or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › People switching back to OS 9?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

People switching back to OS 9?

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23483.html" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23483.html</a>

I knew the OS X interface isn't the big thing, but are there really people switching back to OS 9? I didn't even switch to OS X yet..

Usability comes before eyecandy imho
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #2 of 53
I haven't [Yet] but am seriously considering to do so. I'm having endless font problems (I'm in a non English country) and it's certeinly not crash free
Lose your dreams and you may lose your mind
Reply
Lose your dreams and you may lose your mind
Reply
post #3 of 53
I seem to be one of the lucky ones. Everything I hated about OS 9 is gone in X, performace is MUCH more stable. I used to have system freezes literally every day (probably due to the 75+ programs I needed to have installed) but in X I've never frozen once. And I've only ever had one kernel panic when I tried the uninstall feature of the Dave 2.5 installer.

For the first 2-3 months of X (back when performance sucked and there was no DVD player) I found myself pining for 9, but now that I have Office v.X, a faster-than-9's DVD player, tolerable finder performance and rock-solid stability, I'll be in X from now on, 100% of the time.

But I can understand some people going back to 9, if you do anything with professional software (Photoshop, Flash, etc.) Classic is not acceptable. I would boot into 9 to use Photoshop and wouldn't even bother running it in classic, too slow and cumbersome.

-Y
Registered 2001? My God has it been that long?!
Reply
Registered 2001? My God has it been that long?!
Reply
post #4 of 53
I'd never switch back to that gray, antiquated OS. Classic works in a pinch, but I no longer need to startup in OS 9. When Photoshop moves, I won't even need Classic.
post #5 of 53
Never. Mac OS 9 is such a piece of crap compared to 10. If I had to go back to 9 then i'd have to reinstall Linux or some unix variant. Must have the Unix terminal for half the stuff I do on my computer...
0.03 posts per day...
Reply
0.03 posts per day...
Reply
post #6 of 53
Well there is no reason why home users should not switch to OS X. Personally I wold hate to switch back to OS 9, but I guess without carbon graphics applications some people have no choice.
post #7 of 53
I ran OSX.1 for a few weeks after its release, but now i only use OS9, and have no OSX on my system.

I value performance and features better than eyecandy, I don't have many crashes, and my work is mostly one or two apps at a time. I don't really care about transparency, shadows or the dock or OSX's filing systems, and there is very lame performance in some aspects of OSX.

I'd expect I'd switch back about 10.5 when I have a Ghz g4/g5 and all my apps support OSX properly, pretty much all "Carbon" OSX apps are poor and rushed in my experience, Id hope after the initial carbonized versions, developers write cocoa apps that properly take advantage of OSX, and don't take a huge performance hit over their OS9 counterparts.
post #8 of 53
I used OS 10 for about 2 weeks, but switched back to OS9, and I'm quite happy.

OS X has one HUGE disadvantage: It is slow. I'd guess about 85-90% as fast as OS9, and I'm running a G4 450, with 512M of RAM.

Also, I find OS 9 quite stable. Matter of fact, it hasn't crashed in about six weeks. Maybe it's because I'm a geek, and keep minimal extensions, but OS 9 is much more refined.
post #9 of 53
I'll never go back to 9.. they couldn't pay me enough.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #10 of 53
Thread Starter 
Interesting - because as I've seen it here (in some 4-5 advertising and design agencies) people really like the idea of OS X but a lot of them think it's still not "ready" engouh for a real switch. If Apple goes OS X by default next year, don't they risk putting a bad image on OS X in the sense that many Mac users will stay with a "proven solution" and actually switching to OS X later than they could?
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #11 of 53
The question is wether you make your money from a mac or are a home user?. Many of you loathing OS9 probably don't do serious work on your mac that would make a difference in your wallet. I loved OSX for general run of the mill stuff like browsing, email, word processing etc messing around with stuff, Its very good at that and looks nice and function great, but the real problem is lack of leading apps or leading apps that have had a bad carbonisation... And the Dock which doesn't help at all with full screen apps.
post #12 of 53
I tinker around with OS X whenever a new update comes out (mainly just to see if it's any faster), but I use OS 9 as my main OS because it doesn't run dog slow like OS X.

