[theolein]

I am creating this topic for the specific purpose of letting both sides fight their flame war. If they did it here, the number of new threads a la "OSX Sucks" or "OSX Rocks" or "You're all a bunch of pu**ies anyway" will decline radically, and the rest of us can get on trying to get this thing to work.

First post: OSX both sucks and rocks

[Hobbes]

Your last line says it all. OS X has both good and bad. Only the ignorant would ignore that fact.

OS X has its strong points, but it certainly has its weaknesses too. For either side to ignore that is to do a disservice to everyone.

[Chrisspoon]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>

First post: OSX both sucks and rocks </STRONG>

Osx is:
-slow even on a big mac
-unproductive in a professional environment
-Inadequate for prime time.

[foobars]

OSX is:

- A rock solid platform
- Feature rich
- Able to run all of your Classic and OSX app, plus some UNIX ones
- Years ahead of it's time
- The FUTURE of the Macintosh

[Chrisspoon]

Originally posted by foobars:
<STRONG>OSX is:

- Years ahead of it's time
- The FUTURE of the Macintosh</STRONG>

-Maybe it's that , the problem.(regarding speed issue vs hardware)

[iCartman]

First post: OSX both sucks and rocks

Typical stance for a swede

[Scott_H]

OS X is slow and lacking full hardware support. No matter how many times people tell my that I don't understand the UNIX software development model (which is irrelevant here) or that I'm being unfair because Apple has a lot of work to do (not my problem, what the hell have they been doing for 4 years?) there's no reason for OS X to be such a poor showing at the 10.0.4 level.

There is no pot of gold at the end of the 10.1 rainbow. OS X will be dog slow on anything but the latest hardware forever. Apple will never have full hardware support because they're too busy finishing OS X and when they do most iMacs will be in the dump. The "big party" is not this summer or fall or .....

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]

[booboo]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>

First post: OSX both sucks and rocks </STRONG>

Yes but apart from the poor to hideous UI performance, all the rest of the sucking could have so easily been avoided, by adhering to human interface guidelines that made Mac's so special in the first place.

The obvious bugs - and there are plenty - I'm happier to overlook.

Now, as a long-standinding Mac-user, I feel the Mac advantage has been eroded to the extent that I can't say for certain (for the first time in 12 years) that my next computer will be a Mac...a sad state of affairs.

Rocks? Only the OS's (not the app's) robustness.

Yes and as time goes on, I'm less and less happy to even boot into X. It just doesn't feel right. I'm fighting with it, even to pull down a menu, it feels. It doesn't want me to resize that window, or have it my way.

As a long-time Mac evangelist I'm now more certain than ever that a simplified [Platinum ]OS 9 type interface, on top of a robust crash-free sub system was the way to go. Keep the Dock if you like - but don't lose the [long time developed and refined]options for advanced users.

I think I'd have been using Linux years ago if OS-X was what I'd been waiting for.

[Deicide]

foobars :

- Feature rich

What features? Buzz words that are half assed implemented? What about the features that count? Like Speed!, hardware support( cd burning, video cards, VPN).

- Able to run all of your Classic and OSX app, plus some UNIX ones

Since when could it run Apple Network assistant? Or support my Logitech USB mouseware in Classic? Or allow me to connect to my older Macs still using Appletalk through classic?

- Years ahead of it's time

What does MacOS X do that another OS doesn't have or implemented in some form? What new stuff does MacOS X bring? Oh I know, it has the record for installing the most files at 30,000!!!!!!

[theolein]

What the F**k is wrong with you people? You haven't started insulting one another yet.

Maybe we could start a cult or a sect: We could pretend that JC in the shape of Steve J has come down to earth with the blessing of OSX to save the computing world form eternal damnation on the dark side. We could have splinter groups of these sects that call themselves "Zealots of the cause" or others called "the Whiners of faith". We could raise those holy gatherings of the faithful, MacWorld, to the level of a "must at least once visit in a lifetime" pilgrimage. We could even start a crusade, travel up and down the coast of california and massacre innocent PC users, because they're heathens. Once we've taken the heart of darkness, Redmond, we can hold mass conversions to macFaith and even have the occaisional inquisition for those who deviate from the path of true faith.

Ahmen
Brother theolein of Lombard

[foobars]

Originally posted by Deicide:
[QB]Or support my Logitech USB mouseware in Classic? [QB]

WAIT! Your 3rd party mouse does work in Classic! WHAT!? UNNACEPTABLE!!! You know what you're right! OSX SUCKS!!!!!!


You just don't get it do you?

OSX is the future of Apple. Without it they would die in the next 5 years during which time OS9 would become obsolete and become so bloated no amount of computing power would help. Protected memory was NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Preemtive multitasking was NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. OS9 was a peice of **** and Apple knows it. They've been struggling for 10 years to get rid of it's shakey backend and they finally did. You should thank them.

Apple set out to create something that would last them another 25 years. And they did it. They took the best core OS they could find, wrote up the best UI engine they could think of and designed it to change with the times. No other OS can touch that.

I could care less if your mouse doesn't work in Classic, or can't network with OS9, or whatever-- frankly so does Apple. The're in it for the long haul. They know OSX is slow on current machines but they way I see it, well, too bad. There's nothing you can do about it except wait and buy a new computer. Welcome to the real world of computing Mac users- PC fanatics have been playing this game for years!

OSX is built for the future and that's where it'll be fast. Your stinkin' apps are coming. Your ****ing DVD player is coming. X will do everything (and more!) 9 does and it will do it better and faster.

If you are afraid of change or don't like the cold reality (what! my 3 year old G3 is outdated?!) you can go sit in the corner with the other Windows 95 users.

Cheers!

[Hash]

Quoting foobars:
"You just don't get it do you? "

Its getting popular on these forums

Quote
"OS9 was a peice of **** ... I could care less if your mouse doesn't work in Classic, or can't network with OS9, or whatever-- frankly so does Apple. The're in it for the long haul."


Apple may not survive in the long run with such attitude towards customers

Quote:
"OSX is built for the future and that's where it'll be fast. Your stinkin' apps are coming. Your ****ing DVD player is coming. X will do everything (and more!) 9 does and it will do it better and faster."

Now it is "stinkin'" apps and "****ing" DVD...lol, foobars, you increasingly over-get it, dont you?

[Nonsuch]

So much black-and-white, love-it-or-hate-it dogmatism ...

I like the direction OS X is heading, and I like some of the new interface conventions and the system's stability, but I've nevertheless decided to put it aside until speed and hardware support improve. So can I be a "whealot" then?

