Register.com claims that 90% of Mac users hate Aqua/OS X - Page 2

EmAn, EmAn, EmAn...
Don't you know that there is no arguing with Scott when it comes to Mac OS X? He's always right!

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

OS X is slow for some people, but not for everyone. You're wife's iBook may seem slow, but mine doesn't. You can't say in general the OS X is slow. It's slow for some people and for others it isn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. It's the same speed for everyone you dolt. Equal machines will run the same version of OS X at the same speed.

At the very least you cannot claim OS X is "fast". There's just no way. How many times do you have to look at that spinning wheel (it's a CD btw) to know that OS X is slow slow slow.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>


It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm. Strange... I've got the same config but I am more than satisfied with the speed of OS X. Maybe your wife doesn't have enough room left on her HD for adequate swapping? I dunno. Maybe Apple sent you a defective iBook just because you won't buy a new iMac

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

No. It's the same speed for everyone you dolt. Equal machines will run the same version of OS X at the same speed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You really are an idiot. I specifically said that my iBook (500MHz, 384MB just like your wife's) runs OS X pretty good. How can you tell me that my machine runs OS X slow?

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

You really are an idiot. I specifically said that my iBook (500MHz, 384MB just like your wife's) runs OS X pretty good. How can you tell me that my machine runs OS X slow?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because you're an Apple Apologist and you've obviously been blinded by RDF

I think that the problem here is that Scott H. is a FUD-Spreader and has everything covered in FUD-Spread at his house, so it moves slower for him than it does for everyone else.

This is for you Scott H.



[edit: added homemade picture ]

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>

Because you're an Apple Apologist and you've obviously been blinded by RDF
everyone else.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, maybe that's it

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>This is for you Scott H.


</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is that my lime iMac in your FUD spread? That's going to far.

It's funny how you people can't face the truth about OS X. Some people call it FUD but I call it honesty.

Scott, did you ever think that maybe people have opinions that aren't the same as yours? You might think it's slow. I don't, and I know other people don't either.

If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.

How am I diluting myself? You may find it slow. I don't and others don't. There are some people who agree with you and there's others that agree with me. Why can't you comprehend that?

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Hmm, well I am feeling a little watery.

[quote]Originally posted by MajorMatt:
<strong>People are more likely to complain than to praise which would explain these warped results. If I saw an article talking about Aqua, I would never e-mail in and tell him how I like it.

To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Very true. Statistically speaking, the Register's respondents made up a self-selected sample, a favorite of junk science and bad public opinion pollsters. A random sampling would provide a much clearer and more accurate summary of current user opinion.

Like others here, I had few specific beefs (beeves?) with the Reg's pet-peeves, though the conclusions arrived therefrom seem a little excessive. It seems that the people most unable to adjust to Aqua are the ones who've established the most specific, idiosyncratic workflows in 9; removing spring loaded folders for these folks isn't just a minor inconvenience, it's like removing one of their thumbs, requiring a huge amount of retraining and readjusting which they very much resent.

Maybe I'm just a mellow guy. Not only do I find Aqua pleasant and easy to use (I had evolved a very similar work routine already, and never used spring-loaded folders), but I had no desire to respond to that article and enter that fray yet again. Had I known they were going to trumpet a bunch of angry emails as some kind of definitive look into the psyche of the Mac community, I probably would have forced myself to. As it is, we're stuck with an inflammatory proposition supported by some decidedly half-baked reasoning. Oh well.

[quote]Originally posted by davechen:
<strong>

Hmm, well I am feeling a little watery.</strong><hr></blockquote>

*nod*

[quote]Originally posted by Adam11:
<strong>Hello from the 10%.

Cheers
adam</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's called "volunteer response". Get a statistics textbook and read about it.

&lt;soap box time&gt;

It's because of sh!t stats like Register.com's that the saying "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics!" came from. Shoddy half-@ss "stats" done by people that don't know what the hell is going on.

Everyone do yourself a favor: buy a stats book, like "stats for dummies" or something. I know you slept through it in school (or simply avoided taking the class). Educate yourself on the extremely common abuse of statistics so you don't fall prey to BS...

&lt;/end soap box&gt;

Thank you for your patience

[quote]To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.<hr></blockquote>

Pro-Apple apologists would stuff the poll like there was no tomorrow.

As they almost always do.

