or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X 10.2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OS X 10.2 - Page 4

post #121 of 208
I really don't feel like going over really old ground. Hell, we went over this crap almost a year ago and it's still stupid.

Oh, and I'm quite grown up. The prospect of a birthday coming up soon doesn't inspire the same feelings that it once did.

I'll have to say after seeing your pictures on your home page you seem more grown up than I gave you credit for.

I hope 10.2 is a more finished OS than the current one also. But, even if it is I really don't think the whining will stop. I've given up on that one. I just can't believe anyone would want to go back to 9.

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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 #122 of 208
Agreed to almost all of the previous posts, every one of them! So many posts and many are still on topic.


Anyhow, going back to OS 9 looks a bit like a glorified Palm OS. Very snappy but a bit too 1990 for me.

One thing is very clear, though. A slow finder sells more hardware. For example, my g3 400 lombard powerbook that has no graphics/quicktime support, so that I will purchase the pokey g4 powerbook.

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: mugwump ]</p>
post #123 of 208
Hardware like my iBook!?

jimmac, I'm surprised at your responses, you usually have good posts. If Apple hasn't caught OS X up with OS 9 (caught up, at least!) by 10.2 then we should really bombard them with mail. Did you READ my post jimmac? Windows, as hard as it is to admit, gets better every day. Know, ALL of us here know that more than HALF the reason we use Macs is MacOS.

I felt really dumb to have to tell my friend who just bought a pimped out 7500 with a 200mhz 604e that OS X would be so slow on it, it would be UNUSABLE. Jimmac, what machines have you used OS X on???

Granted, my 256 meg dimm for my iBook hasn't come yet, and I've yet to test battery life sleeping... But after hearing from ZO and doing some reading, I'm really hoping tomorrow Steve Jobs will blow us away with options for everything that currently isn't there or working, but should be
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #124 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>Hardware like my iBook!?</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS X loves RAM. The additional 256MB will make a difference. However, there's still work to be done. OS X has been getting faster, not slower, and I see no reason for that trend to change any time soon. It's still a work in progress.

[quote]<strong>If Apple hasn't caught OS X up with OS 9 (caught up, at least!) by 10.2 then we should really bombard them with mail.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Depends on what you mean by "caught up." For me, it passed by OS 9 some time around 10.0.3, sluggishness and all, and it's on another level now. For me, a few UI glitches are worth the trade for a few multitasking and stability glitches - at least UI glitches are easier to fix. I won't mention the arbitrary conglomeration of shareware hacks that passes for the OS 9 UI. Speaking as a programmer, the fact that OS X doesn't freeze every time I make a mistake is already a godsend; the fact that OS X is far more responsive than OS 9 for switching tasks - especially if one task is churning away, or hung - is a win; the Finder (with toolbar) and the new open/save dialog boxes have made it easier for me to find and organize files (I'm pretty bad at doing it myself). I've been completely spoiled by having all the apps I want to use one click away in the Dock - it neatly replaced my tabbed folder of aliases in button view in OS 9, and it's easier to set up, use and maintain. I used to have to be careful managing memory, especially after I discovered that giving OS 9 applications lots of RAM made them (and therefore the system) a lot more stable. Under OS X, all that's taken care of neatly and transparently.

I'm just venturing into AppleScript, but the people on the AS users list are praising OS X to the skies after some initial skepticism. AS always worked sort of provisionally in OS 9, and Finder was very slow and unreliable, in no small part because the cooperative multitasking environment makes automation hard. AS is much more at home in X (and much better supported), and that matters a lot to Apple's customers in publishing.

[quote]<strong>Windows, as hard as it is to admit, gets better every day.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, it improves at irregular (and often long) intervals, and rarely without a good list of gotchas and a few steps back. I know: I've spent 8 hours a day in Windows for the last 7 years or so. Few of the improvements are really all that earth-shaking, because MS is still hobbled by legacy compatibility. The UI might look less ugly (although XP looks garish and plasticky to me) but it still carries over all the inconsistent and gratuitously overcomplicated legacy cruft, and piles on more.

It also gets slower with every release. You should know that MS and Intel have been trying to find ways to get people to replace their computers every year in order to buoy stagnanting PC sales, so if you're concerned about performance on older hardware the Windows world is the wrong place to look.

[quote]<strong>I felt really dumb to have to tell my friend who just bought a pimped out 7500 with a 200mhz 604e that OS X would be so slow on it, it would be UNUSABLE.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would you be embarrassed to tell him that a "pimped out" PC from the same era could barely run Windows XP?

[quote]<strong>Granted, my 256 meg dimm for my iBook hasn't come yet, and I've yet to test battery life sleeping... But after hearing from ZO and doing some reading, I'm really hoping tomorrow Steve Jobs will blow us away with options for everything that currently isn't there or working, but should be </strong><hr></blockquote>

"Everything" might be too hopeful, but I expect a steady stream of improvements over the next year. Another unambiguous benefit to OS X over OS 9 is that it's a modular architecture. It's much, much easier to change and upgrade.

In the mean time, that DIMM should make an immediate difference.