[interactive_civilian]

Originally posted by Chrisspoon:
<STRONG>
Osx is:
-slow even on a big mac
</STRONG>

Well, like DUH!! Of course it is slow on a Big Mac. Its that special sauce that slows it down, I tell ya!!! If Apple would just get around the special sauce problem, I bet it would run just as fast on a Big Mac as a Big Mac runs through your digestive system.


Uhh...errr...uhh...Soylent Green is made of people!! PEOPLE!!!!!

[Spirit_VW]

Whiners of Tutto is stupid. Consequently idiots in those the platform
will have much, when the information and this S. of the perdidoso and
the hardware of the requested section lowest of that parasitschen,
with this, when shout not accurately vigilances of the apprehension
the fear and with me they stops to the external part necessarily.
Platform of the X von of MacNN ' of inhaliert of S really the donkey.

[hyperizer]

OS9 was a peice of **** and Apple knows it

Okay, I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite. Name one thing you can do in OS X that I can't do faster in OS 9. We're talking actual productive tasks here, like writing a letter, editing a photo, surfing the Web, etc.

They know OSX is slow on current machines but they way I see it, well, too bad.

There's plenty of modern OSes that aren't as bloated as OS X. I remember using Be OS years ago and it was quite speedy and intuitive. If Apple's really developed such a callous attitude towards performance, we're in trouble.

You can repeat empty marketing phrases like "OS X is THE FUTURE!" until you're blue in the face, but until OS X improves drastically, there's no good reason for anyone to upgrade. OS 9 is speedy, stable, and does everything I want it to. Have fun with your bouncing icons and translucent menus, my gullible friend.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by hyperizer:
<STRONG>Okay, I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite. Name one thing you can do in OS X that I can't do faster in OS 9. We're talking actual productive tasks here, like writing a letter, editing a photo, surfing the Web, etc.
</STRONG>

Well when OS 9 hangs I can't do anything in it. My OS 9 has been slowing down big time too. It's almost as if OS X is a virus infecting the OSes on the computer

[theolein]

As Brother kevin of Volkswagen so rightly pointed out, when I switch off my altar of faith, the holy Mac, neither OS9 nor OSX can do anything. Thus, in the eyes of Mac all Mac OS's were created equal.

Ahmen
Brother Theolein of Lombard

[Clive]

Originally posted by foobars:
<STRONG>

You just don't get it do you?...

If you are afraid of change or don't like the cold reality (what! my 3 year old G3 is outdated?!) you can go sit in the corner with the other Windows 95 users.</STRONG>

Er, how about my *2* year old G3 is outdated, or even, when the beta was released, my just over *1* year old G3?

I think your head is up your arse.

Apple has done some good work in X, but it's not finished (you concede as much), but right now it's a glorified technology demo.

Of course Apple must build for the future, but what we have right now throws the baby out with the bath water.

[Norm1985]

I used to be an avid supporter of OS X. What better to create a Mac operating system over a powerful base? But now my faith in OS X is dying. Honestly, many features of OS 9 like spring loaded folders never made it to OS X. OS X is still slow on a DP450 G4 with a gig of RAM compared to OS 9. I can't watch DVDs or burn data discs! Not even a disc burner! No native Office 2K1! No native Photoshop! No native GoLive! No native Illustrator! I'm forced to use Freehand for being native! Adobe isin't even really showing much enthusasim for OS X! There are barely any games for the platform! The games that are on the platform run worse than OS 9 and OS 9 for gaming sucks compared to Windows! But I became a Mac fan for other reasons than gaming! I'm a web/graphics designer, a student, a gamer! How the hell can I work with this OS? I'm seriously considering not even buying my future iMac or PowerBook! Windows XP looks pretty tempting! A consumer OS over a powerful base, better requirment specs, runs great from what I heard, can watch DVDs, can burn CDs, DOES have Adobe support and apps, DOES have Office, PLENTY of games! I'm really pissed at Apple right now.

Ahmen
Brother Norm of the Mystic G4s

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Norm1985 ]

All I can say is, now that I've eradicated X from my system entirely...

Whew!

Ahhhhhhhh life is good. Speed is zippy. UI is good. Crashes are numerous but that's just fine with me, gives me time to get lunch or a snack occasionally as my machine restarts. I save often so I rarely lose anything.

I just feel like I can get a billion times the amt of work done using os 9.1 than X. Hopefully Jobs & Co can get things speedy and ironed out or I guess I'll be at 9.1 forever (9.2?).

dw

[cpt kangarooski]

Foobars-
The danger really, is that Apple might not manage to get to a future time when OS X is successful and popular. If a vast majority are alienated _now_ due to various reasons (slow hardware, high prices, low availability, slow OS, few native apps, etc.) from what ranks will users come to support OS X? Many will have migrated to the Windows camp, and quite honestly, of the few hardy souls who use Unix for a desktop OS, fewer still will be willing to put up with Apple (e.g. not ideologically correct), the platform (i.e. not cheap-ass x86) or the OS. (e.g. not sufficiently easily hackable) I suspect comparatively few Windows users to migrate over, given similiar disincentives.

I agree with you - we've desperately needed a sucessor to MacOS since about 1990. Certainly Apple's been working on that since, IIRC, 1988. But I question whether or not OS X is a worth successor. Apple did not create much -- OS X is fundementally NextStep 6. Personally, I find Unix a poor core OS when human interaction is involved (though it's great for server applications and such) and the best that has been said about the graphics layer has been that someday it'll be useful. No one pretends that it's fast, to my knowledge. Even assuming that Apple makes it another twenty-five years, (the Mac is only 17, a bit more if we include the various stages of development, but System 7 was a huge overhaul) that's little guarantee that the OS will. Unix is already very long in the tooth, and has more to do with a fuzzy set of specifications than it is any actual piece of technology.

Don't buy into getting ready for the future at the expense of the present. Osborne went down that road and never came back. And Apple, *KNOWING* that, had fiascos with the III, which was a stopgap to be able to bring out the Lisa. Which failed, and the Mac very nearly did too. The II series, neglected by all, was the backbone of the company until the late 80's, and although amazing, was a 8bit system that was incapable of amounting to as much as the Mac could. (The IIgs was exceptional, but never all that important as far as the company goes)

And as for OS X - it too shall pass.

[Drizzt]

Or allow me to connect to my older Macs still using Appletalk through classic?

How come I can print to a AppleTalk only old crappy printer on a LC 520 with Classic then?

I must have drank too much for the national festivities recently

[Cooter]

Here, I'll name something that faster on OSX-

1) Setting up an Apache server.
2) Setting up an FTP server.
3) Setting up a QTSS3.0 server.
4) Using ssh
5) Ahhh, RBrowser, yes....

