People switching back to OS 9?
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23483.html" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23483.html</a>
I knew the OS X interface isn't the big thing, but are there really people switching back to OS 9? I didn't even switch to OS X yet..
Usability comes before eyecandy imho
I knew the OS X interface isn't the big thing, but are there really people switching back to OS 9? I didn't even switch to OS X yet..
Usability comes before eyecandy imho
Comments
For the first 2-3 months of X (back when performance sucked and there was no DVD player) I found myself pining for 9, but now that I have Office v.X, a faster-than-9's DVD player, tolerable finder performance and rock-solid stability, I'll be in X from now on, 100% of the time.
But I can understand some people going back to 9, if you do anything with professional software (Photoshop, Flash, etc.) Classic is not acceptable. I would boot into 9 to use Photoshop and wouldn't even bother running it in classic, too slow and cumbersome.
-Y
I value performance and features better than eyecandy, I don't have many crashes, and my work is mostly one or two apps at a time. I don't really care about transparency, shadows or the dock or OSX's filing systems, and there is very lame performance in some aspects of OSX.
I'd expect I'd switch back about 10.5 when I have a Ghz g4/g5 and all my apps support OSX properly, pretty much all "Carbon" OSX apps are poor and rushed in my experience, Id hope after the initial carbonized versions, developers write cocoa apps that properly take advantage of OSX, and don't take a huge performance hit over their OS9 counterparts.
OS X has one HUGE disadvantage: It is slow. I'd guess about 85-90% as fast as OS9, and I'm running a G4 450, with 512M of RAM.
Also, I find OS 9 quite stable. Matter of fact, it hasn't crashed in about six weeks. Maybe it's because I'm a geek, and keep minimal extensions, but OS 9 is much more refined.
I only have 128MB RAM, that could be the problem, but I think it's the G3/233 (Beige PowerMac). Apple said the original iMac was the target machine for OS X... well... it's not. I'd say OS X feels about 60%-70% the speed of OS 9. Everything is sluggish. Selecting text, opening apps, dragging files, browsing disks... using OS X is like trying to dig through a hole full of thick mud. Whenever I have 2 or more apps open, my HD crunches so loud, I think it's going to break.
If it wasn't for the speed issue, I'd probably use it as my main OS. However, Aqua still feels unpolished to me, and it would be nice to have a button on the dock that would hide every open window and show the desktop (a-la A-Dock and the Windows Taskbar).
The GUI between Carbon apps and Cocoa ones feels so inconsistent. Cocoa is fine, but I hate to see stuff like unantialiased text, non-live window resizing, and many Platinum GUI parts sitting on the annoying white/grey pinstripes.
So, the only thing that will make me switch to OS X will be: the purchase of a new Mac, or it feels at least 95% the speed of OS 9 on this machine.
<strong>I tinker around with OS X whenever a new update comes out (mainly just to see if it's any faster), but I use OS 9 as my main OS because it doesn't run dog slow like OS X.
I only have 128MB RAM, that could be the problem, but I think it's the G3/233 (Beige PowerMac).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am working strictly in OS X and Classic these days. I have no performance problems. I also have a dual 800. One thing I have learned in more than 13 years using Macs: Apple's stated minimum system requirements are just that: MINIMUM! They say it will run. It runs. It sucks, but it runs. Nowhere do they say that you will enjoy it. I have never put OS 9 on my 120MHz 8500 for this reason.
I guess it's just Apple's gentle way of telling you it's time for a new Mac. Next month's new machines should all run OS X just fine.
[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>
Pros of OS X:
- I'm used to launching multiple applications at once, and while launching apps, I can do other things in another app
- Modern memory management (no more assigning memory to an app)
- OS X has *never* crashed on me
- Love getting my hands into the Unix
- Development tools are nothing short of brilliant
Cons:
- Not fully compatible with my MS Intellimouse, which I am much less productive with all its functions
- Little bits of Finder weirdness that I can't explain but can tell you that the feel can only be described as "unMac-like"
- S-L-O-W, slow enough to the point where it impacts significantly on my productivity
- Lack of Palm support (so I'm using Entourage 2001 in Classic instead of Entourage X)
- Office X is S-L-O-W to the point where it impacts significantly on my productivity
The pro's of OS X are indeed compelling, but the lack of speed on my machine is nothing short of maddening. I've seen X on a Dual 800 G4 and it was great, only problem is, there is no laptop equivalent. I've also see OS X on an 867 mhz single G4 tower and imo that too wasn't responsive enough, so I doubt even a 667 mhz TiBook would be adequate to run OS X to the point where the system responsiveness would be adequate enough for me.
At this point I'm still uncertain, but I am very tempted to go back to OS 9.
[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Kestral ]</p>
BTW there was a thread at MacNN that had an Applescript to remove OS X. Anyone have that? I'd search other there but they don't have the threads from the "old" forums, right?