Switch campaing (For OS 9 users).
Theory: Ironically, OS X has been received more favorable by non Mac users than by die hard OS 9 users. Granted, this reception has decreased over time as as OS X incorporated more of OS 9's functionality (Apple Menu, etc), but OS 9 still have some resitance.
Example: The head honchos in the film department of an University I attended absolutely refuse to upadate the Macs to OS X. Some of their arguments make more sense (cost of upgrading labs to FCP/OSX) than others (OS 9 works better), but underlying their arguments is the fact that they are stuck doing things the OS 9 way. I've heard people still bitching about window shades! Window shades! Never mind that a) there are programs that add this to OS X and b) why would anyone prefer window shades over Expose?
So, is anyone out there still using OS 9 exclusively, and if so, why? What features does OS 9 have that OS X doesn't?
On a similar note, from my experience Linux users have been more open/receptive to OS X than some die hard OS 9 users I know.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7259&page=3
Example: The head honchos in the film department of an University I attended absolutely refuse to upadate the Macs to OS X. Some of their arguments make more sense (cost of upgrading labs to FCP/OSX) than others (OS 9 works better), but underlying their arguments is the fact that they are stuck doing things the OS 9 way. I've heard people still bitching about window shades! Window shades! Never mind that a) there are programs that add this to OS X and b) why would anyone prefer window shades over Expose?
So, is anyone out there still using OS 9 exclusively, and if so, why? What features does OS 9 have that OS X doesn't?
On a similar note, from my experience Linux users have been more open/receptive to OS X than some die hard OS 9 users I know.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7259&page=3
Comments
With each new generation of OS there will always be people sitting behind. Hell some businesses still use Windows 98. You can't get everyone.
Originally posted by Neruda
Theory: Ironically, OS X has been received more favorable by non Mac users than by die hard OS 9 users. Granted, this reception has decreased over time as as OS X incorporated more of OS 9's functionality (Apple Menu, etc), but OS 9 still have some resitance.
Example: The head honchos in the film department of an University I attended absolutely refuse to upadate the Macs to OS X. Some of their arguments make more sense (cost of upgrading labs to FCP/OSX) than others (OS 9 works better), but underlying their arguments is the fact that they are stuck doing things the OS 9 way. I've heard people still bitching about window shades! Window shades! Never mind that a) there are programs that add this to OS X and b) why would anyone prefer window shades over Expose?
So, is anyone out there still using OS 9 exclusively, and if so, why? What features does OS 9 have that OS X doesn't?
On a similar note, from my experience Linux users have been more open/receptive to OS X than some die hard OS 9 users I know.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7259&page=3
There is no mystery here. The former Windows users and Linux users who make the switch to MacOS X do so completely voluntarily. By making the switch, they fully understand that they have made a commitment to completely change their computer experience. These people represent a tiny fraction of Windows and Linux users.
All MacOS 9 users recognize that they will eventually have to upgrade to MacOS X. The vast majority will make the switch voluntarily and be happy to do so. A significant fraction, however, will be forced to do so to some extent. Many of the forced upgraders have significant investments of time and money in their computers, software, and peripherals. MacOS 8/9 was their life's blood.
For me, I tend to update my software on a regular basis. That helped me prepare for the transition. Much of my MacOS 9 software was Carbon-based. However, I have some essential software that has not been ported to MacOS X. Nor are there MacOS X substitutes. However, most of it works well in Classic mode.
The frustration for me is that much of the difficulty both the kids and the instructors have with the Macs is directly traceable to weaknesses in OS 9: poor application memory allocation on low-RAM Macs that causes them to freeze or crash frequently; extension conflicts; inability to reliably kill a hung application with any assurance that the OS will keep working without rebooting, which takes a lot of instructor's (and kid's) time away from a 30-minute lab session.
I can't see how anyone using these systems wouldn't rather go home and use their family's Windows XP system... no one is going to buy, or even consider, a new Mac based on what they use in this lab.
It would be great if Apple would put some energy into an OS X upgrade kit for schools: provide the OS with some training tools for non-technical teachers, extra RAM, and a smooth way to migrate applications and configurations. Sure, it would be best if the school could just upgrade the entire lab at once, but that isn't going to happen. In the meantime, each of these computers is a mixed bag for Apple: the positive is that the hardware is incredibly tough in this environment (score one for CRTs over LCDs, which wouldn't last a week here); the negative is that the OS is terribly outdated and the users don't know that this isn't state-of-the-art from Apple.