I only have 128MB RAM, that could be the problem, but I think it's the G3/233 (Beige PowerMac). Apple said the original iMac was the target machine for OS X... well... it's not. I'd say OS X feels about 60%-70% the speed of OS 9. Everything is sluggish. Selecting text, opening apps, dragging files, browsing disks... using OS X is like trying to dig through a hole full of thick mud. Whenever I have 2 or more apps open, my HD crunches so loud, I think it's going to break.

If it wasn't for the speed issue, I'd probably use it as my main OS. However, Aqua still feels unpolished to me, and it would be nice to have a button on the dock that would hide every open window and show the desktop (a-la A-Dock and the Windows Taskbar).

The GUI between Carbon apps and Cocoa ones feels so inconsistent. Cocoa is fine, but I hate to see stuff like unantialiased text, non-live window resizing, and many Platinum GUI parts sitting on the annoying white/grey pinstripes.

So, the only thing that will make me switch to OS X will be: the purchase of a new Mac, or it feels at least 95% the speed of OS 9 on this machine.
post #13 of 53
I'll never go back. OSX rules !!
post #14 of 53
X is starting to get faster on my iBook, but it's still pretty slow for lots of things. I use it all the time though, because if I restart into OS 9, I have to spend half an hour restarting until I can get back into X.
post #15 of 53
[quote]Originally posted by eVo:
<strong>I tinker around with OS X whenever a new update comes out (mainly just to see if it's any faster), but I use OS 9 as my main OS because it doesn't run dog slow like OS X.

I only have 128MB RAM, that could be the problem, but I think it's the G3/233 (Beige PowerMac).</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am working strictly in OS X and Classic these days. I have no performance problems. I also have a dual 800. One thing I have learned in more than 13 years using Macs: Apple's stated minimum system requirements are just that: MINIMUM! They say it will run. It runs. It sucks, but it runs. Nowhere do they say that you will enjoy it. I have never put OS 9 on my 120MHz 8500 for this reason.
I guess it's just Apple's gentle way of telling you it's time for a new Mac. Next month's new machines should all run OS X just fine.
The first commandment of ALL religions is to provide a comfortable living for the priesthood.
Reply
The first commandment of ALL religions is to provide a comfortable living for the priesthood.
Reply
post #16 of 53
If you have anything slower than a 500MHz G3 and 256MB of RAM, don't bother with OS X. It's a next generation operating system not meant to run on previous generation hardware, and most of the complaints I hear about OS X's speed come from individuals with older machines. I will not deny that OS X is slower than OS 9 on all but the lastest configurations, but this is the price we must pay for a legacy free OS. It is simply not possible to support both old and new hardware without sacrifising functionality on either side. Apple made the choice to drop legacy support, so it would be free to make its OS as future proof as possible. OS X, after all, is based on the core technology that will drive Macs for the next decade. It would be foolish then, to target that technology towards a three year old machine. I know this makes some of you angry, but atleast try to understand where Apple is coming from. Many of the features that Apple chose to include in OS X are just too demanding for old hardware. I think once the operating system matures and developers begin to harness more of its power, people will finally understand why Apple did what they did. In the mean time, if you are already in love with OS X, that's great. Just understand that many people have to reason to be impressed yet. Be patient and be civil. Change is never easy.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #17 of 53
Double post!

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #18 of 53
even with newer g4s, osx is slow. that's a fact. aqua is unpolished, and it careless about user expereience. as far as speed issue, if apple has just provided options to turn off transparency , shadow , other eye candy stuffs and each new window open didnt eat up 1.5MB of ram im sure there would be far less people on g3 complaining about speed. try shadow killer and u'll see the difference esp for g3 owners.
post #19 of 53
I use OS X all the time and I won't be going back to OS 9.
post #20 of 53
I'm running on an iBook 500 mhz G3 w/320 RAM. I've been 90% in OS X over the past month, but switched back to 9 today just to do "one quick thing", but I find myself wanting to stay here. OS 9 is obviously much much faster (in fact, OS X is downright slow in comparison, even after turning on window buffer compression and renicing the Windows Manager to give it more priority).