I've used Linux, Win2K, 98, 95, and Mac OS from 9.1 down to whatever the hell shipped on a 512Ke Mac. I remember when app switcher came out. Wow, that really spurred RAM sales. OSX is incredible. Stable, stout, and wonderful. Every time I leave OSX for OS9 I feel like I've just left America for a third world country. You know how tired I get of twice a day crashes in OS9? Find power cord for Cube (no reset switch), unplug, plug back in, wait for reboot, start up all my damn apps I was using, open up all the old docs I was using, reconnect my dialup connection... how long does that take- 5-10 minutes, twice a day..... hmmmmm. I'll take a slightly slower GUI response any day.

And why the hell does everyone need everything to be native? I use Photoshop, FreeHand, PageMaker, DreamWeaver, Filemaker Pro, and MYOB every day in the classic environment with practically no speed penalty.

Don't get me wrong, OSX has a ways to go, but its so damn good right now, I look forward to the future. OSX really is a winner.

BTW, more and more often I notice how OS9 really comes to a grinding halt when the OS is doing something. I never really notice how much I actually wait on OS9 until I started using OSX more often. Sure, OSX does grind to halt every now and again when the network configurations change, but OSX hardly ever makes me wait for something else to finish before I start on something else.

[foobars]

Originally posted by hyperizer:
<STRONG>Okay, I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite. Name one thing you can do in OS X that I can't do faster in OS 9. We're talking actual productive tasks here, like writing a letter, editing a photo, surfing the Web, etc.</STRONG>

I don't think I ever claimed OSX was faster than OS9 on todays computers. I believe I actually said the opposite. My point was that OS9 is done. Finito. Apple is gonna release 9.2 and/or maybe 9.5 and that's it. Do you know why? Because OS9 is based on 20 year old technology and its not going anywhere. You all think 9 is better? Well you should because this is as good as it's gonna get.

And here's one productive thing I can do in X that I can't in 9: Not crash for weeks at a time.

<STRONG>There's plenty of modern OSes that aren't as bloated as OS X. I remember using Be OS years ago and it was quite speedy and intuitive. If Apple's really developed such a callous attitude towards performance, we're in trouble.

You can repeat empty marketing phrases like "OS X is THE FUTURE!" until you're blue in the face, but until OS X improves drastically, there's no good reason for anyone to upgrade. OS 9 is speedy, stable, and does everything I want it to. Have fun with your bouncing icons and translucent menus, my gullible friend. </STRONG>

The good reason for people to upgrade is that in a few short months new OS9 products will taper off and your next computer will have X as default. And hopefully by then speed won't be an issue.

[macgyvr64]

I didn't know it was physically possible, but OS X both sucks and blows. Yet it manages to look cool while doing so.

[foobars]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Foobars-
The danger really, is that Apple might not manage to get to a future time when OS X is successful and popular. If a vast majority are alienated _now_ due to various reasons (slow hardware, high prices, low availability, slow OS, few native apps, etc.) from what ranks will users come to support OS X? Many will have migrated to the Windows camp, and quite honestly, of the few hardy souls who use Unix for a desktop OS, fewer still will be willing to put up with Apple (e.g. not ideologically correct), the platform (i.e. not cheap-ass x86) or the OS. (e.g. not sufficiently easily hackable) I suspect comparatively few Windows users to migrate over, given similiar disincentives.</STRONG>

Hey newsflash! Apple has always made slower)hardware sold at higher prices with low availability, and few native apps! That's right folks when you buy a Mac you physically get a lot less for your money! If you haven't realized this in the past 20 years that's understandable- but look at the Mhz gap that has formed in only the past 6 months...

Look Apple's main problem right now is not OSXs speed. Apple knows the'll lose some users moving to X but then again they've been losing users for years. Luckily for them they've been gaining a lot more than they lose.

My point? Mac users are going to tough it out. One year from now I garentee you X will be nothing short of sublime on a brand new Mac- and that's all Apple has had to do.

I for one will always use a Mac (I always have too)- and I don't really care that OSX is slow. I'm willing to take a speed hit because I understand that OSX is designed for the future and it will be great on next-generation machines. When I get a better machine I'll be able to run a better OS. What's the problem with that- welcome to the world of comptuer reality!

<STRONG>I agree with you - we've desperately needed a sucessor to MacOS since about 1990. Certainly Apple's been working on that since, IIRC, 1988. But I question whether or not OS X is a worth successor. Apple did not create much -- OS X is fundementally NextStep 6. Personally, I find Unix a poor core OS when human interaction is involved (though it's great for server applications and such) and the best that has been said about the graphics layer has been that someday it'll be useful. No one pretends that it's fast, to my knowledge. Even assuming that Apple makes it another twenty-five years, (the Mac is only 17, a bit more if we include the various stages of development, but System 7 was a huge overhaul) that's little guarantee that the OS will. Unix is already very long in the tooth, and has more to do with a fuzzy set of specifications than it is any actual piece of technology.

</STRONG>

What's your point? OSX might suck in the future. Yeah, maybe it will. Perhaps a UNIX core wasn't such a good idea-you're right. I mean hey, it's only been the coice system of supercomputers over the past 40 years- it's only been versitile enough to power computers one hundred million times faster than the ones it was originally designed to run on. Yeah Apple is taking a REAL GAMBLE with UNIX!!!

And NextStep! Yeah who needs a system that already does 90% of the things we want! I mean why simply port code when you can WASTE TIME WRITING YOUR OWN SYSTEM (pink!, copland!) or better yet go with an upstart like Be!

You think OSX might not have the robustness to carry Apple? Well, your wrong. OS9 was a deadend and OSX is bright light at the end of the tunnel.

<STRONG>Don't buy into getting ready for the future at the expense of the present. Osborne went down that road and never came back. And Apple, *KNOWING* that, had fiascos with the III, which was a stopgap to be able to bring out the Lisa. Which failed, and the Mac very nearly did too. The II series, neglected by all, was the backbone of the company until the late 80's, and although amazing, was a 8bit system that was incapable of amounting to as much as the Mac could. (The IIgs was exceptional, but never all that important as far as the company goes)

And as for OS X - it too shall pass.</STRONG>

Don't bet on X going anywhere. Not in the next 10 years at least. Apple is over the hump of creating an OS 10 years in the making- they are going to coast and ride this baby for as long as they can...

