[JLL]

Originally posted by iBorg:


Irrelevant - I was refuting the previous post stating that OS 9 was a similarly significant slowdown from OS 8, which was untrue.



iBorg

Please try and compare Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9 on a Power Mac 4400.

[mrmister]

" Please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean any malice by it...but I wonder if folks like you are brainwashed a bit by Apple's propaganda."

Well, for me i love the Dock AND I love my hierarchical Apple menus, so I kept both--in OS X i religiously run:

FruitMenu (Look, there's a better Apple Menu than OS 9...and contextual menus.)

ASM (A better switcher than 9)

Windowshade (configured to give me a collapsed bar only when I click on the widget & removing all drop shadows.

Custom Theme (In my case it is Smooth Stripes with all the transparency turned off.)

I also make certain I am in Graphite mode constantly.

These steps work for me like butter--I have all the power and flexibility I had in my OS9 interface, PLUS it doesn't crash and take down the whole system, PLUS the new doodads in X (like the Dock) work with me since I miss nothing.

I totally agree that OSX needs to be faster, more bulletproof and...FASTER. And that goes for the Macs running it as well.

So maybe we can call a little truce? Be happy in OS9 with your current computer and evaluate your needs vs. what Apple's done to the platform in, say, a year.

I agree that it is early for us to go only-X booting...but it is one of those horribly difficult decisions that, if left unmade, just encourages every developer to lag and lag on X development until BOTH systems are unusable because Apple is out of business.

[Amorph]

Originally posted by John123:

Part of the big push with Jaguar is that a lot of the graphics could be offloaded to the GPU. With OS 9, that was never necessary.

That's because OS 9's screen management was 1984 technology.

It's not the little animations that make OS X's GUI more labor intensive, it's the fact that windows are automatically double-buffered, and just about everything on screen is rendered to PDF format. The OS X GUI layer is much, much more powerful than OS 9's or Windows'. This can be used for eye candy, but it is also used:

1) to make hardware that was previously incapable of basic real-time video compositing without additional hardware suddenly capable of elaborate real-time compositing. This is useful for, say, video professionals.

2) To allow applications to use Quartz and OpenGL together in the same window. This is unprecedented.

3) To permanently get rid of the mess that results in a more primitive GUI when an application becomes unresponsive: Doubtless you've seen bits and pieces of windows and dialog boxes sprayed onto the window among swaths of white because an unresponsive app had a window open? The automatic double-buffering takes care of that. At a cost, of course.

4) The entire GUI can be rendered in vectors. This is pretty forward-looking now (although it's how fonts are rendered in OS X now) but it will become significant as high-resolution displays enter the market.

If you don't think any of this is worthwhile, switch to Windows... which will be getting the same kind of display technology in a couple of years. Whoops.

Just try encoding a movie in Discreet Cleaner, or preparing some animation in Adobe LiveMotion, or running a filder in Photoshop. Do it while other applications are open. Benchmark it in 9 and in X. You'll see what I mean.

No offense, but only an OS 9 user would call this a test of multitasking. Try this: Fire up iTunes, and rip a CD. Set it to play the songs as it's ripping them. Immediately, start Sherlock indexing. Immediately, start Photoshop, and launch a filter. Immediately, copy a few GB of files in Finder. Immediately, work on that animation in LiveMotion. Try switching between tasks while they're all running. How responsive is OS 9 now? Versus OS X? Oh, and for real fun, hold down a system menu. How's the multitasking now?

See, OS X will always be slower at any one task because it's a multitasking OS. OS 9 will ignore all but the frontmost app, so it really doesn't matter how many you have open. OS X will ask them all if they have work to do. So yes, if you have 10 idle apps and one active app, OS 9 will be faster at that one app. But if you have ten active apps, OS X will destroy OS 9.

That's the key to being productive in OS X: Every time you start something that will have to grind away for a while, background it and work on something else. Sure, it'll take longer to complete running in the background, but would you rather stare at the screen while a filter runs for two minutes, or work in LiveMotion until the filter finishes in the background in three minutes? This is true multitasking. And, I might add, OS X is a lot better at it than any version of Windows. I know. I have about the same box you have at work, also running Win2K.

For a really obvious benchmark, download the program that opens and closes a window 1000 times (the program has the word "bloom" in the title, but I forget the exact name...you can find it on one of these boards, though). You'll notice a huge lag in 9 versus X.

Let1KWindowsBloom. Yes, it's faster in OS 9. It will always be faster in OS 9. Unless you spend all your time opening windows as quickly as possible, I don't see what the point is.