Pros of OS X:
- I'm used to launching multiple applications at once, and while launching apps, I can do other things in another app
- Modern memory management (no more assigning memory to an app)
- OS X has *never* crashed on me
- Love getting my hands into the Unix
- Development tools are nothing short of brilliant

Cons:
- Not fully compatible with my MS Intellimouse, which I am much less productive with all its functions
- Little bits of Finder weirdness that I can't explain but can tell you that the feel can only be described as "unMac-like"
- S-L-O-W, slow enough to the point where it impacts significantly on my productivity
- Lack of Palm support (so I'm using Entourage 2001 in Classic instead of Entourage X)
- Office X is S-L-O-W to the point where it impacts significantly on my productivity

The pro's of OS X are indeed compelling, but the lack of speed on my machine is nothing short of maddening. I've seen X on a Dual 800 G4 and it was great, only problem is, there is no laptop equivalent. I've also see OS X on an 867 mhz single G4 tower and imo that too wasn't responsive enough, so I doubt even a 667 mhz TiBook would be adequate to run OS X to the point where the system responsiveness would be adequate enough for me.

At this point I'm still uncertain, but I am very tempted to go back to OS 9.

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Kestral ]</p>
post #21 of 53
I'm going back to 9. Then when I'm ready I'm buying other hardware. Going back in Intel I guess. Linux for me. Apple sucks. Took me 3 years to figure it out.

BTW there was a thread at MacNN that had an Applescript to remove OS X. Anyone have that? I'd search other there but they don't have the threads from the "old" forums, right?
post #22 of 53
MarcUK: That depends on what you define "serious work" on a Mac as. If you define it only as graphics work then you might have a point. Then again there are graphics people working just fine within Classic and more gfx apps are being Carbonized as time goes on.

On the other hand there's a whole new breed of Mac professionals. Unix guys. They've probably been doing "serious work" from Mac OS X since the Public Beta. Network Admins, programmers, database admins....etc. I know a ton of these kind of people who have bought iBooks (both the old clamshell and new iceBooks) simply because of OS X.
_ _ __________________________________________________ _______________ _ _
Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Mandrake Linux and Windows XP are my OS's. I am GEEK, hear me roar.
Reply
_ _ __________________________________________________ _______________ _ _
Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Mandrake Linux and Windows XP are my OS's. I am GEEK, hear me roar.
Reply
post #23 of 53
OS 9? No way. I admister 15 macs in our center and I would love to move them all to OS X. The problem is that many of the Macs are old 266 G3s and are too slow for OS X. Those must stay in OS 9 I am afraid. I run OS X with 640 MB Ram on a B/W G3 350 and I feel that it is fine. As good as OS 9. It may not be faster at certain things (what things I don't know) but the advantages of OS X are great. First, we work in a 50-50 Mac/PC enviroment. With OS X I can see all the PC with Sharity (free as we are a educational insitution) and with Samba (which is dead easy to set up) I can share folders with the PCs. Also, zero crashes. OS 9, at best will crash once a week. People always complain to me about this. Win 2000 does not do this so people complain.

Also, I have recently installed OS X on a professors Cube and it runs amazing. I have installed 1.2 gigs of Ram which helps alot. OS X loves Ram and that is the best way to increase performace. Almost all apps (word, exploder, etc) open in 1-2 bounces. Everything is fast as well. Windows open nicely and the column view makes file navigation easy. Much quicker than OS 9. And stabilty, this professor is horrible with computers. He would crash his Cube 2-3 times a day before OS X. You know those people who can do the most amazing horrific thing to computers - this guy it death to most computers. With OS X, uptime has been over 14 days (I installed it 14 days ago). I will reboot Monday while upgrading to 10.1.2.

OS 9 has its place but if you can use OS X. Do it. It is the best OS I have ever used. Yes there are things that could use improvement - spring loaded folders, that PPP bug - just to name a few (and there are many more) - but overall OS X right now is the best OS for our needs.

Sorry for the long rant.


(:
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
post #24 of 53
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>I'm going back to 9. Then when I'm ready I'm buying other hardware. Going back in Intel I guess. Linux for me. Apple sucks. Took me 3 years to figure it out.