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<strong>

Pro-Apple apologists would stuff the poll like there was no tomorrow.

As they almost always do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, that is why there is a science to how you conduct a survey. To avoid the outcome you predicted (Apple Apologists, and btw, you're right), and the outcome that started this entire thread to begin with (the anti-osx crowd)...

The nonsense starts by always putting it as such simple equations like:

Aqua critics= Mac OS X haters
Mac OS X pleased person= Apple zealot
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

This is the way to simplify reality for tit for tat discussions. This is nonsense. I have had those discussions myself every time I found something not mature, defective or missing in X. I still have a lot to say about Aqua, but for me the valuable underpinnings of X outweigh its shortcomings of the GUI on my iBook, while I ditched X currently on my desktop.

Different people find different things lamentable or exciting, sometimes the personal view puts thing more in a false light, sometimes it puts things to shine. Meanwhile Mac OS X offers many things that work speedy and properly and other things that are hardly more than a sketch of things to come.

Depending on the amount of things you work with of both sides your view may be completely different and your personal summary may either be "sufficiently speedy" or "unbearable slow".

However, there are still things that prove both categories to coexist in this OS. To neglect the existence of one means you have a biased view. It is therefore better to describe the exact function that is speedy, or the one that is slow.

It is an old one, but e.g the statement that 2d functions in X are 300% slower than under 9, giving the user stutterly scrolling performance, which greatly hinders a quick workflow, is something that can be measured. Maybe someone could be even "pleased" with this reduced performance, but someone having so small standards may not be interested in this discussion.

You can always argue about the speed of a given copy process, the speed for opening apps, the speed for switching programs and such, but you cannot argue general statements like "I am pleased".

And for all that "hate" the Aqua looks there are themes around and customizing apps for tweaking the OS to better match your needs or taste. . I think much of the taste debate tries to make use of technical arguments to come up with some measurable means. Since Aqua is also looks and function it is sometimes hard to get this straight. I know.

I think we all use Macs for the difference it makes in terms of style, appearance, looks, fashion and design, not only on the hardware side, but also on the software side. It is for this reason this type of discussion takes place, which is unparalleled in the PC world.

And it is especially hard when our co-Mac mates seem to take a stance against us, while all we want is the best Mac experience ever. And some things in X are not quite up to this standard by now. :o

Sorry for venting so long.

Good post Kate, esp. this bit:

[quote]<strong>
The nonsense starts by always putting it as such simple equations like:

Aqua critics= Mac OS X haters
Mac OS X pleased person= Apple zealot
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

This is the way to simplify reality for tit for tat discussions. This is nonsense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Writing a piece that draws a line in the sand and paints an "us vs. them" picture (pardon my mixed metaphors) is relatively easy to write and draws lots of reaction. Writing a fair and reasoned analysis (even in a discussion forum) takes skill, patience, and a certain capacity for honesty and self-assessment. Small wonder we see so little of it, eh?

Part of the problem comes from badly worded questions. There's a whole field dedicated to learning to write non-ambiguous, non-leading questions. Oftentimes, in web and media polls, the questions are worded in way that is not much better than:

Do you still beat your wife?

How does one answer that question in a survey? And, even if the response to the question is accurate, the conclusions drawn from that type of poll are many and, often, inaccurate. For example, it could be that:

"Our treatment has helped stop 95% of wife beaters."

or

"95% of respondents reported beating their wives at some point in the past."

All web-polls are shit, regardless of the stuffing of the ballots box. The only way to get a good survey of information from the internet is to require unique identification and even then the results are suspect. Don't believe most of what you hear or read.

The bottom line is this:
Journalists don't know a thing about statistics. And they know even less about psychometrics.

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>Part of the problem comes from badly worded questions. There's a whole field dedicated to learning to write non-ambiguous, non-leading questions. </strong><hr></blockquote>


Agreed!

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>Journalists don't know a thing about statistics. And they know even less about psychometrics.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes! It's nice to know there are others out there spreading the word about poor statistics!!!

[quote]Originally posted by fuzz_ball:
<strong>It's called "volunteer response". Get a statistics textbook and read about it.

&lt;soap box time&gt;

It's because of sh!t stats like Register.com's that the saying "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics!" came from. Shoddy half-@ss "stats" done by people that don't know what the hell is going on.

