Multi-tasking and all the UNIX stuff and terminal mean nothing to me. To be quite honest...i have always liked the look of the classic OS9 GUI. As of right now, OS9 to me looks better than OSX.

I have been going back to OS9 just to work on projects and going back to OSX for everything else. In the experience of going back and forth...i feel even now, OS9 is still significantly better.

I see the dock as the best feature of OSX. I have a tab with all my app shortcuts that basically does the same thing and takes up less space.

Tech Info: graphic designer and i have a tibook 500 with 768 RAM. Running OS9.2 and OS10.2.2 jaguar (purchased) on 2 partitions.

What do you think? I would seriously like to know what you folks think.

[mrmister]

Hurm. Go back to 9, then...you can always check in and see when it speeds up and meets expectations.

I did that myself...used the public beta, then at about 10.0.4 I gave up and switched back to 9 until 10.1 made things usable for me.

It's not the end of the world...use what works for you.

When X is faster than 9, and that day will come, use an OS9 theme is OSX. Ta da.

[jwblase]

Go right ahead. Who's stopping you?

JB

[wadesworld]

Why do you need our permission?

It won't be long before you're back though - a crucial app or some other component will quickly become unsupported on OS 9.

Wade

[juanvaldes]

I love OS X because right now I'm browsing the web wiht a very young browser (chimera nightly), playing Final fantasy 1 with RockNES, ssh'ed into the linux box with BitchX up. Burning 10.2 server, all while playing Tool on iTunes. Not to mention I still have mail, Adium, Project Builder, Interface Builder and Cocoa Browser open.

Now that's me. OS X works so much better then OS 9 I can not describe it.

Go do what you want APU, just try not to crash OS 9 by viewing tfp while rendering in photoshop

[spiznet]

I have been testing out OSX this summer/fall for my illustration company. All artists are on G4s, either 500Mhz or Dual 500Mhz. Primarily using Photoshop and Illustrator.

Can't recommend a switch to OSX. We can't afford to slow the artists down in their work. ...Could buy new systems- but new Mac systems are currently disappointing in value/speed.

Waiting for MWSF.

[typoon]

Originally posted by spiznet:
I have been testing out OSX this summer/fall for my illustration company. All artists are on G4s, either 500Mhz or Dual 500Mhz. Primarily using Photoshop and Illustrator.

Can't recommend a switch to OSX. We can't afford to slow the artists down in their work. ...Could buy new systems- but new Mac systems are currently disappointing in value/speed.

Waiting for MWSF.

Or you could upgrade your Machines. I know I saw recently in that Sonnet or someone has 800 MHz Upgrades for likr 400 and 1GHz for 799. That would be much cheaper than upgrading new Machines. I'm going to do that soon. OS X runs decent on my G4450 at home. Have you tried optimizing the drives? It seems to Make OS X run better.

[pliny]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
I posted this here bacause i'm serious and so that means i don't want to act like a troll in the OSX section

OSX is just not fast enough for me. All the effects and docks and etc to me don't make it better than OS9. Multi-tasking and all the UNIX stuff and terminal mean nothing to me. To be quite honest...i have always liked the look of the classic OS9 GUI. As of right now, OS9 to me looks better than OSX.

I have been going back to OS9 just to work on projects and going back to OSX for everything else. In the experience of going back and forth...i feel even now, OS9 is still significantly better.

I see the dock as the best feature of OSX. I have a tab with all my app shortcuts that basically does the same thing and takes up less space.

Tech Info: graphic designer and i have a tibook 500 with 768 RAM. Running OS9.2 and OS10.2.2 jaguar (purchased) on 2 partitions.

What do you think? I would seriously like to know what you folks think.

Have fun! You know btw about A Dock, for OS 9? If you like the dock then you can have a dock in 9 with this little app. It's very useful for 9. None of the X apps interest you enough to stay in X?