BTW there was a thread at MacNN that had an Applescript to remove OS X. Anyone have that? I'd search other there but they don't have the threads from the "old" forums, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, they're all there. Search the current OS X forums, although it's probably in one of the OS X archives now (check Archives section).
"If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the...
Reply
"If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the...
Reply
post #25 of 53
paste the following into a new applescript in script editor:
[code] property root_items : {"bin", "dev", "Network", "private", ¬
\t"sbin", "usr", "Volumes", ".DS_Store", ".hidden", "cores", ¬
\t"etc", "tmp", "var", "Applications", "Developer", ¬
\t"Library", "mach", "mach.sym", "mach_kernel", "System", "Users"}
property systemfolder_items : {"Classic", "Classic Support", ¬
\t"Classic Support UI", "ProxyApp"}

tell application "Finder"
\tactivate
\ttry
\t\tset this_version to the version as string
\t\tif this_version does not start with "9" or ¬
\t\t\tthis_version is not greater than or equal to "9.1" then ¬
\t\t\terror "This script requires a Mac OS 9.x system greater than 9.0.4."
\t\tdisplay dialog "This script will move Mac OS X items from the startup disk to the trash."
\t\trepeat with i from 1 to the count of the root_items
\t\t\tset this_item to item i of the root_items
\t\t\tif exists (item this_item of the startup disk) then
\t\t\t\tdelete item this_item of the startup disk
\t\t\tend if
\t\tend repeat
\t\trepeat with i from 1 to the count of the systemfolder_items
\t\t\tset this_item to item i of the systemfolder_items
\t\t\tif exists (item this_item of the system folder) then
\t\t\t\tdelete item this_item of the system folder
\t\t\tend if
\t\tend repeat
\t\tbeep
\t\tdisplay dialog "The Mac OS X items have been placed in the Trash."
\ton error error_message number error_number
\t\tif the error_number is not -128 then
\t\t\tbeep
\t\t\tdisplay dialog error_message buttons {"Cancel"} default button 1
\t\tend if
\tend try
end tell </pre><hr></blockquote>

Run it in 9.x

Enjoy your X-Free goodness. I just used it. Goodbye, slow, bloated, immature OS...
post #26 of 53
I installed X.1 on my brother's TiBook, he loved it. He recently switched back for 2 reasons:

1) He's an idiot. (He doesn't like starting up classic to watch his south park episodes and he's confused by OSX)

2) God hates me. (He gets a goddam TiBook and he can't even figure out how to use it. Meanwhile, I would use it like crazy and I don't get one)
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #27 of 53
[quote] If you have anything slower than a 500MHz G3 and 256MB of RAM, don't bother with OS X. It's a next generation operating system not meant to run on previous generation hardware, and most of the complaints I hear about OS X's speed come from individuals with older machines. <hr></blockquote>
I installed OS X 10.1.2 on my Beige G3/300 Mhz/384 MB and it isn't too bad. But...

Because I have an Epson Color 800, there are no drivers for OS X, and there won't be. On top of that, I can't even print in Classic. So, I launch OS X about every other day, surf the web, read email, and listen to iTunes, but without a printer that works in either OS X or Classic, it's not real practical for me.

And 9.2.2 is very nice - not once has it crashed or caused problems. So for everyday work, I'm with 9.2.2 (FrameMaker, Nisus Writer, PageMaker, Office 2001 - yes, they all work in Classic, but no printer, remember?)

(BTW, don't have Norton File Saver enabled - Classic can't launch with it enabled. I found out the hard way.)
I may be old, but at least I'm slow and inconsistent!
Reply
I may be old, but at least I'm slow and inconsistent!
Reply
post #28 of 53
Originally posted by francisG3: [quote]OS X has one HUGE disadvantage: It is slow. I'd guess about 85-90% as fast as OS9, and I'm running a G4 450, with 512M of RAM.<hr></blockquote> OS X is way faster. Sure, the interface may be a little slower, but try to multitask in OS 9you can't. Hold down a menu and everything halts to a stop. How is this faster?