[edit by Amorph: Numerous clarifications, and a few corrections]

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #125 of 208
post #126 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>Gambit wins the Queupie doll!
...... and a whole lot more....... </strong><hr></blockquote>

I knew that wasn't something I made up, I just didn't remember where I read it. And anyways, if you guys aren't getting like three hours per battery charge, maybe there's something wrong with your battery. Under OS X, my Ti500 with 512 megs of ram lasts for days when I take it in and out of sleep to browse the web, chat online, and email from my couch. (I use the new iMac 800 for the heavy stuff. .... Man! Can you imagine that? Using an IMAC for the processor intensive stuff! lol .... oh, forget it. This is a humorless thread, sorry. Didn't mean to ruin the flow, let the name calling and finger pointing begin again.)

By the way..... Queupie doll?
post #127 of 208
Oh! I think I remember now! It was at WWDC 2000, one of the OS X conferences, I heard about the power management being handled by the OS........ or was it MacWorld SF 2001? Hmmm.... dammit. But, regardless, I heard this info straight from Apple's mouth. Hmm... I wonder what else I've forgotten?


Oh yea, no humor. Sorry.
post #128 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>I really don't feel like going over really old ground. Hell, we went over this crap almost a year ago and it's still stupid. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The reason we KEEP mentioning it is because OS X, in 1 years time, with all its promises of being the most kickass, incredible, revolutionary OS, hasnt really improved in leaps and bounds. Its been in development for, what, a million years now and we dont have something like spring loaded folders and labels? Come on people! WAKE UP! OS X is just not cut out to be all that its supposed to be. Yes, MAYBE in a year or two.. but right now, it still feels like a late beta.

In regards to Energy Saver, I must say, I have no complaints. I have a theoretical 6 hour battery life and actually managed to get 5h20 with some itunes, browsing, and word processing... very impressive.

My options will be the following:
1) Wait til 10.2 and see improvements and keep my iBook
2) 10.2 is marginally better but because I still want to have a Mac, I sell this one off and buy a lowend portable iBook and buy a PC and wait a few years to see if both processor and OS on the Mac side get less pathetic and eventually buy a nicer faster Mac.

While iMac has gotten, finally, a G4 for a great price, iBook users are still stuck in the shit with crap G3 processors and a slow OS to boot. I am NOT a happy camper.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #129 of 208
ZO: you have to understand, OS X may have been in development for 'millions of years', but it's not that EASY to port an OS. First they had to find out which parts of the OS they can port from Intel (as I don't believe, by the time Apple picked up NeXT, it was running on PPC.) Then they had to decide which MacOS features they'd keep. Then they had to port the OS over, and even rewrite most of the functionality and APIs. THEN they had to devise a plan to get the developers on their side.... which ultimately backfired. So, they had to go to the drawing board and implement a new API on an already massive project and come up with a new strategy. By this time I'm sure Steve said they needed a new interface, and, designing an interface isn't exactly easy, just ask Microsoft. Fast forward a few years and it's amazing they've intergrated everything in the OS as well as they have. Carbon is still a moving target and it's always being improved. But, improving APIs bring about incompatibilites with current software, and I beleive 10.2, if there are big speed increases, might break compatibility with some apps, if not a lot. Remember, there's a reason apps require 10.1 instead of 10.0.x, certain hooks need to be there for their apps to run. In other words, it's not that easy writing an OS, though I think I've simplified it a bit much here, too. Give Apple a break. We're all impatient, but you can't fight drama with drama. So, relax.
post #130 of 208
You have to be kidding me. OS X knows better than I do what settings I want for the Energy Saver?

How else would I specify my always changing needs for different sleep/HD Spind Down/Screen settings on Battery and Outlet? I don't frikkin' care how dynamic it is. Sometime I want it full power everything on battery, sometimes I need to trim it down as conservative as possible.

Gambit, I do programming. OK, maybe I don't work in assembly or UNIX system calls But I know that it wouldn't take a frikkin' GENIUS to put Spring Loaded Folders in. Why don't they just release 10.1.4 with Spring Loaded Folders and Windowshades??? Amorph raised an interesting point about metadata and Labels, though. That needs some deeper thought.

Amorph, I am coming from a B&W G3 300 w/ 512 megs of RAM, plain vanilla everything. All I know is, 9.2.2 on the G3 300 whips 10.1.3's @$$ on the iBook, especially in terms of responsiveness, UI, and organization/customization. This is sad. This new iBook is less than a year old, the B&W.... Ah well. What do I know? Maybe OpenGL is slow, or Mach isn't monolithic? I just thought, with a total re-write and a year's worth of revisions, no 68K code, etc. etc., it would be faster. OS X has some good points, but multi-tasking isn't one of the ones I've observed. So far, the Dock is the only metric I've really looked, but it really seems to hog the CPU, looking at the CPU monitor.

A few employees at Apple devoted to bringing back the good stuff from OS 9 would do wonders for OS X efficiency, I bet. No smartass replies please, Windowshade X and Fruitmenu shouldn't be SHAREWARE. Unsanity should be based out of a Cupertino office!