[Guy Incognito]

OS 9 is just not fast enough for me. All the effects and icons and etc to me don't make it better than DOS. Cooperative multitasking and all the GUI stuff and windows mean nothing to me. To be quite honest...i have always liked the m look of the DOS CLI. As of right now, DOS to me looks better than OS 9.

I have been going back to DOS just to work on projects and going back to OS 9 for everything else. In the experience of going back and forth...i feel even now, DOS is still significantly better.

I see the application manager as the best feature of OS 9. I have script and batch files with all my DOS program shortcuts that basically does the same thing and uses up less eye-candy.

What do you think? I would seriously like to know what you folks think

[starman]

APU,
What apps are you running? I've pretty much accepted OSX, despite it's slowness, because I'd rather have stability than speed.

Mike

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by starman:
APU,
What apps are you running? I've pretty much accepted OSX, despite it's slowness, because I'd rather have stability than speed.

quark
photoshop
illustrator
dreamweaver
flash

for work

explorer and aim for play

i feel every one of those programs work better in OS9

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by juanvaldes:

Go do what you want APU, just try not to crash OS 9 by viewing tfp while rendering in photoshop

thats one of the problems!

but in reverse...

i used to make a lot more images and post them here but now with OSX...it's so slow to open up fireworks and photoshop and my ftp program for OSX is so bloated that i actually post less images here and in other forums!!!!

also, internet in OS9 to me feels better and IE for Macs (which i use) is less buggy

tech info: dsl

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by pliny:


Have fun! You know btw about A Dock, for OS 9? If you like the dock then you can have a dock in 9 with this little app. It's very useful for 9. None of the X apps interest you enough to stay in X?

i hate to admit it...

but my 1 tabbed folder with all my app shortcuts is better than the dock

i actually use haxies to stop some dock functionality

[CheesePuff]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:


thats one of the problems!

but in reverse...

i used to make a lot more images and post them here but now with OSX...it's so slow to open up fireworks and photoshop and my ftp program for OSX is so bloated that i actually post less images here and in other forums!!!!

also, internet in OS9 to me feels better and IE for Macs (which i use) is less buggy

tech info: dsl

And why again do you use IE?

Try Chimera or Mozilla or something else for gods sake!

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by wadesworld:
Why do you need our permission?

It won't be long before you're back though - a crucial app or some other component will quickly become unsupported on OS 9.

you're right

but i think i can legitimately still enjoy OS9 for atleast 6 to 10 more months before OSX is really prime time. Or atleast until i can buy a new machine that is worthy of purchasing.

But even then...if OSX still isn't quick enough...i wonder how fast OS9 would be on a new system!

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:


And why again do you use IE?

Try Chimera or Mozilla or something else for gods sake!

they're not full featured and the GUI is too unpolished

IE is not that bad but not as good as IE in os9

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:

but i think i can legitimately still enjoy OS9 for atleast 6 to 10 more months before OSX is really prime time. Or atleast until i can buy a new machine that is worthy of purchasing.

But even then...if OSX still isn't quick enough...i wonder how fast OS9 would be on a new system!

Well, by the time Apple makes a machine you're ready to buy, it likely won't be able to boot OS 9. Should be moot though; OS X should scream on a PPC 970.

[Ookla]

I am running OSX on five different machines: a TiBook500 (512M RAM), an iBook700 (14" screen, 384M RAM), and 3 Quicksilvers 800DP (256-512M RAM). For the exception of the TiBook, OSX.2.2 runs quite fast on these machines, comparable to OS9. I have a feeling that Quartz Extreme plays a significant role, as well as the faster CPUs in all of those machines. Although OSX.2.2 is a bit sluggish on my TiBook, I still use it as the only OS because its advantages outweigh the slowness, for me.

My advice, if you would like it, is: Since OSX is slow for you on your current setup, stay with OS9 on your TiBook until you can upgrade to a newer machine that can take advantage of all of OSX's speed enhancements. I am quite sure that if you were using a newer machine, such as the latest TiBooks, iBooks, or towers, you would find OSX to be quite fast and enjoyable to use as an OS.