For schools etc., I'd let the next round of hardware replacements take care of it. New Macs don't boot OS 9.
The kids have no qualms with moving to OS 10. Most don't even know there is a difference. They know what they want to do and do it. Teachers / aides are the ones that require the most training and delay learning how to do things even after viewing the training cd's.
reg
Originally posted by Leonis
Kill me if I had to use OS 9
OS 9 is dead, long live OS X. Will we EVER see OS X advertised/promoted by Apple?
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's a convenient excuse for not wanting to pay the money. No one like having to reboot the whole OS because an app crashing causes instability.
With each new generation of OS there will always be people sitting behind. Hell some businesses still use Windows 98. You can't get everyone.
As a very, very late adapter of OS X, i can say that it still does not offer many of the best features of OS 9.
- OS 9 is snappier. way snappier. menu speed on the G5 i use at work still isn't up to par menu speed on my 1ghz eMac in OS 9. i know why this is, so please don't explain, but that fact remains that OS X, while snappier than it used to be, still does not respond as quickly as OS 9.
- OS 9 is simple. My hard drive has three folders, System, Applications, and Documents. I can see where everything is. There aren't hidden files waiting to get corrupt and vomit all over the place. Everything to make the system work is in the system folder. Simple There is no fscking, no permission repairing. It is simple and elegant. My father can understand the file structure of OS 9. The user-basedness of OS X adds a ridiculous level of complexity that muddies the water for many home users. Root user? WTF. Mac OS X CANNOT COMPARE IN TERMS OF SIMPLICITY. It can give, at best, a FAKE SENSE of simplicity. Apple has done a remarkeable job of making a ridiculously complex operating system appear simple through clever UI. However, this will NEVER be fool-proof. Exceptions WILL occur, and the ugliness of Unix (from a user perspective) WILL reveal itself in time.
- Plus, there are lots of little features, such as: (1) Under OS 9, the Print settings for quark, PS, illustrator, etc. files were saved in the file itself. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is to a print shop. I used to be able to get my files all ready to go, even if I wasn't ready to print, and then could close them and just tell them to print at my convenience without even opening the file. This was a huge time saver. Don't know why, but this doesn't work under OS X (2) Little missing features. I miss the "Put Away" feature. I used to take all the files relating to a particular project and throw them on the desktop. When i was done, i would click Command + Y and they would all go flying back into their original destinations.
The list goes on. It is not just a matter of whining and not wanting to progress. It is a matter of Apple abandoning many of the principles that brought so many of us to the Mac in the first place.
I am well-versed in OS X, and it is pretty good. I can't help but be dissapointed though...it still doesn't feel mac to me.
Originally posted by costique
[*]This Aqua look is so stooopid. I am da professional and me ain't love childish pictures, icons jumping out of the Dock, 128 pixel icons are too big, it all sucks.
[/list]
- no, OS 9 users get disgruntled when Apple releases an OS with eye candy that cannot be turned off...eye candy that makes all but the most recent macs dog slow under OS X. it has nothing to do with "childish pictures'," i think everyone agrees that Aqua is cool looking.
Originally posted by progmac
OS 9 users get disgruntled when Apple releases an OS with eye candy that cannot be turned off...eye candy that makes all but the most recent macs dog slow under OS X.
Dog slow? I would not say so. Some elements, like progress bars, of course, consume more CPU cycles than expected, but OS X does much more than OS 9 in the same time.
it has nothing to do with "childish pictures'," i think everyone agrees that Aqua is cool looking.
Well, may you laugh, that was an exact quote from one of my colleagues.
- OS 9 is snappier. way snappier. menu speed on the G5 i use at work still isn't up to par menu speed on my 1ghz eMac in OS 9. i know why this is, so please don't explain, but that fact remains that OS X, while snappier than it used to be, still does not respond as quickly as OS 9.
And you can launch 20 programs all at the same time, have them processing simultaneously, and quickly switch back and forth between them right? I'll take multitasking any day over a small difference in menu speed.
- OS 9 is simple. My hard drive has three folders, System, Applications, and Documents. I can see where everything is. There aren't hidden files waiting to get corrupt and vomit all over the place. Everything to make the system work is in the system folder. Simple There is no fscking, no permission repairing. It is simple and elegant. My father can understand the file structure of OS 9. The user-basedness of OS X adds a ridiculous level of complexity that muddies the water for many home users. Root user? WTF. Mac OS X CANNOT COMPARE IN TERMS OF SIMPLICITY. It can give, at best, a FAKE SENSE of simplicity. Apple has done a remarkeable job of making a ridiculously complex operating system appear simple through clever UI. However, this will NEVER be fool-proof. Exceptions WILL occur, and the ugliness of Unix (from a user perspective) WILL reveal itself in time.