Everyone do yourself a favor: buy a stats book, like "stats for dummies" or something. I know you slept through it in school (or simply avoided taking the class). Educate yourself on the extremely common abuse of statistics so you don't fall prey to BS...

&lt;/end soap box&gt;

Thank you for your patience </strong><hr></blockquote>

Statistics are just like mini skirts. They give you some idea of what's inside but allwais hide the real thing

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>


It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

where do you get bloat ware from?
My system folder is only 770.2 MB.
And the library folder is only 391.4MB
Thats not bad compared to windows.

80% of statistics are made up on the spot



anyway, I had a whole long rant here originally, but then I accidentally closed the window and lost the whole thing (probably better for you) Suffice it to say, though, I like aqua, and I understnad that most of the issues with X are a "maturity" thing, but I can't live with the bugs, so I'm with 9 for now. Specifically, has anyone else had issues with AIM for X?

I will not say anymore right now, but maybe later, TTFN

[quote]Originally posted by SledgeHammer:
<strong>
Specifically, has anyone else had issues with AIM for X?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, but have you tried the final release? It's only been out a short while.

[quote]Originally posted by spicoli:
<strong>

where do you get bloat ware from?
My system folder is only 770.2 MB.
And the library folder is only 391.4MB
Thats not bad compared to windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well? Bloatware being software that adds almost useless features I guess OS X is not that. But the way it buffers each window as a pixel map hogs memory and the solution is compression which would slow things down...

I find that multi-tasking more than makes up for *slight* lags on windows and menus. Not to mention my lack of crashing and the like. I have a G4 450 (the first G4s) with 256 megs of ram and I find no net speed lost from OS9 .

// other thought //

For all those who think OSX is slow, where are the spots that bug you the most?

[quote]Originally posted by thentro:
<strong>For all those who think OSX is slow, where are the spots that bug you the most?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The GUI - the entire GUI.

[quote]Originally posted by thentro:
<strong>I find that multi-tasking more than makes up for *slight* lags on windows and menus.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is no reason why one should compensate the other. You can get good responsiveness and multi-tasking, in fact the combination of both should be actually superior.

If it's not there's a bug or design flaw of a magnitude.
There are real-time OSes that can switch tasks in milliseconds and below, and have a very low latency. Mac OS X needs not to do this, but on todays hardware it must be able to impose a zero delay menu access to the user.

There is no excuse for a lag of menu access. A Mac cpu (G3 or G4) can do everything that's necessary from the click of the mouse until the display of the menu between two video cycles, which pretty much means the menu is presented to you faster than your eye will react. And that is nothing that can make your cpu sweat, in fact it has a lot of idle time while doing so.

There is no reason why we should pay on the GUI side for advancements on the OS side. The opposite is true, the entire GUI should on average feel more responsive because the OS now has better features.

I totally agree with this guy though:

[quote]Your conclusions were a little soft on Apple. I would think that Apple should do the following:

- Give us a MacOS 9 finder, written in cocoa, that takes full advantage of X. There should never, ever, be a spinning beachball again.

- Fix the 2d graphics acceleration issue. Scrolling etc needs to be fast, as fast as MacOS 9 on the same hardware

- rehire some of Apple's UI experts back. They were the people that made the MacOS so great. They can again make X great, and give us new features of usability that have been thought up over the yerars.

- drivers. Apple promised a development environment that would make writing device drivers easy and fast. Yet after 9 months people STILL can't synch up a palm pilot with release quality software.

Michael Porter <hr></blockquote>

When moving (notice: MOVING) ten new MP3's from my downloads folder to my MP3 folder takes half a minute, the deduction that the Finder is too ****ing slow is not hard to make. I run 10.1.2 on a 450 MHz G4 Cube w. 256 Mb of RAM.

I don't mind that it's not snappy as 9, but come on. Moving files and folders around shouldn't take longer than up to three seconds, MAX. with OS X multitasking, I'd be able to wait three secs and do something else while the files were being moved. But waiting a (full =) half minute? That's bullshit, and you know it.

Btw, reading on more complaints from the page let's you know that most of these 90% have never even come close to OS X. Take this guy for instance:

[quote]For the UI, I dislike the placement of the resize and close buttons. The classical Mac interface put these on opposite side and gave you one that would resize to fit.