[cpt kangarooski]

foobars-
Oh, I'm not saying that the current, er... crapulence (thank you Simpsons) that the Mac platform finds itself in is anything new. But OS X isn't enough to overcome it, I think. Even MacOS didn't prove to be enough, given the competition. I'm kind of doubtful that any OS could close the gap that is between everyone and Windows at this point. I'll take your bet though; I don't think that OS X will be as good as you think it will be by next summer. (well in comparison to 10.0.4 maybe, but you know what I mean)

As for Unix: Well, it's 32 years old, and it's fundementally a minicomputer OS. There are mainframes here and there that utilize Unix, but that's not what it's really intended for, or best at. But I didn't say it wasn't powerful, or good at what it was intended for. I think anyone who played the Space Travel video game on non-Unix platforms is doing themselves a real disservice. What I said was that Unix isn't really suitable for human consumption. It's not user friendly. It's not designed with what we know now about HCI in mind. And no facade on top of it is going to make any difference, I don't think.

Am I advocating burying Unix in salt mines in New Mexico? No. Serving pages with W2K? No. But what does it have that the Mac needs and which isn't available elsewhere. Plenty of other OSes have been on par with Unix. VMS to name the most significant. Apple's previous attempts were always primarily (although not exclusively) screwed up by the requirement that it natively run what we'd now consider to be Classic software; emulators weren't considered. OS X has been more successful by just running MacOS as well, and this strategy could've been implemented elsewhere. (e.g. BeOS running SheepShaver)

NextStep made Unix easier to use, true, but not easy enough. And it did this at the expense of a lot of the standardization and openess that has been responsible for the success of Unix; what other significant platforms adopted the Next GUI? DPS? Packages? Software? NetInfo? It never experienced the kinds of significant evolutions that more successful OSes experienced, and NeXT placed obstacles towards establishing any kinds of standards with what they did. It was a dead end all by itself. It may give Apple a boost forwards in many areas, but what then?

I use Unix all the time - but I just cannot accept that it's ever going to be a good desktop OS for real people. Some of the code in the GNU software could be salvaged and reused, there's plenty of great kernels and filesystems around, plus some really promising research for Apple to use in their own efforts. The bad parts don't have to come along as well, but with NeXT, and OS X, many did. I'd feel like a heel sitting my Mom down in front of it.

I think you're right about Apple coasting, but with my neighbors up the road in Redmond working like monopolistic bees, I wouldn't say it's a good thing.

[booboo]

Can I just sneak in here - completely off topic - but having just read cpt kangarooski 's post (he's consistently on the ball, imho).

His sideways mention of BeOS reminded me I'm still looking for a release of BeOS for G3. I heard tell there was one floating around - maybe a dev. release or alpha, wgatever. Would just like to try it...

Anyone know anything?

Hey Cooter:

"Find power cord for Cube (no reset switch), unplug, plug back in, wait for reboot..."

There is a reset button underneath the Cube (near to the VGA adapter) but I prefer to touch the power button for 5 seconds and it shuts down like that

http://www.eddiedesigns.com

[EebyGeeby]

Can I ask a question? well, another question. . .

Why are you all approaching "X" as though it's some three-headed product of inbreeding? You guys/girls act like it's a disease instead of an OS. Most of you guys seem to be pretty young, and it would be a shame to think that people your age are already getting set in their ways. OS X is not slow. Well, compared to the bland, glitchy OS9, yes, it's slower. . .but it's also new.

Frankly, Apple has already said that OS X is their future, so if you're not willing to go to "X" or get a machine that can handle it then you're gonna get left behind; simple as that. Admittedly, there is not much 3rd party software support for it yet, but it's coming! So move on, and experience real computing, not just word processing; or whatever it is you guys like about 9. There are awesome Dev Tools for "X" and more on the way, so for you developers out there, there's no excuse not to use it.

In closing, GET OVER IT, and move to X. Now that it's here 9 seems more like an APP than an OS.



[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: EebyGeeby ]

[foobars]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>foobars-
Oh, I'm not saying that the current, er... crapulence (thank you Simpsons) that the Mac platform finds itself in is anything new. But OS X isn't enough to overcome it, I think. Even MacOS didn't prove to be enough, given the competition. I'm kind of doubtful that any OS could close the gap that is between everyone and Windows at this point. I'll take your bet though; I don't think that OS X will be as good as you think it will be by next summer. (well in comparison to 10.0.4 maybe, but you know what I mean)

As for Unix: Well, it's 32 years old, and it's fundementally a minicomputer OS. There are mainframes here and there that utilize Unix, but that's not what it's really intended for, or best at. But I didn't say it wasn't powerful, or good at what it was intended for. I think anyone who played the Space Travel video game on non-Unix platforms is doing themselves a real disservice. What I said was that Unix isn't really suitable for human consumption. It's not user friendly. It's not designed with what we know now about HCI in mind. And no facade on top of it is going to make any difference, I don't think.

Am I advocating burying Unix in salt mines in New Mexico? No. Serving pages with W2K? No. But what does it have that the Mac needs and which isn't available elsewhere. Plenty of other OSes have been on par with Unix. VMS to name the most significant. Apple's previous attempts were always primarily (although not exclusively) screwed up by the requirement that it natively run what we'd now consider to be Classic software; emulators weren't considered. OS X has been more successful by just running MacOS as well, and this strategy could've been implemented elsewhere. (e.g. BeOS running SheepShaver)

NextStep made Unix easier to use, true, but not easy enough. And it did this at the expense of a lot of the standardization and openess that has been responsible for the success of Unix; what other significant platforms adopted the Next GUI? DPS? Packages? Software? NetInfo? It never experienced the kinds of significant evolutions that more successful OSes experienced, and NeXT placed obstacles towards establishing any kinds of standards with what they did. It was a dead end all by itself. It may give Apple a boost forwards in many areas, but what then?

I use Unix all the time - but I just cannot accept that it's ever going to be a good desktop OS for real people. Some of the code in the GNU software could be salvaged and reused, there's plenty of great kernels and filesystems around, plus some really promising research for Apple to use in their own efforts. The bad parts don't have to come along as well, but with NeXT, and OS X, many did. I'd feel like a heel sitting my Mom down in front of it.

I think you're right about Apple coasting, but with my neighbors up the road in Redmond working like monopolistic bees, I wouldn't say it's a good thing.</STRONG>

kangarooski-

While I can't disagree with you that UNIX is an inherently un-user-friendly system I must say that it doesn't have to be that way. Apple has the unique ability to dumb anything down (Digital Video and Networking for example) and I think they're well on the way to doing the same thing with UNIX.

And in my mind UNIX was the right decision- no contest! I mean, can you really go wrong choosing an OS scheme that has been around for 30 years and is renowned for it's scalability and customability? No. Are there other ways to do the same thing? Sure, but none as big, well documented, or well reguarded. This as a no brainer.