Why are options bad?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #131 of 208
I'm not saying options are bad. Nobody here is saying that. What I AM saying is that we're not smarter than Apple, smarter than the people at Apple. There HAS to be a reason OS X doesn't have the features we are requesting, and there has to be a reason why OS X is "taking so long." I don't know what that reason is, and while people may have good guesses, nobody really knows. You should go to MW or WWDC if you ever get a chance. The conferences, especially the really technical ones, not only give you a grasp of what OS X is doing behind the scenes, but it gives you a deeper appreciation for them, as well. (Hence why some of us sound forgiving. I know that's why I am.)
post #132 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>You have to be kidding me. OS X knows better than I do what settings I want for the Energy Saver?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Welcome to UNIX, the first operating system to present a greatly simplified, highly abstracted interface to the hardware. OS X knows a lot of things better than you do. Including when to store files in "memory" on disk, and when to store files on "disk" in memory. This means relinquishing low-level control, yes, but people have been eagerly doing just that since FORTRAN first appeared, in the name of ease of use.

Generally, this is a Good Thing(TM). It means that the average person - remember, the sort of person Apple has targeted from the get-go - can get excellent battery performance without ever seeing the Energy Saver control panel.

[quote]<strong>Sometime I want it full power everything on battery, sometimes I need to trim it down as conservative as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, if you're trimming down as conservative as possible, you probably aren't ripping a CD while playing a tune while applying 10 filters to a 1GB file while running folding@home. Likewise, if you want to run full blast, you probably aren't running TextEdit all by itself with the brightness at 40%. So I'll bet that there's some correlation between what how you're using the laptop and what sort of energy requirements you need. That's not too hard for OS X to figure out. If, in actual use, OS X does what you want, then you aren't missing anything.

[quote]<strong>Gambit, I do programming. OK, maybe I don't work in assembly or UNIX system calls But I know that it wouldn't take a frikkin' GENIUS to put Spring Loaded Folders in. Why don't they just release 10.1.4 with Spring Loaded Folders and Windowshades??? Amorph raised an interesting point about metadata and Labels, though. That needs some deeper thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I sincerely doubt that it's a programming problem.

It's a design problem. You absolutely do not design a user interface by gluing a bunch of different widgets together without considering how they work together - that way lies Gnome. Nor do you offer everything and let the user and the developer choose. That way lies Motif, quite possibly the most godawful GUI ever inflicted on the world. Design 101: Anything that doesn't fit neatly into the gestalt should get cut. If Apple is lazy about making a UI decision in their new, fledgling OS, it will bite them in the ass for years. The time and trouble spent getting a design right the first time is far, far less than the time you'll spend coping with the oversights and compromises of a mediocre design. Believe me, I've learned this the hard way. There are several discrete functionalities within Aqua that either substitute for or moot the need for windowshades, so I don't expect them back. I certainly don't miss them, and I used them a lot in OS 9.

The classic Apple Menu is a textbook example of horrible UI design. Its passing should not be mourned. There are, again, different ways to accomplish the myriad, unrelated tasks that the Apple Menu tried to offer, so there's no reason to have it there.

[quote]<strong>Amorph, I am coming from a B&W G3 300 w/ 512 megs of RAM, plain vanilla everything. All I know is, 9.2.2 on the G3 300 whips 10.1.3's @$$ on the iBook, especially in terms of responsiveness, UI, and organization/customization.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not really surprising. 512MB of RAM will speed OS 9 up quite dramatically, especially if you change all your applications' memory usage to take advantage of it. Furthermore, if your iBook doesn't have much RAM (especially if it only has 64MB), then OS X will be hitting the hard drive a lot, and notebook hard drives are s l o w.

[quote]<strong>This new iBook is less than a year old, the B&W.... Ah well. What do I know? Maybe OpenGL is slow, or Mach isn't monolithic? I just thought, with a total re-write and a year's worth of revisions, no 68K code, etc. etc., it would be faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Darwin kernel is monolithic.

The parts of the OS that are no longer 68K code are much, much, much faster in OS X. For example, the filesystem. There are things that are much more responsive in OS X, courtesy of the preemptive multitasking and far more efficient threading. As far as the total rewrite goes, there's an old saying from the NeXTStep days: Make it work, then make it fast. Apple is still making parts of OS X work. Lastly, Quartz does a whole hell of a lot more work than QuickDraw ever had to, so it will always be faster and easier for OS 9 to paint its primitive windows on screen.

[quote]<strong>OS X has some good points, but multi-tasking isn't one of the ones I've observed. So far, the Dock is the only metric I've really looked, but it really seems to hog the CPU, looking at the CPU monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

% CPU is highly misleading. Especially if there's not much else running, a spike of high CPU use is simply an indication of tightly written code.