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

I dunno man. I have a g4 Cube with 700MB RAM and I am also a web and print designer. Sure it may not FEEL as fast as OS9 but I get my work done much faster because of the Dock, column view and most of all NO CRASHES. When I work in OS9 I feel that I am playing russian Rullet the whole time, always scared that something will crash if I do to much. In OSX I have ton a million things at once like copy files to a sever, burning a CD, listening to iTunes and working in photoshop, illustrator and Flash all at the same time. I would never been able to do that in OS9 and would have waisted time splitting those tasks up.

I love OSX.

[Eug]

Well if you make your money working on your computer and OS 9 is better for you (including the crash and reboot time) then it would make sense for you to go back to OS 9. Fortunately, you do have that option. You must really think hard about it though. As Luke has alluded, a lot of people forget to factor in the downtime of OS 9. IMO OS 9 is no more stable than Win 98. Both can be very stable, but you have to make sure you do only 1 or 2 things at a time, and make sure you have done a reboot every so often. These limitations are just unnecessary in OS X.

I personally can't stand OS 9, but then again that's just me, and I don't generally use the apps you're talking about. (Actually, I usually prefer using Classic to OS 9 even, just to avoid booting into the crash prone 9.)

I'll admit I do find OS X kinda slow on my iBook 600 with Rage 128. My solution wasn't to go back to OS 9 though. My solution was to buy a TiBook 1 GHz with Radeon 9000. OS X is quite nice on this machine.

By the way, I use Chimera 95% of the time in X. It's fast even on the iBook. However, I still need Explorer 5% of the time because Chimera is still beta, and sometimes shows its betaness.

[macmike42]

I'm going back to scratching out arcane symbols on big stone tablets. While I'm at it, I'm giving up this "language" thing. New words keep getting added all the time, new definitions for old words whose current definitions have not yet "expired", I just can't keep up! There is little I cannot express with a grunt, growl, scream, whimper, or some form of flatulence. I also can't stand modern-day grocery stores, so I think I'll make myself a club so I can hunt down my after-work snack and bludgeon it to death. And this "fire" thing is overrated too...

The "I'm going back to pencil and paper" thread was much more entertaining.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Emotionally Fragile Luke:
I dunno man. I have a g4 Cube with 700MB RAM and I am also a web and print designer. Sure it may not FEEL as fast as OS9 but I get my work done much faster because of the Dock, column view and most of all NO CRASHES. When I work in OS9 I feel that I am playing russian Rullet the whole time, always scared that something will crash if I do to much.

well, since i got the new tibook and 9.1 was out...i haven't had a problem with crashes. I don't really do anything outrageous with 9 and don't install too many "hacks"...in fact no hacks or extraneous software

In My Experience...OSX doesn't crash, but a lot of the apps crash. Dreamweaver MX crashes and Explorer crashes.

But i do not Dislike OSX in any way, but i would like to see it more polished or unpolished i should say (get rid of the eye-candy BS). In fact a lot of the OSX things are great like column view and etc but not good enough to out equal the overall fast feeling of OS9.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by macmike42:
Uncalled for flaming

this is a legitamate thread, where i am seeking help from my friends and peers

i am not trying to offend OSX users. i do recognize that OSX is the next generation OS and that it is significantly better than OS9 technology-wise.

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

I forgot to mention the reason I can't stand OS9 is because of the memory fragmentation. I would always launch my in special orders and if I had to so something out of the ordenary it would monkeywrench me compleatly resulting in a reboot to clear up all the missing RAM. OSX I just do what I want.

[kman42]

OSX is much more efficient for everything I do, even on my old Lombard (before I sold it). The ability to keep many apps open all the time and running in the background is a huge time saver in my experience, even if the frontmost app doesn't run quite as quickly as it does under 9. On my G4/867 and my iBook 700, I don't even think about the speed issue any more. It simply doesn't come up. Responsiveness of the frontmost app is great and multitasking adds significantly to my productivity.