And as for NeXT and it's propritary everything, well, yeah that was a poor plan. But what NeXT did wrong Apple will do right. Sure they carry over some of the useless formats but BSD picks up where NeXT left off- Apple is shooting to build the most compatible OS ever. And they're suceeding.

P.S.- You're joking about emulation right? Sure classic MacOS could be run a half dozen ways under X but there was really only one right way and Apple knows it. Look OS9 runs just as fast in X as it does in... well 9. This is the one thing X has going for it on current systems and your saying it might have been a bad idea? For shame! Mac users would eat Apple for lunch if thier classic software wasn't fast enough! At least right now most things don't HAVE to be rewritten to run acceptably fast in X.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: foobars ]

[EebyGeeby]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>foobars-
Oh, I'm not saying that the current, er... crapulence (thank you Simpsons) that the Mac platform finds itself in is anything new. But OS X isn't enough to overcome it, I think. Even MacOS didn't prove to be enough, given the competition. I'm kind of doubtful that any OS could close the gap that is between everyone and Windows at this point. I'll take your bet though; I don't think that OS X will be as good as you think it will be by next summer. (well in comparison to 10.0.4 maybe, but you know what I mean)

As for Unix: Well, it's 32 years old, and it's fundementally a minicomputer OS. There are mainframes here and there that utilize Unix, but that's not what it's really intended for, or best at. But I didn't say it wasn't powerful, or good at what it was intended for. I think anyone who played the Space Travel video game on non-Unix platforms is doing themselves a real disservice. What I said was that Unix isn't really suitable for human consumption. It's not user friendly. It's not designed with what we know now about HCI in mind. And no facade on top of it is going to make any difference, I don't think.

Am I advocating burying Unix in salt mines in New Mexico? No. Serving pages with W2K? No. But what does it have that the Mac needs and which isn't available elsewhere. Plenty of other OSes have been on par with Unix. VMS to name the most significant. Apple's previous attempts were always primarily (although not exclusively) screwed up by the requirement that it natively run what we'd now consider to be Classic software; emulators weren't considered. OS X has been more successful by just running MacOS as well, and this strategy could've been implemented elsewhere. (e.g. BeOS running SheepShaver)

NextStep made Unix easier to use, true, but not easy enough. And it did this at the expense of a lot of the standardization and openess that has been responsible for the success of Unix; what other significant platforms adopted the Next GUI? DPS? Packages? Software? NetInfo? It never experienced the kinds of significant evolutions that more successful OSes experienced, and NeXT placed obstacles towards establishing any kinds of standards with what they did. It was a dead end all by itself. It may give Apple a boost forwards in many areas, but what then?

I use Unix all the time - but I just cannot accept that it's ever going to be a good desktop OS for real people. Some of the code in the GNU software could be salvaged and reused, there's plenty of great kernels and filesystems around, plus some really promising research for Apple to use in their own efforts. The bad parts don't have to come along as well, but with NeXT, and OS X, many did. I'd feel like a heel sitting my Mom down in front of it.

I think you're right about Apple coasting, but with my neighbors up the road in Redmond working like monopolistic bees, I wouldn't say it's a good thing.</STRONG>

I'll start by saying that I somewhat understand your feelings, and it's partially the computer industry's fault. They have given consumers this false warm and tingly feeling inside as though they would take care of all problems forever and you (the consumer) would never have to worry about anything again. The truth is though, that now that's just not the case.

Users have gotten too lazy and have forgotten how to learn. They figure, "well when this next release comes out, it will be totally compatible and I'll just port it. I'll never have to learn anything again." But, users need to realize that it's also their responsibilty to get educated about the things they are using so that the software (or whatever it may be) will be a TOOL instead of a HINDERANCE to them.

As for specifics on how I feel about OS X, read my last post.

[vega24]

Originally posted by booboo:

Can I just sneak in here - completely off topic - but having just read cpt kangarooski 's post (he's consistently on the ball, imho).

His sideways mention of BeOS reminded me I'm still looking for a release of BeOS for G3. I heard tell there was one floating around - maybe a dev. release or alpha, wgatever. Would just like to try it...

Anyone know anything?

Man, I would love, absolutely love, for a BeOS release for G3 Mac's. That would be so damn funny, a real slap in the face to Apple and OS X.

BeOS is probably the easiest OS to port from one processor to the next and the only reason Apple wouldn't release the G3 architicure to Be was because of OS X. Apple wanted to make sure Mac users have only one commercially available OS, THEIRS.

Fear not BeOS fans. Rumor has it Sony may snatch it up and port it to run on a the processor that powers the PS2, the Emotion Engine. Sony has big plans for the Emotion Engine. It could be used to in many applications, from PDA's to desktops. Also, Sony is no big fan of Bill Gates since the X-box was announced. Sony feels Microsoft oversteped themselves with the X-box and entered Sony's arena, the console gaming market. In order to fight fire with fire, Sony just might enter Microsoft's arena. GO SONY!!!

Sorry to get off topic but I just can't help myself when someone brings up BeOS.

[macmicke]

I had so much I wanted to say, but as I start typing I feel so tired on this discussion. I actually think OS X is the right way to go. A lot of people from the *nix community are/is welcoming this new OS to the *nix family. A lot of them are/is also afraid that it is going to pose a threat to their OS! I think that's a good sign too, even if i think their fear is unfounded. In one swift stroke Apple has "joined" forces with the open source community and the 'nix world. When I started using OS X I didnt know there where so many programs for the platform. Ok you have to run a lot of them in a terminal window, but nonetheless they work very good. Its just a question of time before a lot of them gets graphical interfaces. What about speed? Well we will always need more, thats all I have to say about that.
It would be nice to see how, if, this discussion looks in one year from now. After all I think OS X is a new kid on the block..


BTW Swede�s are from Sweden not from Switzerland. Maybe Us citizens are Canadien. Or Brazilian.....

[Clive]

Originally posted by Cooter:
<STRONG>Here, I'll name something that faster on OSX-

1) Setting up an Apache server.
2) Setting up an FTP server.
3) Setting up a QTSS3.0 server.
4) Using ssh
5) Ahhh, RBrowser, yes....</STRONG>

Well those are all very useful in day-to-day running of a Mac in a print or media department. Thanks for sharing.