In OS 9 you have no real multiuser support, and no security. I kind of like knowing that someone can't drop the system folder in the trash and delete it. I agree that OS X can't compare in simplicity, but OS 9 can't compare in power and security. I'll take #2 please.
I miss the "Put Away" feature. I used to take all the files relating to a particular project and throw them on the desktop. When i was done, i would click Command + Y and they would all go flying back into their original destinations.
Expose.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
And you can launch 20 programs all at the same time, have them processing simultaneously, and quickly switch back and forth between them right? I'll take multitasking any day over a small difference in menu speed.
In OS 9 you have no real multiuser support, and no security. I kind of like knowing that someone can't drop the system folder in the trash and delete it. I agree that OS X can't compare in simplicity, but OS 9 can't compare in power and security. I'll take #2 please.
I did not claim that OS X does not have real advantages. I use OS X and yes, it does. However, the OS 9 camp believes that Apple did not need to sacrifice the best things about OS 9 in order to bring us a modern, stable operating system.
How does exposé replace the Put Away feature?
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
I just kind of sick of hearing from people how OS X doesn't have all these great features from 9. I'll take the power of X any day over the "toyness" of 9. I'm sure most computer savy folks will agree. Its those who know little about computers that do most of the complaining.
I think that both OSes have their distinct advantages, but when you weigh all these up OS X is clearly vastly superior to OS 9. Multitasking alone more than makes up for any alledged speed advantage that OS 9 has.
Dare I say it, I would much rather use any version of Windows (with the exception of 98, ME, [worst operationg systems ever]) than OS 9. Well, I am a former Windows user, but I think that Apple has done a good job adding the functionalities of OS 9 into OS X. I really don't think there is any viable reason/feature that would make any sane person choose 9 over X. Or is there?
Originally posted by Neruda
I think that both OSes have their distinct advantages, but when you weigh all these up OS X is clearly vastly superior to OS 9. Multitasking alone more than makes up for any alledged speed advantage that OS 9 has.
Dare I say it, I would much rather use any version of Windows (with the exception of 98, ME, [worst operationg systems ever]) than OS 9. Well, I am a former Windows user, but I think that Apple has done a good job adding the functionalities of OS 9 into OS X. I really don't think there is any viable reason/feature that would make any sane person choose 9 over X. Or is there?
Just that some of their apps won't run on OS X. Oh, and they already have OS 9, so there's not any upgrade to buy.
It just plays nicer with our various printers and output devices. A lot of apps are simply more mature and have fewer issues on OS9. Also, OS 9s networking with our menagerie of servers is clearly superior. Often OSX will appear to copy over a file... but won't. Refresh problems (it's there - really!), sluggishness, over-antialiased type and useless CPU-churning eye-candy isn't winning me over either.
For recreational use - I don't mind OSX's UI at all, but in a real working environment I really prefer the simple and out-of-your-way interface of 9. It's not as pretty, but lets me get the work done in a timely fashion.
Cheers,
C.
Now that Quark has, I support several clients who made THAT switch.
Knowing what I know of Quark 6, it's bugs, the kind of programming that went into it, the quality and location of it's technical support, and the difficulties involved with having to "reactivate" it after any adequate attempt to tune up a Mac... ( I can go on and on about THAT
...I fully understand the urge to stick in the mud.
I can support Mac OS 9 quite literally with my eyes closed. For what it is, it can be perfect.
I hope to someday gain that same level of expertise with OSX. It is a thing of beauty (complete with the mysteries of a new love).
In the meantime, I shall grouse about Quark 'til the jobs come home, and keep touting InDesign even though it has a smaller market share that Macs do.
Sigh.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
I just kind of sick of hearing from people how OS X doesn't have all these great features from 9. I'll take the power of X any day over the "toyness" of 9. I'm sure most computer savy folks will agree. Its those who know little about computers that do most of the complaining.
And what does that tell you? OS X is still a step backwards in UI. There are plenty of arbitrary changes that make the system less user friendly such as the close/minimize buttons, the Dock, and worst of all the open/save dialogues.
Don't get me wrong, I love OS X. But there are valid reasons why people aren't switching. Fewer every day, but still reasons...