Even when I have to run a long matlab script on my iBook, I just do something else until it pops up all of my results. There is always an email or something that I can send in that 2-3 minutes. That just wasn't possible on 9.

Finally, just a little off-topic plug for Codetek. Virtual Desktops has been a great boost for organizing my computing environment and, thus, speeding up my workflow. It still has some weird inconsistencies, but for the most part it works great. I'd love to see Apple incorporate this functionality into the OS (I just think it would be a little more polished if it were done by Apple at the OS level).

kman

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:


quark
photoshop
illustrator
dreamweaver
flash

for work

explorer and aim for play

i feel every one of those programs work better in OS9

Quark (duh)
Photoshop Works fine for me, but you do have to get used to the slowness on the effects pallete, that used to drive me crazy, and I still get a little impatient now and again
Illustrator works fine. Illustrator 10 is freaking slow in 9 too
Dreamweaver is one of the worst apps that I've had to use on OSX, I use BBEdit, and haven't gotten used to the quirks of Dreamweaver.
Flash is buggy and crash prone.

From you app list i can defiantely see why you would want to switch. It drives me crazy that Macromedia has done such poor porting of their flagship applications. This platform needs better application support. It won't matter how great OS X is if the apps people want to use suck lemons.

Go ahead and switch. I prefer not to use Flash because of this. I want to learn it, but it just runs so badly. I was thinking about getting a PC just for games and Flash development. Its sort of a dillemna.

Anyway, I fell your pain APU. Good luck on the choice, and I hope Macromedia/Apple gets their collective acts together soon.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:


well, since i got the new tibook and 9.1 was out...i haven't had a problem with crashes. I don't really do anything outrageous with 9 and don't install too many "hacks"...in fact no hacks or extraneous software

In My Experience...OSX doesn't crash, but a lot of the apps crash. Dreamweaver MX crashes and Explorer crashes.

But i do not Dislike OSX in any way, but i would like to see it more polished or unpolished i should say (get rid of the eye-candy BS). In fact a lot of the OSX things are great like column view and etc but not good enough to out equal the overall fast feeling of OS9.

Actually, I'd have to agree there. OS X is ultra stable, but some of the apps sometimes are not - a legitimate concern. I find it better than having to reboot in OS 9, but like I said earlier one can get reasonable stability running OS 9 if you only run 1 thing at time (which to me is a big pain in the @ss).

I suggest you just try it for a few days and see. If you like it fine, if you don't then come back to OS X. None of us can decide for you (esp me since I don't run most of the apps you do).

[Morenix]

i agree with Apple Pro Underwear.
Mac OS 9 is fast and simple. Also, Mac OS 9 it's the true Macintosh.

[Green Leaf]

burn the TROLL!!!

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

Originally posted by Morenix:
i agree with Apple Pro Underwear.
Mac OS 9 is fast and simple. Also, Mac OS 9 it's the true Macintosh.

What in the heck is that supposed to mean?

[macmike42]

I didn't flame anybody (you would know if I was flaming you), nor was I in the least bit offended (once again, you would know). I just found the pencil and paper thread more entertaining.

On topic:

I realized the other day how I just don't like certain things about OS 9 that I thought I loved. I used to think it was great to be able to totally customize what extensions and control panels load at startup. I thought it was great to able to have the speech manager, but yank the speech recognition component. Yesterday, as I set up a friend's iMac with Jaguar, I realized that I spent just as much time "optimizing" Classic (he needs it for 1 application), as I did installing, setting up, and customizing OS X itself. This included installing several Adobe and Macromedia apps as well as Office. I really like how OS X has a policy of "install everything, load what you need, when you need it".