[quote]<strong>Why are options bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>

First of all, a statement like "options are bad" is absurd. More often than anyone would like to admit, however, options are a symptom of developer laziness: They can't be bothered to do the extra work involved in deciding what belongs where, so they punt that task to the user. (I see a lot more of this in the Windows world, and it's rampant in the Linux community, but it's not unknown on the Mac side.) This is not the way Apple has ever done things, and this is precisely why they are admired for their user friendliness. In this case, the options you're asking for aren't so much enhancements of the Aqua interface as kludges to shoehorn in things from another interface that you're used to, and that immediately makes them suspect. If there's a problem Aqua doesn't currently address or address well (which is certainly not out of the question!) then the proper solution is to design a feature into Aqua's paradigm, rather than port something over from OS 9 lock, stock and barrel.

If you've tailored the way you work to OS 9, OS X is going to seem weird. I know this. But if you take the plunge, and approach OS X more like a new thing, I'm confident that you'll find a way to work without relying on (many) shareware hacks. If you stop thinking of it as a funny-looking OS 9, it does make sense in its own terms. At this point, I find OS 9 frustrating and awkward, and I've used Macs since 1986.

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #133 of 208
Well said James...even if I do miss spring-loaded folders.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #134 of 208
Yea! What James said! With a cherry on top! Actually, he wrote pretty much everything I wanted to say, except I was too lazy and not really interested in playing cheerleader for OS X/Apple. If you like OS 9, which I don't now after getting used to X, then stay in 9. X is better if you take it on its own terms, like I've been saying this entire thread.
post #135 of 208
post #136 of 208
At last some sanity! It just seems like everyone here is just waiting to jump all over Apple about something ( and yes it goes way beyond constructive suggestions ) witness the thread about the increase in iMac prices. They couldn't even get their facts straight so they spread misinformation about the prices being higher than they really are. It makes me ill. Thank you James, and Gambit.

I don't advocate not finding fault with Apple ( if it's really valid ) this is something else.

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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 #137 of 208
indeed Amorph, very informative and well said. Thanks for explaining a lot of tech stuff.

BUT, and I have to say this, the fact remains that OS X is not all that its made out to be. And dont think I just rant here and thats it, I send almost all my suggestions, problems, rants to Apple all the time in the hope that they pay attention at least a little bit.

Im jst really pissed off that I paid a LOT of money for a tricked out iBook and yet OS X is still, not dog slow, but definetly lacking. The few times I have to go to OS 9 I start to be able to work quickly again. OS X is a combination of pressing shortcuts, using mouse, clicking etc... but waiting that extra half second or 2 and having the damn spinning-wheel-of-death appear almost all the time.

As some other wise soul mentioned in another thread, OS X's demise right now is the little inconsistencies. Its 'this little qwirk' plus 'that little qwirk' plus 'this other bug' and finally 'this blatant fubar'. This is killing the whole OS X experience for me. Because I am a dedicated Apple person I am making an effort to use it, but its starting wear thin.

Examples of simple qwirks: The speedy Apple+N since forever has meant new folder. Now I have to use the shift button too. I had to get used to it and I have, but I actually have to think where I place my fingers on THREE buttons now. (big deal you say... but it interrups workflow even for a second... I have to think of the OS rather than my work)
-Desktop pictures not appearing... force quit of finder to see the changes (wtf is THAT about???)
-Icons disappearing
-Finder 'unexpectadly quitting' way too often
-Folders not rememberng their positions
-Get Info on many items will often not tell you the size because there are too many items... I have waited up to 5 minutes on a few occasions and Get Info would still not have been able to calculate the size a of a few hundred files
-Renaming files or folders: The cursor disappears when you move it in the name when you move it around (the postion cursor, not the mouse cursor)
-No labels (something I used continously in OS 7-9 to categorize the contents of folders (burned, read, to discard, etc etc)
-While placing a folder in the dock with apps works, its hideously slow the first time around... at least 4-5 seconds for the contents of my Applications folder to appear

I can keep going... and while these arent CRITICAL qwirks... they add up to mass frustration. BUT you still have to do your work so, off you go and use it anyway.... ugh.

Amorph, while I understand that while making major changes to 10.2 may break many if not all apps, this goes to show that 10.x is still very much beta... they are still getting feedback and improving if not totally overhauling parts that were deemed final years ago. I know that mistakes happen and technology continously improves, but I get these impressions that in many places Apple engineers just used something that was just 'ok' for the time beeing with in mind that they would 'get back to it some other time'. I also understand that OS X couldnt stay closed up at Apple forever and that even Win95 had major problems for a while after it was launched...

Fine, whatever... the bottom line is that OS X is not good enough for me now (and Im sure for many of you either).

ZO
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #138 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>Amorph, while I understand that while making major changes to 10.2 may break many if not all apps, this goes to show that 10.x is still very much beta... they are still getting feedback and improving if not totally overhauling parts that were deemed final years ago. I know that mistakes happen and technology continously improves, but I get these impressions that in many places Apple engineers just used something that was just 'ok' for the time beeing with in mind that they would 'get back to it some other time'</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, I said that: OS X 10.2 may break some apps. And because of that, you came to the conclusion that this shows that OS X is very much beta. That is the grossest assumption I've ever heard about OS X, and it's not a fair conclusion at all. This doesn't show that OS X is beta, this shows that OS X IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT, that it's continually improving, AND GETTING BETTER. Just like you want it to! You want all these new features, but when Apple changes the underlying structure to accomodate, you think that's evidence of beta software. That doesn't make sense. All it proves is that Apple is striving to make things better.