[hyperizer]

The good reason for people to upgrade is that in a few short months new OS9 products will taper off and your next computer will have X as default. And hopefully by then speed won't be an issue.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's okay if OS9 products taper off (although I don't think they will very quickly), because I already have all the apps I need. I've got Photoshop for image editing and BBEdit for making Web pages. Opera will come out soon to replace Netscape for Web browsing. I use Word for all my word processing needs. DiskWarrior keeps my two hard drives running smoothly. PGP Personal Security provides for my firewall and encryption needs. I use Fetch for FTPing and Thoth for newsreading, and MacSSH on the rare occasion I need to Telnet. Virex and StuffIt Deluxe are essentials too. I even use an ancient program called MacBPM to catalog tracks on my CDs. What more could I ask for?

Have you ever heard of Peter Sugarman's essay "Neo-Luddite Computer Solution"? Basically he says: find an operating system that's "STABLE, rather than bleeding-edge," and a bunch of "Pretty Good Software, consisting of an integrated package that provides basic word processing, spreadsheet, database, and telecom." Then "do NOT come back for at least 10 years. After that, you MIGHT be eligible for your next computer solution. But only if you've truly outgrown what you've worked with for the past decade." Maybe that's the extreme, but I plan to stick with my 733 Mhz G4 running OS 9 until there's something on OS X that I simply can't live without.

[cpt kangarooski]

Re: OS X
I think that it could be possible to make Unix user friendly, but it would require such sweeping changes all across the system, that I don't think it would be recognizable as Unix any more. (it could still be a POSIX system, I expect, but users would probably not interact with that aspect of it much) Apple hasn't done nearly enough to eliminate reliance on the CLI, integrate it in functional manners into the GUI, make Unix tools optional or obselete, rearrange the file structure, etc. They've done a little work of course, enough to make it a teeny bit tricky to easily use *all* existing Unix software, (you see things like the recent Apache bug) but not enough to make it better than the Mac was.

Certainly there's no really new concepts in OS X, and most of the ways of implementing things are pretty old hat as well, once you look beyond Aqua. It's a pretty standard WIMP UI. It isn't more enabling than anything else though, and that's the real rasion d'etre of HCI. (and a standard bit of language in any Apple proposal from the 80's

Unix _is_ renowned for its scalability -- but so what? Apple is not in the market of making anything but personal microcomputers. It might be interesting to see them start doing serious work in servers (a small market where performance is more important than usability by and large, and PPC hampers Apple) or in ubicomp (where most of Unix is overkill and wasteful, and UI issues are significantly different) but that's not on the current agenda. As for customizability, that's really only within certain constraints, I think... and as NeXT and Apple have discovered, cuts one off from the rest of the Unix community, which is largely about standardization of interfaces, just different implementations of the same thing.

As for emulation, Classic is an emulated version of MacOS. So long as Apple stuck to the PPC platform (itself a lousy idea - they should've gone Intel over a decade ago) something exactly like Classic was the way to go. It could certainly be improved upon though... using RAM dumps to load multiple instances for stability, and fast loading comes to mind immediately. Classic is not all that refined, but it basically gets the job done, and I'm in favor of its solution to the legacy software problem. Had Copland forsworn true compatability and done the same thing, I would've been happy.

Had it only all been ready in time for the transition away from 68k, we could've had Pentiums with a 68LC040 ROM and killed two birds with one stone years ago. (and had comparatively inexpensive 1.5GHz Athlon Macs *now*) Oh well.

re: XBox (what's with all the X's lately?)
It's _not_ a gaming console. Well, obviously that's how it's going to get in the door, and that's what it'll do first (though I've used it, and wasn't impressed in the least) but that's not the point.

Consider - MS has been having problems with the ultra low-end market for a while. When you're making systems for around $400, and would like to go even cheaper, the cost of the OS is Significant. Someplace like emachines would love to go with Linux, the trick is just convincing Joe Sixpack that he doesn't actually need Windows. MS of course, feels that everyone needs Windows, whether they need it or not. XBox is in fact aimed at taking over this market segment and instituting a floor beyond which the price of systems will not be able to fall. (because, there _is_ a Windows monopoly, and no one can in fact get out of that for the time being)

Home systems are chiefly used for 1) games 2) basic productivity apps 3) web browsing and email and perhaps 4) media playing. (e.g. mp3, dvd, divx) XBox has the first covered from day one. MS, controlling MSN, Hotmail, and IE, will have little difficulty in porting a version of IE to the platform to cover 3. .Net, which would involve subscriptions to psuedo-online software covers 2, provided that 3 is in place. And 4 is hardly difficult at all. (in fact, is it already expected to have DVD? I forget)

MS can also add in upgrade hardware if they feel like integrating XBox with UltimateTV to kill off TiVo, and it's already positioned to succeed WebTV, since it offers all the same functionality.

Parents are going to love it, since it's cheaper than getting a real system but pretty much does the same thing, and their kids will have no complaints. (aside from everyone I know who's used them agreeing that the games suck)

Remember, MS loves nothing more than to leverage monopolies. XBox can involve the big three (OS, Apps, IE) and create some more. (Specs for PC games, Consoles, PVRs, Low-end systems, etc.)

Re: booboo
Thanks. I try. BeOS is very nice, I just wish it had been finished. Don't get me wrong, JLG would've been bad for Apple. He's great about getting good stuff developed and out the door - the OpenMac being notable. (that is, Macs with expansion slots that were easy to get into and build) But he lacks vision. Crusading against Mac clones in the late 80's was pretty much the exact wrong thing to do. He's not known as being the most tactful guy in the world either.

Don't get me wrong - Jobs also lacks vision. He had it with the Apple I, but that was it. Raskin is the visionary behind the Mac and Lisa, NeXT was always confused, and while the new i- and Ti- Asthetics are great, I don't think they fall into the same category. (besides which, that movement had started to roll slightly before he came in)

I've heard the same rumors, but AFAIK, the last thing released was for 604. Given the cheapness of x86, it's probably easiest to get a Be clone put together. And anything looks better than the first-generation BeBox

[EebyGeeby]

Originally posted by hyperizer:
<STRONG>

. . . I use Word for all my word processing needs. DiskWarrior keeps my two hard drives running smoothly. PGP Personal Security provides for my firewall and encryption needs. I use Fetch for FTPing and Thoth for newsreading, and MacSSH on the rare occasion I need to Telnet. Virex and StuffIt Deluxe are essentials too. I even use an ancient program called MacBPM to catalog tracks on my CDs. What more could I ask for?
...
</STRONG>

uhm, but you can do most of this stuff with OS X itself (or programs therein). . .I'm sorry people but you've gotta either start shellin out the cash (for awesome "guide-me-I'm-an-idiot" hardware/software) or become power users, there is no inbetween. Get out of your "perfect world" boxes and read a book!!!