Then there are tiny things. I honestly can't use anything besides column view now. All other paradigms seem silly and akward, but that's just my personal opinion (*cough*ilovetabbedbrowsing*cough*). I also love being able to close windows without activating the application they come from, and being able to stack windows any way I want, instead of having application "layers". Of course their are lots of tiny things from OS 9 that I miss, they grow fewer by the day.

Please note that I've used Macs since 1985, and since I was 5 at the time, I consider myself to be pretty stubborn in my ways. This is the main reason why I insist that OS X is a marked improvement over OS 9, but once again, it is only my opinion.

(Green Leaf: ...nevermind, it's too easy)

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by macmike42:
*snip*

i have grown to enjoy the better precision of OSX as well but OS9 really isn't that difficult as all my customization has been done for years

my machine is really meant and built for OS9 and i think thats where i will revert back to until drastic OSX improvement has come

i am installing 10.2.3 right now though.

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

Photoshop seems to work the same for me in both OSX and OS9.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Emotionally Fragile Luke:
I forgot to mention the reason I can't stand OS9 is because of the memory fragmentation. I would always launch my in special orders and if I had to so something...

in OSX and OS9....i don't like to keep so many apps open

generally i'll have itunes open and my mail program

then i'll have 2-3 apps i do the work with

OSX and OS9 can handle that just fine.

i have 3 shareware programs i am running to get back some os9 functionality too by the way.

�dropdrawers (tabs)
�windowshade (my machine is oo slow in minimizing windows to dock, plus i hate it. it also has a shadow killer included into the app)
�classic menu

so i dont think that really affects me too much

[macmike42]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
I like to make sweet love to young boys!

What? You didn't say that? Likewise, I did not say "*snip*" or "Uncalled for flaming". Please stop doing that. (Note: I am not flaming you, calm down, killer.)

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Morenix:
i agree with Apple Pro Underwear.
Mac OS 9 is fast and simple. Also, Mac OS 9 it's the true Macintosh.

WHAT!? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME I WAS RUNNING THE FALSE MACINTOSH FOR A YEAR???

[Eug]

Originally posted by macmike42:
What? You didn't say that? Likewise, I did not say "*snip*" or "Uncalled for flaming". Please stop doing that. (Note: I am not flaming you, calm down, killer.)

I'm going back to scratching out arcane symbols on big stone tablets. While I'm at it, I'm giving up this "language" thing. New words keep getting added all the time, new definitions for old words whose current definitions have not yet "expired", I just can't keep up! There is little I cannot express with a grunt, growl, scream, whimper, or some form of flatulence. I also can't stand modern-day grocery stores, so I think I'll make myself a club so I can hunt down my after-work snack and bludgeon it to death. And this "fire" thing is overrated too...

The "I'm going back to pencil and paper" thread was much more entertaining.

Hmmm... Sounds like flaming to me.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by macmike42:
What? You didn't say that? Likewise, I did not say "*snip*" or "Uncalled for flaming". Please stop doing that. (Note: I am not flaming you, calm down, killer.)

*snip* is generally used when someone quotes someone else but doesn't wan to quote the entire message. It's an indication that more was said but isn't relevant. In this case, he was just indicating that he's replying specifically to you, but I rarely see someone snip the entire quote.

"Uncalled for flaming" was a paraphasing of what you were saying (I don't necessarially advocate that interpretation). He wasn't trying to imply that that was what you actually said (although it would be easy to interpret the wrong way.

Matt

[macmike42]

Originally posted by Eug:
Hmmm... Sounds like flaming to me.

What it *sounds* like is inconsequential. The "quote" tag is for quoting people.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by macmike42:
What it *sounds* like is inconsequential. The "quote" tag is for quoting people.

I guess the moderators need to add a paraphrase tag. That would be kind of cool.

Matt

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:

WHAT!? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME I WAS RUNNING THE FALSE MACINTOSH FOR A YEAR???