For instance: MacOS 9 came out and it broke many apps as they removed most of the 68k code that some developers relied on. (Remember that?) 9.1 broke even more apps because 68k code was finally removed completely. Does that mean 9.x is beta software? I've never heard that argument for any OS pre X.... oh, but that's right. The reason you never called OS 9 beta even though it broke compatibility with some apps is because you had your labels and spring-loaded folders. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Come on now, think about it.


[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>Fine, whatever... the bottom line is that OS X is not good enough for me now (and Im sure for many of you either).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Zo: OS X is not for people who are expecting it to be OS 9. If the current feature set or UI performance is not what you expected, then wait until it is. My buddy runs OS X on his iceBook and it DOESN'T respond as well as 9 does, but it runs faster than 9 when it comes to actually getting work done. It just seems like you're too caught up struggling against the benefits of X trying to make it something it is not. "Death by a thousand cuts" is something I've heard described about X by people who are trying to make it 9. Use it for what it is, not for what you want it to be. If that goes against your principles, then, like I said, wait for OS X to be more like you want. There's nothing else you can do.
post #139 of 208
With saying that it was like beta I didnt mean that feature sets were not ready... it just FEELS like a late beta (as in 'almost there but not quite')

Regarding my desires for it to be like OS 9, I just want SOME functionality of it... not a new OS with the same skin. That would be silly. I love OS X.. its beautiful to use (visually) and it indeed is a kick ass OS... but not yet.

I know OS 9 broke a lot of compatibility, but that got fixed pretty quickly. For OS X to go through this many major changes (almost one year now) is quite dramatic imo. They are well welcomed but I can hardly thing Developers are too happy to have to re-compile and re-tweak their apps for the umpteenth time. Well, whatever, as long as OS X gets damn faster I dont care.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #140 of 208
ZO,

" deemed final years ago " what ???????
The only part of OS X that was deemed final even a year ago won't be that until Sunday.

If you are talking about the public beta......well it did say beta and I assume that included all the parts therein. I'm sorry but when people make inaccurate statements like that it makes them sound like fanatics. I'm glad the group that doesn't like OS X seems limited to a few.
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 #141 of 208
[quote]I'm sorry but when people make inaccurate statements like that it makes them sound like fanatics.<hr></blockquote>
Pot calling kettle black--or is that too subjective a statement. Sorry to say something bad about your prize OS, but some things haven't quite lived up to any Q&A standards except maybe M$'s. For those people who have DP machines and must live with PPP connections, or those with ATI Rage chipsets, or people who have lost USB print sharing or any one of a number of peripherals, or OPen GL gaming issues, it is a problem that cannot be glossed over by telling them to stick with OS9 or live without. After all if you're trying to migrate a user base and win market share the OS really has to work, and work well, for despite all of the protestations their is very little difference between OSX and XP. If you think thats a silly statement look at Apple's attempts to add value by bundling iApps.

Marketing hype aside, Apple has told its faithful user base that this is the OS of the future. and then has failed to communicate to its users what that future entails. Apple's disdainful secrecy is a major part of the problem. It really wouldn't hurt to let users know that USB printing will show up sooner or later, or that certain chipsets would not be fully supported.

Note that people aren't asking when the next generation in UI design or any other really wizzy features will show up, but when some things that are missing from OS9, and that DO fit into OSX UI paradigm will appear. To make it easier lets be real generic about these things, lest you hissy out:
Easier file manipulation, including copying and moving files.
Metadata
More location management options
More dependable printing
USB Printer sharing of some kind
Network browsing
Simplified user and group management [anything other than Netinfo]
Simplified file sharing [anything other than Netinfo]

oh yes this is ALL very subjective

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #142 of 208
post #143 of 208
What cowerd said

Seriously, Gambit, why is X supposed to be SO much different than 9? The REASON it is CALLED MacOS X is because it is a continuation of MacOS 9. It is not called Rhapsody, NeXTStep, or MacOS 2002

Gambit, I think ZO means OS X is still beta (it IS) because of its frikkin' idiosyncrasies, the little quirks that have yet to be worked out.

For a list of bugs, look at the Gorgonzola post I quoted. Just debugging it and giving us 10.1.4 at Macworld Tokyo (boy, THAT sucked!) would have made me have a little more faith in Apple.

Response in a UI is what Apple is about. UI is what Apple is about. Or used to be?

Amorph, you know how Windows boxes' hard drives are always churning away? Even if they are just sitting there? It's almost as if they're possessed! Now, I'm no programmer and I don't know specifically why Windows always does this (9x through 2k, I've seen), but I like to know what my computer is doing. Call me a control freak, maybe it's just me. But I like knowing what my computer is doing, and being able to control its every action. The UNIX Terminal is an interesting new development, but why can't the Energy Saver have options? Yes, sometimes, Amorph, I do have things maxed out, EXCEPT for one element, like the screen.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #144 of 208
God, would you guys like a little cheese with that whine?