Don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm all for progress. And if X is the way of the future, then that's fine. But I've used every almost iteration of X -- from the Public Beta to 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2...and it still lags in speed.

I could put up with OS X's irksome features if they'd just optimize it.

Considering what it does, it's impressively fast. Part of the problem seems to be that you're trying to work in OS X the way you've trained yourself to work in OS 9: Do one thing, wait until it's finished, then do another thing, wait until it's finished, etc. You don't have to put that limitation on yourself anymore. It's an artifact of OS 9's terrible multitasking support.

[technocoy]

there are so many things to say here, i could never touch them all, but to get out just a few...

I have been running OS X in a professional setting (designer) for nearly a year now, and for awhile, i had to go back and forth for OS9... i.e. photoshop, after effects, etc. now i am exclusively Jaguar, except for protools, which is on it's way. I have three other co-workers running it as well, all i know is that i see some of the arguments, but over all � your tripping balls if you don't like OS X,
granted jaguar has seen a few more spinny beachballs, but i have the feeling that that is all temporary. I don't know what your careers are, but i'm a multitasking creative, (which is apple's biggest user group, and who for the most part exercise asthetics at the core of everything they do) and i have run OSX on quite a few systems... on my old B&W G3 yes, it blows, on my dual 533 with upgraded video card, it was pretty damn snappy... and on my new dual 867, it's (minus the occasional spinny beachball) damn fast. I hate to boot into os9 as do my co-workers simply BECAUSE of how clunky OS9 feels!! I start app after app and no crash, as a matter of fact other than once in after effects, i have had NO system crashes. and for a creative (especially an OCD ADD creative) those OS9,8,7,6 whatever crashes are a serious attention breaker. and my after effects guy can't quit exclaiming how much faster his renders are in X. so to the community that are the majority of mac users, this OS is wonderful, and i as a designer who thinks different (and creatively) i love the attention to font rendering and usability and the OS has overall improved my performance because of its features and intuitiveness.

for those who have no need for the speed machine, apple is doing perfect at getting new users.

my mother and grandmother have both had pc's for years, they were pretty much useless to them, i got them macs with OSX, they are never off the damn things!! from an initial learning standpoint this OS is much easier for new users ( so yes this OS does bring new users, and those new users especially the digital generation buy macs because of their coolness and DIGITAL HUB PROGRAMS and ease of use) as a branding consultant I can tell you that apples new apps and OS designs ARE bringing attention to the brand, and as a power user and designer, i can tell you that from my experience this OS is leaps and bounds over the others in reliability, creativity, user interface, networking( the pc's at work can finally see ME), and multitasking. I'll take a little temporary speed hit for all that!!! and personally i think that this is the first time that apple is truly beginning to live up to the "think different" call to action.


sorry for the long post, had to get that out, even thought i didn't say it all
technocoy

[John123]

Originally posted by Amorph:


That's because OS 9's screen management was 1984 technology.

It's not the little animations that make OS X's GUI more labor intensive, it's the fact that windows are automatically double-buffered, and just about everything on screen is rendered to PDF format. The OS X GUI layer is much, much more powerful than OS 9's or Windows'. This can be used for eye candy, but it is also used:

1) to make hardware that was previously incapable of basic real-time video compositing without additional hardware suddenly capable of elaborate real-time compositing. This is useful for, say, video professionals.

2) To allow applications to use Quartz and OpenGL together in the same window. This is unprecedented.

3) To permanently get rid of the mess that results in a more primitive GUI when an application becomes unresponsive: Doubtless you've seen bits and pieces of windows and dialog boxes sprayed onto the window among swaths of white because an unresponsive app had a window open? The automatic double-buffering takes care of that. At a cost, of course.

4) The entire GUI can be rendered in vectors. This is pretty forward-looking now (although it's how fonts are rendered in OS X now) but it will become significant as high-resolution displays enter the market.

If you don't think any of this is worthwhile, switch to Windows... which will be getting the same kind of display technology in a couple of years. Whoops.



No offense, but only an OS 9 user would call this a test of multitasking. Try this: Fire up iTunes, and rip a CD. Set it to play the songs as it's ripping them. Immediately, start Sherlock indexing. Immediately, start Photoshop, and launch a filter. Immediately, copy a few GB of files in Finder. Immediately, work on that animation in LiveMotion. Try switching between tasks while they're all running. How responsive is OS 9 now? Versus OS X? Oh, and for real fun, hold down a system menu. How's the multitasking now?