Me too. I even bought 2 of those false Mac's - an iMac G4 for me in March and an iBook 800 12" for the wife last month. Damn. Should have got the "real" Mac.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:


in OSX and OS9....i don't like to keep so many apps open

that's a bad habit man

You got the ram there is NO reason not to. I used to quit apps all the time back in my OS 9 days, and tried to keep it under 5 apps otherwise I knew one was going to bump into the other and crash my system. Happened quite a bit, but I was able to minimize the damage by only using a few apps at a time.

but dude, give it up. Go back to 9, I can hardly believe you did switch when you need quark. Illustrator runs like a dog on a dual 1Ghz, photoshop runs perfictly fine for my amature needs and I have no clue about the rest of them.

Go back to 9, enjoy it while you still can.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
burn the TROLL!!!

Sounds good to me. Would you prefer to be grilled rare, medium, well, or charcoal?

In all seriousness, there needs to be a distinction drawn between "fast" and "responsive". Honestly, I think that's why we see all this back-and-forth on whether or not OSX is fast; the two sides are talking about very different things.

OS9 is responsive. Click a menu, it pops down.
OSX is fast. Have six apps open, none of them are any slower.

OS9 is not fast. Any benchmark can prove that.
OSX is not responsive. Any user can see that.

Keep in mind, OS9 is not exactly the king of responsivity either. Windows, in particular, has been more responsive than OS9 for quite some time, unless you count bluescreens.

But let's get that hammered out. OSX is unresponsive. That is a serious problem. But it is not slow.

And Moronix... care to elaborate on why OSX is less "simple" or why it is not "the true macintosh"?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by macmike42:
What? You didn't say that? Likewise, I did not say "*snip*" or "Uncalled for flaming". Please stop doing that. (Note: I am not flaming you, calm down, killer.)

2 of your 4 posts in this thread are very flame-like

the first one was in a very mocking fashion and the second to last one was very abusive

i stated in my first post that i was in need of counsel and did not mean to sound like anything other than a mac user in need of help.

as for "snipping" somebody...everybody does it.! it just means i'm referring to you. i'm trying to save space in this forum

(Note: I am not flaming you either. Also, why are you calling me killer? Even jokingly...i haven't said anything even remotely mild in response to any of your posts? )

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Millennium:

In all seriousness, there needs to be a distinction drawn between "fast" and "responsive". Honestly, I think that's why we see all this back-and-forth on whether or not OSX is fast; the two sides are talking about very different things.

OS9 is responsive. Click a menu, it pops down.
OSX is fast. Have six apps open, none of them are any slower.

OS9 is not fast. Any benchmark can prove that.
OSX is not responsive. Any user can see that.

as always, millenium has hit the nail on the head

and i think that is what i am craving...RESPONSIVENESS!!!

i use quick keys in all the programs and i just want to blaze through work.

[besson3c]

But i do not Dislike OSX in any way, but i would like to see it more polished or unpolished i should say (get rid of the eye-candy BS). In fact a lot of the OSX things are great like column view and etc but not good enough to out equal the overall fast feeling of OS9.

Why do so many people like to bash the "OS X eye-candy"? For one, it serves several useful purposes and is very forward thinking (and aspired for by other operating systems).. other than that, this just sounds like testostrone to me. I.e. "real men use grey comptuers with grey windows that give me every last processor cycle I paid for with my hard-earned dollars.. *grunt*"

Not picking on you specifically....

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by besson3c:


Why do so many people like to bash the "OS X eye-candy"? For one, it serves several useful purposes and is very forward thinking (and aspired for by other operating systems).. other than that, this just sounds like testostrone to me. I.e. "real men use grey comptuers with grey windows that give me every last processor cycle I paid for with my hard-earned dollars.. *grunt*"

Not picking on you specifically....

i think what it is...

people use OSX and see the unresponsiveness and they see eye-candy.

what is causing the unresponsiveness? the eye-candy? maybe.

also, after using OSX for many months now...i'm over it. i would prefer responsiveness rather than it.