PS no offense directly to you hyperizer
<font color = blue> PPS see other posts</font>

[theolein]

Kangerooski:
You use unix all the time? How amazing. And what unix would that be? Because it sure doesn't sound like it when you're off on one of your long winded rants. And yes, I am flaming you. I created this thread specifically to flame people, and so I will. BeOS, you , bozos, is also based on the mach kernel. And nobody says that BeOS is not a good desktop OS. So let me state: Unix has nothing to do with having a good Desktop or not. I liked NeXT as did a lot of people and NeXT's failure has a lot to do with overpricing and bad marketing and almost nothing to do with it's mach kernel or unix underpinnings. There are quite a few ex-nexters around here and they will confirm that. Apple has done a magnificent job in creating the new interface. It has it's problems and it isn't yet as optimized as it could be and the *interface* will always be slower than OS9 on the same machine. Apple might lose some users because of this OS, but they have defintely gained some because of it. some from windows, some from unix(who for the most part couldn't give a flying f**k that the interface is not OSS, this isn't windows and most unixers are not stallman).

If you bothered to look up from your "unix that you're using all the time" you'ld see that MS has problems as well. Go over to ZDNET and read the talkback posts to any topic involving MS. A good 95% of those posts(and I read them every day becasue they're good for my soul) are highly critical and suspiscious of MS and no one, really no one is happy about XP. Sure a lot of people will use it but increasingly I see posters there saying things to the tune of "goodbye MS, next computer will be a mac" or "Linux is looking better all the time".

Apple will most assuredly, inspite of your continuous doom and gloom proficies, be around for a while. Adobe will port their junk sooner or later(because they sure as f**k cannot afford to lose 37% of their users), new software will come around and Apple will improve the interface because their livelihood depends on it.

Sorry if I spoilt your tea.

Ahmen
Brother Theolein of Lombard
Zealot of the suck and blow

[theolein]

And another thing: if you tink Sony is going to let MS get into what is basically their monopoly without a good fight, think again. And if you think no one knows what .Net is, go and read those ZDNet posts from MS users, none of whom like , want or trust MS to actually keep their data safe. No one trusts MS's authentification thrust with hailstorm and .Net. Would you? Man, you sound for all the world like one of those bleaters who left the platform in '96 and cheesed off that Raskin designed the origional Mac and you didn't.

P.S. Raskin is an obsolete twat who is still pissed and confused that his Canon Cat didn't become the worlds most used computer. The fool thinks that because the OS was so small in those days that each user had his whole environment on a disk to take home after work, that one should still be doing it.

Ahmen
Brother Theolein of Lombard
Righteous zealotry

[hyperizer]

uhm, but you can do most of this stuff with OS X itself (or programs therein). . .I'm sorry people but you've gotta either start shellin out the cash (for awesome "guide-me-I'm-an-idiot" hardware/software) or become power users, there is no inbetween. Get out of your "perfect world" boxes and read a book!!!

I'm not sure I understand. I've been on a Mac for eight years or so, and I certainly consider myself a power user. I'm making an informed decision, if that's what you mean.

I may be able to do all the same things in OS X, but OS X doesn't do them better. In fact there aren't yet Carbon or Cocoa versions of most of the apps I mentioned, so I'd be using Classic anyway. AND I'm pretty sure my Smart Media card reader, subwoofer, and CD burner won't work with OS X yet.

If I move to OS X I have to deal with a slower OS that lacks many of the interface conveniences I'm used to (pop-up folders, spring-loaded folders, windowshade, an application menu, a real Apple menu, control strip, etc.) I'm using my "perfect world" box to get a heck of a lot of work done.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: hyperizer ]

[EebyGeeby]

Originally posted by hyperizer:
<STRONG>

I'm not sure I understand. I've been on a Mac for eight years or so, and I certainly consider myself a power user. I'm making an informed decision, if that's what you mean.

I may be able to do all the same things in OS X, but OS X doesn't do them better. In fact there aren't yet Carbon or Cocoa versions of most of the apps I mentioned, so I'd be using Classic anyway. AND I'm pretty sure my Smart Media card reader, subwoofer, and CD burner won't work with OS X yet.

If I move to OS X I have to deal with a slower OS that lacks many of the interface conveniences I'm used to (pop-up folders, spring-loaded folders, windowshade, an application menu, a real Apple menu, control strip, etc.) I'm using my "perfect world" box to get a heck of a lot of work done.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: hyperizer ]</STRONG>

when I say power user, I don't mean
proficient at WORD. . .I mean from a programmer/developer standpoint (not quite that far along, just on that path). as for the native apps, you don't need 'em. for instance to FTP and TELNET simply use the TERMINAL program. and I'm sure no one doubts the ability to set up secure networks on UNIX. simple word processing is taken care of and WORD for OS X is in beta, so it should be out within the next millenium

. . .you know, things like that.

[unimacs]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>
As for Unix: Well, it's 32 years old, and it's fundementally a minicomputer OS. There are mainframes here and there that utilize Unix, but that's not what it's really intended for, or best at. But I didn't say it wasn't powerful, or good at what it was intended for. I think anyone who played the Space Travel video game on non-Unix platforms is doing themselves a real disservice. What I said was that Unix isn't really suitable for human consumption. It's not user friendly. It's not designed with what we know now about HCI in mind. And no facade on top of it is going to make any difference, I don't think.
</STRONG>

How old is too old for an OS? UNIX has evolved. It evolves more readily than other OSes because it's extemely modular and the source code is widely available. Many individuals and organizations have found it very adaptable for their particular needs and have contributed to the evolution of the OS as whole. No other OS has that distinction.

Designed for mini-computers? That notion is as outdated as the term.

Because UNIX is so modular, it's a good choice for everything from servers to devices much smaller than any Mac could hope to be. Some embedded UNIX devices require little more than a power switch for a UI. That's hard to beat.

What is nice about its heritage is that it is a Multi-user OS. Be was headed in this direction, but like many other aspects of that OS, multiuser support was incomplete. When you consider that some of Apple's largest markets are home users and education, this makes UNIX a nice fit. At least in my home, both of our computers are used by multiple family members.

<STRONG>
NextStep made Unix easier to use, true, but not easy enough. And it did this at the expense of a lot of the standardization and openess that has been responsible for the success of Unix; what other significant platforms adopted the Next GUI? DPS? Packages? Software? NetInfo? It never experienced the kinds of significant evolutions that more successful OSes experienced, and NeXT placed obstacles towards establishing any kinds of standards with what they did. It was a dead end all by itself. It may give Apple a boost forwards in many areas, but what then?
</STRONG>

Go back to 1995, look at NeXTStep, MacOS, and the then new Windows 95. Which GUI did Win 95 most resemble, -Mac OS or NeXTStep? Afterstep (A NeXTStep look alike)is a very popular Linux window manager and Gregg's browser is a copy of the NeXT File browser for the Mac.