Finally, the requirement for file extensions and the loss of file creator information is a pain. You'd think that M$ had some influence in designing the UI. <hr></blockquote>

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>

I've come to like Aqua now that I got rid of the stripes.

A word from a (soon-to-be) Linux-to-OSX convert

[quote]
There is no reason why we should pay on the GUI side for advancements on the OS side.
<hr></blockquote>
I would tend to think (from my own experiences with many falvors of UNIX) that the opposite is true: that the OS is blazing fast, but it has this 800-pound slug of a GUI on its back.

from a UNIX standpoint, there hasn't been significant changes made to the BSD-UNIX underpinnings of OSX.
The character set has changed to Unicode... which means it takes more than one byte to store one character ... which can affect program size and speed, but not by a whole-lot.

I believe the speed issues in OSX are all on the GUI side.
The entire GUI is rendered in "DisplayPDF" (except that which is 3D is rendered with OpenGL) ... that's -definitely- going to affect speed. (300% for 2D rendering did someone say?)

[it may be worth noting that the GUI is custom, and not based on top of X11. I believe that the DisplayPostScript GUI engine on the NeXT ran under X11.]

Plus the GUI is written in Objective-C (as was the NeXT GUI). I know that (in general) OO code is slower, but I have no quantifyable statistics for the speed of Objective-C compared to straight C or C++. But the Cocoa libraries might yet be in their infancy with room for optimization.

Those more familiar with the NeXT machines and NeXTStep OS may be able to evaluate and compare the maturity of the OSX GUI (and API) to that of the NeXT, since OSX seems (on the surface) to be a direct decendant of what was developed at NeXT. (...with a bit of ground-breaking internationalization thrown-in on the side. )

I think that OSX performs well enough for Apple to have released it, and that the time was/is right.

the GUI performance of OSX will continue to improve. But the question that current hardware owners are left with is that will it improve -enough- to not require a hardware upgrade in order to have the user-interactivity and responsiveness of .. oh, say ... the Amiga

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: cud ]</p>

90% of the emails they published. Or is it 9 of the 10 emails they got didn't like X?

How about of everyone that hates X, 90% wrote into the register?

Or Scott H. wrote in 10 times but on one email he forgot to say he didn't like X?

Hey! I must admit that was a pretty refreshing read!

Most people seem to agree that X has flaws, but no one's screaming at each other. This seems a complete turnaround from what was getting posted on the MacNN forums a couple of months ago where you dare not say "X is crap".

I'm with most of you I think, the underpinnings of X are neat, but the UI really has some way to go yet. I really wonder why Apple decided to install X as the default OS, seems all they are going to get is a lot of dissatisfied customers ("mummy, why does that CD thing keep spinning, I just clicked to open a folder and nothing happened...").

[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>I wonder how many of those who don't like aqua are really just frustrated with the Finder and legacy unix code? I really like aqua/quartz, but the Finder, kernel and Cocoa frameworks have so much crusty unix crap in them that sometimes it's difficult to use. I still like aqua though.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Finder is written in Carbon.

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>
I am not a big fan of it either. Icons are TOO big and if Apple doesn't add an option to remove the stoopid butt ugly drop shadow crap I just might jump ship too (not).
</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. You can adjust the icons in MacOS X - make them smaller.
2. There is a hack available to remove the drop shadows.

Have a look in the Finder preferences, there may be other things that will improve your experience.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you don't think OS X is fast then you are diluting yourself. OS X is fast. Saying it isn't doesn't make it slower.

Why all the hate? Cant people just love? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote] I'm with most of you I think, the underpinnings of X are neat, but the UI really has some way to go yet. I really wonder why Apple decided to install X as the default OS, seems all they are going to get is a lot of dissatisfied customers ("mummy, why does that CD thing keep spinning, I just clicked to open a folder and nothing happened..."). <hr></blockquote>

I think an 800mhz G4 is plenty powerful enough to make X more then usable. An iMac with a G3 would've been a different story,

[quote]Originally posted by Nebrie:
<strong>I used windows 2000 for a long time, and when I switched mac, I actually found adapting to OS X far easier than OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm. Apple needing to convert lots of Windows users into Mac users to sell lots more Macs. Complaints from long-time Mac users about "Windows-isms" in OS X, and former Windows users saying OS X is easier to adjust to that OS 9. Coincidence?