If there was a feature that gave you a choice...super plain, optimized to use as little resources as possible...and a "default" GUI design that is what we have now...then i think people would not complain

[besson3c]

i think what it is...

people use OSX and see the unresponsiveness and they see eye-candy.

what is causing the unresponsiveness? the eye-candy? maybe.

also, after using OSX for many months now...i'm over it. i would prefer responsiveness rather than it.

If there was a feature that gave you a choice...super plain, optimized to use as little resources as possible...and a "default" GUI design that is what we have now...then i think people would not complain

I don't think Apple should even offer this as an option. They've spent lots of R&D developing a very slick looking OS with tons of visual feedback and thoughtful design, and this is part of how it is marketed. Given some of the themes that people have developed, if Apple were to allow people to theme their OS and provide a free-for-all as to how it looks, computer geeks would make their computers look like how they dress.

There are 3rd party things which will do away with all the extra Quartz stuff (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to as eye-candy). Beyond that, it doesn't take any more processing power to color something blue rather than grey.

[macmike42]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
2 of your 4 posts in this thread are very flame-like

the first one was in a very mocking fashion and the second to last one was very abusive

Guilty as charged on one count of mockery, although I don't consider a well-written mock to be a flame. But that's just me, I could be wrong. However I must plead ignorance on how my second post was at all abusive. I used on small paragraph to explain that I was not flaming you, and from then on I was totally on-topic. Oh whoops. Second-to-last. My bad. If that offended you, I totally apologize for the actual content of the quote, I meant nothing by it. Probably went overboard to on that point. Once again, I'm sorry about that. If it means anything to you, I really hate the pre-Christmas holdiay season, and become incredibly spiteful and sardonic. No excuse, I know, but I'll be all better come Christmas morning.

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
as for "snipping" somebody...everybody does it.! it just means i'm referring to you. i'm trying to save space in this forum

A *snip* or a [snip] without any context doesn't clue anyone in to what you are talking about. Considering you snipped *my whole post*, don't you think you would have saved even more space by *not quoting anything*? That was my only point. I feel quite inarticulate for having to post three times to get this (admittedly mundane) point across. Have I suceeded yet?

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
(Note: I am not flaming you either. Also, why are you calling me killer? Even jokingly...i haven't said anything even remotely mild in response to any of your posts? )

More ill-targetted repressed Christmas-time rage, I guess. I said it jokingly though, so I won't apologize for it. Seriously, I think being a little snippy on a message board from time to time is much healthier than driving like a maniac or screaming at people. Plus I'm building my post count. Wee!

[OSxRulz]

dude.. I'm with you on the switch back to OS 9 fulltime.

I'm a photoretoucher/designer and OS X sucks A$$ for doing our kind of work. Bottom line________ I don't care if you got the dual 1.25mhz G4s.... it still won't perform as fast as OS 9 for quark, photoshop, and Illustrator type of work.

I can blaze thru my work under OS 9... under OS X... it's like squeezing maple syrup out of a frozen jar. It looks pretty.... tastes great but falls short on timely satisfaction.
OS X is for peeps who only do home/kid stuff... like surfing, music, or just general fiddling around.

My 1st Generation G4 400 runs smoother, faster, and is just as stable as OSX.
I can work under OS 9 for weeks without even restarting the damn thing.

I mean cmon Apple.... FFS (for f*** sake) Fix the speed issues damnit.... something as simple as navigating the finder and printing should be instantaneous as it always has been.

Damn.. navigating the finder in OS 7 was faster than OS X.
Steve JOBS needs to get his priorities straight.. who gives a crap if PC people want to switch over.... Graphic Realms are what made Mac what it is today..... they should satisfy our needs first and foremost. Cause if we don't buy the new Macs that come with OS X only to do our graphic work..... Apple will go Chapter 11.

I'd rather do my work on a PC before going to OS X fullltime.