DPS was also used by Sun and SGI. A mini-DPS was also required to run photoshop on any UNIX. I think one obstacle to it's larger adoption was licensing.

The actual implementation may be different, but packages as a means of installing software is certainly in common use. The Newton had packages and so do many Linux distributions.

As for software, the first web-browser and server were developed on NeXTStep. Doom came from NeXTStep and Quake was largely developed on NeXT boxes. Renderman and Lotus Improv also started on NeXT.

I have mixed feelings about NetInfo. It can make administering a boat load of Macs very easy, but I never liked NetInfo Manager. It was very confusing to use. Although I don't know of anywhere else that it's used, the Windows registry looks very similar to NetInfo.

<STRONG>
I use Unix all the time - but I just cannot accept that it's ever going to be a good desktop OS for real people. Some of the code in the GNU software could be salvaged and reused, there's plenty of great kernels and filesystems around, plus some really promising research for Apple to use in their own efforts. The bad parts don't have to come along as well, but with NeXT, and OS X, many did. I'd feel like a heel sitting my Mom down in front of it.

</STRONG>

I can honestly say that I think my mother would have a much easier time trying to figure out OS X than she would OS 9. In spite of all the complaints about the Dock, it does keep the things you want to use often right in front of you. I also like the idea of having a "Home" folder for each user of the machine. I get tired of hearing: "I wrote it a couple of weeks ago, and I know I saved it somewhere, but I can't find it". In OS 9, files can be saved in the most inappropriate places and deleted by anyone else who happens to use the system.

The fact that UNIX is opensource is a huge plus for OS X even if you don't care about running any UNIX software. Apple doesn't need to patch every security hole and fix every bug that's found. Other UNIX developers will do that for them and Mac OS users will get the fixes faster than Apple could evey hope to deliver them on its own.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: unimacs ]

[vega24]

Maybe Apple should have read this before they got too involved with OS X.

It would have been SO MUCH EASIER to buy Be, Inc. and port BeOS to PPC than taking their chances with X. If it failed, blame Be, Inc. but if X fails, well,... everyones going to look at Steve like he's an idiot.

Anyway, I got to go. The Fed EX man just dropped of my new copy of Yellow Dog Linux 2.0.

hmmm.... yellow dog linux was $29.95 and OS X is $129.95.... Na Na Ne Na Na.... hehehehe!!!!!!

[unimacs]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>Kangerooski:
You use unix all the time? How amazing. And what unix would that be? Because it sure doesn't sound like it when you're off on one of your long winded rants. And yes, I am flaming you. I created this thread specifically to flame people, and so I will. BeOS, you , bozos, is also based on the mach kernel. And nobody says that BeOS is not a good desktop OS. So let me state: Unix has nothing to do with having a good Desktop or not. I liked NeXT as did a lot of people and NeXT's failure has a lot to do with overpricing and bad marketing and almost nothing to do with it's mach kernel or unix underpinnings. There are quite a few ex-nexters around here and they will confirm that.
</STRONG>

As an ex-nexter all I can say is: Hallelujah Brother theolein!

But to clarify: I don't think BeOS uses Mach or UNIX although it does have limited POSIX compliance and some will argue that the Be kernel borrows a lot from, or is at least very similar to Mach. Some will argue further that Mach is better .

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: unimacs ]

[vega24]

The entire BeOS OS was written from the ground up from scratch. I don't think it has a Mach kernal.

OK now I'm going

[theolein]

Mach 2.5 to be precise, at the time that Mach was already at version 3.0 on OpenStep. All this in 1996 during the fight about which Company Apple should buy. Apple bought NeXT, and we have OSX today. To the people who complain and whine about Apples demise all the time. Hey, no ones stopping you from buying a PC and running WindowsXP and giving MS your every last buck and piece of data. feel free. THEY won't object.

Did anyone even see this?: http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/g...779806,00.html

StarOfficegetting chosen by your DoD in favour of MSOffice.

Do something constructive: write to Sun and to Apple and ask them to port StarOffice to OSX. Sun has nothing to lose by this, Apple, although terrified of MS, would have something to show when the MS-Apple agreement ends next year.

Ahmen
Brother Theolein of Lombard
Zealot of Star

[foobars]

Originally posted by vega24:
<STRONG>Maybe Apple should have read this before they got too involved with OS X.

It would have been SO MUCH EASIER to buy Be, Inc. and port BeOS to PPC than taking their chances with X. If it failed, blame Be, Inc. but if X fails, well,... everyones going to look at Steve like he's an idiot.

Anyway, I got to go. The Fed EX man just dropped of my new copy of Yellow Dog Linux 2.0.

hmmm.... yellow dog linux was $29.95 and OS X is $129.95.... Na Na Ne Na Na.... hehehehe!!!!!! </STRONG>

I am so sick of people claim Be would have been such a great purchace. Yeah Be was cool for what it did- but it would never have made a good MacOS for dozens of reasons. I'm not going to mention them here (you can search for Be on the boards and find some very eloquent Be users explaining why it would never have worked).

"If it failed, blame Be, Inc. but if X fails, well..." What the hell? Buy a company and then when your product fails blame it on the company you bought for millions (which is now a subsidiary of yourself). Does that make any sense? By your reasoning we could go and blame all of X woes on NeXT. But nobody does because that doesn't make any sense and it's just not true.

And FYI Be already ran on PPC, Apple wouldn't have had to port anything. Then again NeXT ran on 6080*0 on Mach so Apple didn't have to do much work there either. What was the point of your post then? That you paid money for a free OS perhaps?

Hey guys here's a BSD joke:

What did the OSX user say to the Linux user after he found out the Linux user paid $0 for his OS? "It was worth every penny!"

Har har!

[hyperizer]

when I say power user, I don't mean
proficient at WORD. . .I mean from a programmer/developer standpoint (not quite that far along, just on that path).

I never said I think I'm a power user because I'm proficient at Word. I'm a professional Web developer (at a complexity science software/consulting company, and as a freelancer) who writes in Perl, ColdFusion, JSP, ASP, and C++. I just got back from the JavaOne conference a couple of weeks ago. Does that count? You're attacking me instead of my message...

as for the native apps, you don't need 'em. for instance to FTP and TELNET simply use the TERMINAL program.

You still haven't given me a good reason to switch. Just because I can FTP and Telnet in OS X as well as I can in OS 9 doesn't mean I should upgrade. And I DO need a native version of Photoshop and CD burner drivers if I'm going to get anything done.