Cowerd , yes subjective pretty much says it all.

Aquatik,

" I really like to know what my computer's doing ". Do you really claim to know what your computer's doing? You sound like your talking about an old Chevy truck or something. Please, you don't sit there and listen to the harddrive and think you know everything your computer's doing? Please tell me you don't? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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 #145 of 208
I think I hear a piston knocking. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
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 #146 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>What cowerd said

Seriously, Gambit, why is X supposed to be SO much different than 9? The REASON it is CALLED MacOS X is because it is a continuation of MacOS 9. It is not called Rhapsody, NeXTStep, or MacOS 2002 </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's "Mac OS X" instead of "Mac OS," for one (similar to MacOS 2002") and it does have that whole new interface, which is sort of a small clue to expect things to be different.

[quote]<strong>Gambit, I think ZO means OS X is still beta (it IS) because of its frikkin' idiosyncrasies, the little quirks that have yet to be worked out.</strong><hr></blockquote>

By that measure, OS 9 is still beta. You're just used to its quirks.

[quote]<strong>For a list of bugs, look at the Gorgonzola post I quoted. Just debugging it and giving us 10.1.4 at Macworld Tokyo (boy, THAT sucked!) would have made me have a little more faith in Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They'll release it when it's done. They got bitten by the 10.1 update, which was released too quickly and had to be patched immediately. Apple doesn't want a repeat.

[quote]<strong>Response in a UI is what Apple is about. UI is what Apple is about.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yup. At least most of the UI deficiencies in OS X can be attributed to teething. Don't pretend for a moment that there weren't serious, longstanding problems with OS 9's UI.

[quote]<strong>Amorph, you know how Windows boxes' hard drives are always churning away? Even if they are just sitting there?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I'm familiar with it. Windows is a wonky OS with a wonky virtual memory system. OS X is a lot sleeker. BUT, abstraction from the hardware is the whole point of an operating system. It's precisely why the first operating system was invented. The natural tendency has always been toward more and greater abstraction. UNIX is quite capable of completely hiding whether a file is any of: in memory, on a local hard drive, on a floppy, being typed in from another terminal, being read in from the wireless network, on a CD-ROM, etc. You can browse through a UNIX directory structure with no idea that you're leaping from disk to disk and medium to medium, even across networks, as you navigate through the directories. It all looks like one big tree. This is a good thing. It hugely increases the amount of power and flexibility available to the system, and ultimately to the users.

[quote]<strong>I like to know what my computer is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You haven't known what your computer was doing even under OS 9, or 8 or 7, or as far back as you please. You'll know less and less as operating systems get more advanced (although you can always go spelunking through Darwin source, if you're really curious, or watch the various system monitoring utilities in action). You haven't been able to control the every action of a computer at any time, unless you got into bit-banging back in the day. Get used to it.

Even if you drive a car with a stick shift, there's a lot of work being done for you under the hood. If it makes the car easier and safer to drive, why not?

[quote]<strong>The UNIX Terminal is an interesting new development, but why can't the Energy Saver have options? Yes, sometimes, Amorph, I do have things maxed out, EXCEPT for one element, like the screen.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unnecessary options should be eliminated. That's one of the founding rules of any industrial design. Note that in the case of the Energy Saver, you probably will always have control over the screen brightness as well as which tasks you're running. That's enough information for OS X to know which variables to juggle, and how. Why should OS X have this control? Well, do you know how many watts your PCMCIA card is consuming at any given millisecond? Is a maybe 5% gain in efficiency under some obscure circumstance worth complicating the interface?

Again, if you get nearly equivalent functionality in actual use (i.e., if OS X is good at figuring out your power requirements), then you've lost nothing, and the platform has gained a great deal: The energy savings that used to require savvy manual control are now free and transparent to grandma. If that isn't Apple, I don't know what is.

ZO wrote:
[quote]<strong>Examples of simple qwirks: The speedy Apple+N since forever has meant new folder. Now I have to use the shift button too. I had to get used to it and I have, but I actually have to think where I place my fingers on THREE buttons now. (big deal you say... but it interrups workflow even for a second... I have to think of the OS rather than my work)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, that's not a good example. That's "OS 9 in a funny suit" thinking. Believe me, I went through the same thing this past spring, blinking at the screen when a new Finder window appeared, then mumbling and hitting the blasted shift key. That's not a quirk, though, it's a natural consequence of the way the Finder has been reconceived: Finder windows are browsers now, not open folders. There is now a distinction between a "finder window" and a "folder," in other words, where there wasn't before. And command-N summons a new window in most applications. So, viewed from the OS X way it makes sense. It's hard to get used to, but it's consistent and sensible if you think about it. You'll get used to it.