[quote]Also, I find OS 9 quite stable. Matter of fact, it hasn't crashed in about six weeks. <hr></blockquote>I also found OS 9 to be quite stable till I ran OS X. Six weeks you say? OS X 10 hasn't crashed. At all. Ever. Period.
Microsoft knows what's best for you, so keep quiet, open your wallet, and be a team player.
Reply
Microsoft knows what's best for you, so keep quiet, open your wallet, and be a team player.
Reply
post #29 of 53
I must admit, living in OS 9 is far more frustrating than it used to be. I just got my old iMac up and running in OS 9 again (my daily mac is an iBook running OS X 10.1.2) and its frustrating in its own ways. The difference is that OS X will improve on its shortcomings, and those are mostly either stuff I haven't ever used before (such as a journaled filesystem) or stuff that needs some tune-ups (the usual Finder rant here).

Basically, whatever boat Scott H is in right now, I'm in the the one going the other way. I returned to the Mac for OS X, and have not been disappointed.
post #30 of 53
[quote]Originally posted by inci:
<strong>even with newer g4s, osx is slow. that's a fact. aqua is unpolished, and it careless about user expereience. as far as speed issue, if apple has just provided options to turn off transparency , shadow , other eye candy stuffs and each new window open didnt eat up 1.5MB of ram im sure there would be far less people on g3 complaining about speed. try shadow killer and u'll see the difference esp for g3 owners.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Most claims made about OS X's speed are subjective. I find it quite responsive, although things do slow down from time to time, and it may feel slow to some people all the time. I do not find Aqua any less unsable than Platinum however. OS X is far more aesthetically pleasing than 9 ever was. Drop shadows may not impact your work, but they do have an impact on your psyche. Few GUIs are as fun to use. That's not to say OS X is a toy. The OS X Finder completely creams the one in OS 9 interms of flexability, power, and features. The Dock is great as well. As an application switcher, it is just as good as the little menu/window in OS 9. The ability to minimize an window into the Dock (One nice feature stolen from Windows) keeps my workspace clean and organized. I am no longer forced to sort through a myriad of stacked and collasped windows to find what I'm looking for. It really slowed me down when I used OS 9. The Dock provides as fast access to shortcuts as the Apple menu, and it spares you from having to open the a folder to add/reorginize its contents. This feature also saves time. Many of you, myself included, find the Dock distracting and often intrusive while working. Hide it. Problem solved. This makes the Dock almost perfect, except for one thing. No spring loaded folders. I personally don't care much for them, but I do see how that can be quite useful. If Apple just added this to the Dock and something to the extent of a control strip elsewhere, OS 9 would have nothing over OS X. All of this of course is my subjective opinion. Some of you feel differently and I guess I can't make you like OS X. That is Apple's job after all. OS 9 is great, I just like OS X a little more.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #31 of 53
[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>
Run it in 9.x

Enjoy your X-Free goodness. I just used it. Goodbye, slow, bloated, immature OS...</strong><hr></blockquote>

You should remove "Users" from the list as OS 9 and OS X use the same "Users" folder. For those of us that use multi-user in OS 9.
post #32 of 53
The folder "private" is hidden to OS 9 and can't be trashed.
post #33 of 53
Now there are only two things that force me to boot from OS 9.

When:

1) I need to do firmware update (which is rarely)

2) Mount those Shrink Wrap image file. Stuffit Expander can mount those image only when boot from 9. Not X
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #34 of 53
There are only two items that force me to boot back into 9. When I have to check out things with Norton and certain games. Oh, yes there is nostagia.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 53
I've gradually settled into using OSX about 100% of the time on my iBook, and OS9 about 100% of the time on my Powermac G4-450dp.
post #36 of 53
So X seems to be mostly gone on my system. I use multi-user in OS 9 and the login time, which was always slow in with OS X installed, is much much faster now. X did something to OS 9 that crippled multi-user in a way. OS X sucks. Delete it and be free.
post #37 of 53
My primary machine (PowerBook G4/500) I have been using OSX full time since it came out. I design web site professionally so I use Photoshop, GoLive, BBEdit, etc.

Since many of my Photoshop files are so large (20mb +) OS 9.x would occasionally crash on me. Probably about once a week. Photoshop still crashes in OSX but it only takes down OS9. Also, OSX has never crashed on me!

I do need to admit that I have another machine sitting beside my laptop at the office. My G3/450 is running OS9.2. Why? There ARE some apps that will not run acceptably on OSX.