See, OS X will always be slower at any one task because it's a multitasking OS. OS 9 will ignore all but the frontmost app, so it really doesn't matter how many you have open. OS X will ask them all if they have work to do. So yes, if you have 10 idle apps and one active app, OS 9 will be faster at that one app. But if you have ten active apps, OS X will destroy OS 9.

That's the key to being productive in OS X: Every time you start something that will have to grind away for a while, background it and work on something else. Sure, it'll take longer to complete running in the background, but would you rather stare at the screen while a filter runs for two minutes, or work in LiveMotion until the filter finishes in the background in three minutes? This is true multitasking. And, I might add, OS X is a lot better at it than any version of Windows. I know. I have about the same box you have at work, also running Win2K.



Let1KWindowsBloom. Yes, it's faster in OS 9. It will always be faster in OS 9. Unless you spend all your time opening windows as quickly as possible, I don't see what the point is.



Considering what it does, it's impressively fast. Part of the problem seems to be that you're trying to work in OS X the way you've trained yourself to work in OS 9: Do one thing, wait until it's finished, then do another thing, wait until it's finished, etc. You don't have to put that limitation on yourself anymore. It's an artifact of OS 9's terrible multitasking support.

Thank you, Amorph. That was an intelligent, well-thought-out, and pretty flameless post, which stands in stark contrast to some of the posts so far in this thread.

Your perspective on what OS X offers is unique to me, and I had never really considered it in that context. I think you make the most compelling argument I've ever seen -- that the efficiency of the OS is a function of the way in which the user uses it. That seems like an obvious point at first, I guess, but the way in which you contextualized it with respect to multitasking made me see it in a new light. So thank you.

I guess the question for users like me is whether we are willing to change the way we use our computers. See, I don't all that often find myself *needing* to do the kind of multitasking you described. I don't very often need a background app(s) to be working on something while I'm doing something in the foreground. I may want to be able to switch between apps to do a project, but I don't think I've ever found myself letting a filter run in Photoshop while trying to do something else in the foreground. In 9, it never even crossed my mind. The only true multitasking I do in that sense is on my PC, when my database program is running a routine and I want to do something else in the meantime.

Good stuff to think on. Thanks, man.

[rambo47]

Lot's of the old hardware is just not going to run OS X the way we'd like. My dual-usb iBook sucks in OS X. I run OS 9.2 on it along with Yellow Dog Linux 2.3 and I'm very happy. On my other Macs I run OS X exclusively. I don't even have "Classic" installed on my PowerMac. OS X is processor-intensive, and the trend is to get more processor-intensive, not less. You need a faster machine to run OS X and finally, inch by inch, Apple is giving us faster machines. The next revision of the Ti Book will hit 1 GHz and in six months we should see something truely stunning in the PowerMac line up. (note: the above rumors are based on info from a trusted insider and are my own personal beliefs. no intention to start a flame war or hijack the thread is intended)

Getting back to the original thread about not buying a MWSF PowerBook, I will be taking a good look with the intention to buy. The 1 GHz Ti will run OS X so well you may just change your mind.

[KidRed]

On topic-

You are not the only one, no one will be buying a MWSF PB because there won't be any. The PB are said to be coming out in a week.

[John123]

I hope the rumors are true.

The real screw would be if the PBs were announced on 11/5 but did not ship until 2003....but I doubt that would happen. Typically, delayed shipping products from Apple have incorporated the high-end models rather than an entire line.

[vsurfer]

Originally posted by dialo:
So I should be forced to buy upgrades of all of my software? Buying a OSX only powerbook would require a lot more than I'm ready to give up. I would need to buy logic 5 (I use 4), illustrator, photoshop (I still use 6) and office x among others. Not cool.

Hear you.

Much as i love OSX, and much as I dislike having to boot into 9 on occasion, and much as I get frustrated with eh terrible multitasking on my dedicated OS9 G4, I also depend on Quark Express 4.0. Many printers are not accepting 5.0 files for certain types of jobs. And when the price differential from one printer to another can be enormous, well gotta be able to boot 9. I think another year and that gap might well be bridged, but this feels a little premature.

Also I'm not sure it's wise for Apple's to alienate one of its core user bases in publishing quite so soon. In the corporate setting it takes a lot longer to move ahead with this kind of adoption. Even Windows admins often will wait 3 yrs before migrating to the next OS.

[Mac Zealot]

Just get a freaking PC and shut up.

The world could care less!

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Just get a freaking PC and shut up.

The world could care less!

Great advice - advice that more computer buyers are taking each year!

How low do you want Mac's market share to drop?



iBorg