Quirky (or downright buggy) behavior would be more along the lines of the things cowerd and gorgonzola outlined, where the behavior is ridiculously slow, unstable, unpredictable, and/or inconsistent across applications (scroll wheel support, command-key shortcuts in dialogs, dialogs vs. sheets, etc.). Some of that is due to the fact that Carbon and Cocoa are both still getting acquainted, and some of it... well, I'm not even going to try to make excuses for the bottom-feeding modem support, nor for the fact that it's now shipping in every (LCD?) iMac and iBook rolling off the lines.

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #147 of 208
Sigh. Let's do this (again) one point at a time.

[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>Seriously, Gambit, why is X supposed to be SO much different than 9? The REASON it is CALLED MacOS X is because it is a continuation of MacOS 9. It is not called Rhapsody, NeXTStep, or MacOS 2002 </strong><hr></blockquote>

What do you mean here? OS X HAS to be different than 9 because it's Unix based, so the directory and file structure MUST be different. As far as interface goes, OS X IS different than 9 because it's trying to be better, and better doesn't mean sticking to old ways of doing things. A 1984 Toyota may seem to be running fine now, but I'll take an '02 Toyota any day.

And OS X IS an evolution of OS 9. I would even call it a REVOLUTION of the MacOS. I think the reason most people become so violently disconcerted with OS X at first is because many things are so familiar, yet at the same time so alien. It's downright confusing at first. But, the reason it's called OS X is because it takes the MacOS to a NEW level... hence the use of Roman Numerals. heh After all, they didn't call it MacOS Same Thing As 9 Only Different Because of Unix, did they? Sigh. Your arguments here seem emotion driven, and once all that frustration clears up and you sit down and use the OS, you might actually like it for what it does, and not for what 9 does.


[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>Gambit, I think ZO means OS X is still beta (it IS) because of its frikkin' idiosyncrasies, the little quirks that have yet to be worked out.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS X is beta because you say it's beta? Wow. Think about what you wrote: "OS X is beta because it is." Right now I see OS X as 10.1.3, not OS X beta 10.1.3. Guy, listen: OS X isn't 9. It doesn't have all the features of 9. Let it at that. Serious. OS 7 had quirks, OS 8 had quirks, OS 9 had quirks. Apple takes quirks and fixes them. Give them a chance. Jeez.


[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>For a list of bugs, look at the Gorgonzola post I quoted. Just debugging it and giving us 10.1.4 at Macworld Tokyo (boy, THAT sucked!) would have made me have a little more faith in Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea, that would have been great if Steve stood on stage and pulled 10.1.4 out of his ass.... with a brand new G5 thrown in for free!! Dingleberries included!! Here we see your way of thinking, careful now cuz your words betray your true thoughts: MacWorld Tokyo SUCKED because why? The G5s weren't announced? Because every product wasn't refreshed? Why? Why did it suck? There were certain anouncements I could have done without, but we got Bluetooth support (which you KNOW is paving the way for future Apple products), as well as a new iPod and iPod software (which kicks butt, I might add), as well as a kick ass new display! WHY were you dissappointed again? Oh right, no G5s, no 10.2, and no free dingleberries. Come on, guy. What did you expect would happen? Most people expected this to be a rehash of MWSF and instead we got some cool new technologies and promises of more to come. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'll finish the rest later. I have to go home.
post #148 of 208
Bluetooth was cool. In retrospect MWT was pretty good, I just wish I was rich enough to buy a Cinema display, and the weird stuff to hook it up to my iBook and B&W G3

Gambit, I thought MWT would have been a great time to release OS X 10.2, but Amorph had a good point; waiting to shake all the bugs out will (eventually ) make me a happy camper.

It's just that UNIX gibberish requirement for settings that is getting to me. I don't profess to code in assembly, but I do some BASIC and what I need to in the Terminal. But wasn't OS X supposed to not require even knowing what UNIX is?

Applelinks OS X Odyssey 77 mirrors my feelings toward OS X: <a href="http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/03/20020321125019.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/03/20020321125019.shtml</A>

I know it's going to get better. But I suppose I'll just have to eXcorcise OS X from my iBook 'till 10.2. Can I copy my iBook's hard drive from my iBook to another computer, and have EVERYTHING exactly the same? Will OS X still boot? I heard there are issues with sym links, and permissions, etc. This is JUST the thing that scares me about OS X.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #149 of 208
[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>It's just that UNIX gibberish requirement for settings that is getting to me. I don't profess to code in assembly, but I do some BASIC and what I need to in the Terminal. But wasn't OS X supposed to not require even knowing what UNIX is?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure. You can still do it the OS 9 way, by sitting and waiting for some kind soul to write a little piece of shareware or freeware to solve your problem. That's where a lot of the vaunted customizability of MacOS came from in the first place, and it's already happening on OS X. TinkerTool is one good example.

If you don't want to wait, the terminal's there. It's just a way to quickly change settings that wasn't there before.