Here is take on OSX.

GOOD:
Multitasking - better than OS9, Win9x, Win2000 Apache, PHP, mySQL
Speed - OSX itself IS fast
GUI - once I got used to the GUI I am more comfortable in it than I am OS9

BAD:
Lack of native apps - OSX NEEDS native apps ported to it NOW. Photoshop and GoLive performe adequately but not nearly up to par.
Fear of change - Let's face it, many people were happy with OS9 and they aren't very thrilled about OSX. There's no changing this!
Missing Features - OSX still misses many features that OS9 has. While change isn't always bad...taking away features is! I know they are coming but when?
Missing Palm Desktop - What a big mistake. If Palm doesn't have the money Apple NEEDS to port the Palm desktop and take control of it. Palm did say it would be out by year's end....riiiiight!

With this said, Apple is doing the right thing telling the general public that OSX will ship as default in March 2002. In other words, get your applications done!!!

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>
post #38 of 53
I've been using OS X on my iMac at home for a good three months or so now. At home, all I really do is surf, e-mail and use Adobe Illustrator 10, which is now OS X native.

But at work, on my G4, I can't quite bring myself to using OS X 24/7 because when I'm using Photoshop and QuarkXPress in Classic, I just have too many little weird glitches or hangups, ESPECIALLY in QuarkXPress. TONS of screen redraw issues, palettes "ghosting", etc. I waste a lot of time closing and reopening windows and files to "clear the cobwebs out", so it's a productivity/efficiency killer at this point.

Through most of November, I used X at work, but as our schedule and projects got more hectic toward Thanksgiving and into most of December, I booted back straight into OS 9 from Thanksgiving until Friday, just so I could get stuff done with the least hassle and weirdness possible.

Personally, I think OS X absolutely rocks (I haven't launched Classic or booted into OS 9 here at home since October or so!). But until the programs I use at work ARE OS X native and I can say goodbye to OS 9 once and for all, I'm going to be a bit reluctant.

I use it at home, so I'm totally up on it and know "how to use it", so next year when more major league apps are out in X-native versions, it's not going to be any sort of big learning curve for me.

Yes, I'm looking VERY forward to the day when I can use OS X 24/7 at work, just as I am at home, because right now I feel like I'm using two computers and two sets of rules and two ways of doing everything and sometimes it gets old.

I figure by March or so, it'll be a non-issue.

Hell, we've waited THIS long, what's three more months, right?
post #39 of 53
I have to say, a huge problem I find difficult is that even with native apps, they aren't ported over very well. For example, Office X is glacial in X compared to Office 2001 in OS 9. VirtualPC 5 in X doesn't run as well as in OS 9, I know a lot of people say it's because they are badly ported Carbon apps and not well written Carbon or pure Cocoa apps, so I'm not dissing the OS, just that I wish developers will get on the ball. Instead of just changing a few API's so that app borderline qualifies as OS X compliant, how about *true* native OS X apps that take advantage of OS X and all the wonderful things this bold new OS has to offer? At this point, it feels like we are getting all the disadvantages of X (ie. slower system because of Quartz rendering, preemptive multitasking) without the advantages (ie. *full* services, premptive multitasking)

A simple example is this, go to Explorer for OS X - start loading up a page, and then go to the top menu bar and click and hold - when you do that, the web page stops loading, I thought the whole point of OS X was that we no longer had to deal with system inefficiencies such as this. An OS is only as good as its killer apps, and when its killer apps aren't taking full advantage of what the OS can do, then it's difficult for it to truly shine.

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Kestral ]</p>
post #40 of 53
[quote]Originally posted by Kestral:
<strong>A simple example is this, go to Explorer for OS X - start loading up a page, and then go to the top menu bar and click and hold - when you do that, the web page stops loading, I thought the whole point of OS X was that we no longer had to deal with system inefficiencies such as this. An OS is only as good as its killer apps, and when its killer apps aren't taking full advantage of what the OS can do, then it's difficult for it to truly shine.

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Kestral ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is why IE is not my default browser. I've found Mozilla and Omniweb better than IE. If only Omniweb would add tabbed browsing!

OSX really opens the door for other developer's apps.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › People switching back to OS 9?