[quote]<strong>Can I copy my iBook's hard drive from my iBook to another computer, and have EVERYTHING exactly the same? Will OS X still boot? I heard there are issues with sym links, and permissions, etc. This is JUST the thing that scares me about OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I actually don't know the answer to that question, and it's the sort of thing that you should be wary of. Getting MacOS' aliases and UNIX' links to cohabit has not been an easy task. I think they're still working on it.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #150 of 208
just one thing that would be better about the 'new folder vs 'new window' issue.
What about a new shorcut like 'Apple-F' for a new folder... i think it's more easy to do it than 'Apple-Shift-N'... Just change the Find shorcut to 'Apple-Shift-F'.
That's not a very good solution but this is a faster way to do it.

and btw people, would you please stopping to want 9 in X... you've got it already

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #151 of 208
I am looking at partitioning the iBook, at least, for OS X / OS 9 on one and 9 only on the other. Even with a 3400 rpm drive, will partitioning help? Now, I've heard of software such as Carbon Copy Cloner (beta) and Retrospect (beta), but I would rather trust a simple volume drag to a program. Anyone out there successfully copied an ENTIRE drive with OS X on it, via a Drag n Drop? Will it work?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #152 of 208
post #153 of 208
not via drag and drop. They are to much invisible files who are needed by *unix and they are not copied.
Oner way to do a fast backup is simply to backup your home directory.
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #154 of 208
jeromba, how do we change Key assignments in OS X? I miss ResEdit It was SO EASY!

[quote]
Gambit, I think ZO means OS X is still beta (it IS) because of its frikkin' idiosyncrasies, the little quirks that have yet to be worked out.
<hr></blockquote>

[quote]
By that measure, OS 9 is still beta. You're just used to its quirks.
<hr></blockquote>

Despite what that Farside said, two wrongs don't make a right But I'm sure by 2003 OS X (11!?) will be slick! Take the Trash, for example. Windoids always immediately seize upon the fact that we drag disks into the Trash to eject them. This is weird, I know. OS X came up with a nifty way to make this make sense. More of this, making things in OS 9 better, and less of just throwing away R&D from OS 9, particularly the UI, would make OS X much better.

I was just shocked that upon installing 10.1 and promptly updating everything, OS X still had so many problems. I had heard so much good stuff about 10.1, I assumed most points of conflict were resolved. One thing's for sure, Macworld New York will be a slam dunk. And no, I was NOT expecting G5's this MWT or MWSF. I continually laugh at Macintosh's retarded posts. I don't even expect a "real" 64-bit G5, new mobo/memory architecture, 1494b/USB 2 etc. this YEAR. All I want is OS X 10.2, and success clocking my iBook (if I can hold out till the AppleCare warranty expires )

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Aquatik ]</p>
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #155 of 208
Jeromba, are you sure? That is precisely the kind of annoyance that, when multiplied by 50, means OS X is a step backward, IMHO. Things like this are too pervasive. Apple's had a YEAR to fix this.

Are you sure, even logged in as an Admin (I've created no other accounts) that OS X won't copy properly? How do programs like Carbon Copy Cloner do this, then?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #156 of 208
OS X reminds me of Windows.

As this quote from Steve Jobs in the Applelinks article sums up: "You think it's a conspiracy by the networks to put bad shows on TV. But the shows are bad because that's what people want. It's not like Windows users don't have any power; I think they are happy with Windows, and that's an incredibly depressing thought"
-- Steve Jobs
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #157 of 208
people said 10.1 was great because they were used to a slooooow transition from the glacial Public Beta to the sludge of 10-10.1.4.... some, like me, even used to the old DevPreview builds. I installed each one for a few hours.. it was pretty to look at for a few hours but almost useless (for a non programmer/developer like me).

All I can say, again, is that 10.1.3 is still not what an OS should be. I mean just the PPP bug alone should be grounds enough to not have the OS be on as default. Apple, some time ago, was proud to say they had over a 1000people working on OSX... WTF?!?! DOING WHAT we all questioned in unison? This was almost a year ago... and 1000+ developers later we still have blatant crap going on.

I don't think that I could do any better at coordinating the development of an entire new OS that, to be honest, must be one of the most impressive HACKS of computing history (to be able to put so many different 'best of' features and actually make them work together.. sort of). Impressive tech wise... but the final result so far is a wonderful insight as to what COULD be the most amazing OS ever.

Heres to hoping that 10.2 will make it... and not break it.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #158 of 208
That's your interpretation. Guess what that makes it.............SUBJECTIVE.

Look iTunes still doesn't support my QPS fire wire burner but, that's mainly QPS's fault. Now there is where the glacial stuff is with 3rd parties writing software ( drivers ) for OS X.

I can see not many of you were around for system 7 ( or you have short memories ). How long did it take for them to get that straightened out? Remember 7.0, 7.1, 7.3, 7.5.1 ? It wasn't until 7.6 ( and even then 8.1 was better ) that they had something that was stable. It took them forever. Compared to that OS X is making blazingly fast progress.

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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 #159 of 208
There might have even been a 7.5.5 but, I haven't taken the time to go through my historical exibit of boot up disks.

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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 #160 of 208
7.1 (one or two after the major 7.0 release) was fantastic.
7.5 came along, added a bit of half-baked crap to 7.1, and wasn't particularly good until 7.5.5, if ever. :/
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X 10.2