It all boils down to getting apps to the new OS. That's a perfectly legit reason to remain in OS 9 until these companies either get on the ball or drop it and others uproot their apps and user base. In three to (God forbid) six months, we should bring this up again.
<strong>It all boils down to getting apps to the new OS. That's a perfectly legit reason to remain in OS 9 until these companies either get on the ball or drop it and others uproot their apps and user base. In three to (God forbid) six months, we should bring this up again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but why should companies come out with OS X apps if everyone's using OS 9. The companies would probably make things quicker if they see more people using OS X as their main OS.
I dig OS X. When I have replaced all my apps with X versions, I'll be using X full time. For now, I use it about 50% of the time, and OS 9 is used for working on projects or papers. I don't like using classic so I'll have to wait before using OS X full time.
On a G4 400 w/ Radeon, OS X is slow, but not unusable. Compared to OS 9, I find the following differences in speed:
GUI/finder: OS X is much slower than OS 9. 9's GUI is lightening fast, responding instantaneously to user input.
Processes: OS X is much faster. For many tasks in OS 9, the GUI responds instantly, but then the OS stalls while something is done, and the user is left slack-jawed, stareing at the screen with drool dripping onto the keyboard. In OS X, when a task starts you can always do something else. The multitasking is TRUE speed, while in OS 9 the GUI speed makes it feel faster inititally, but when one is intimate with the OS it is actually slower.
So in summary, for speed, OS 9 has a faster "feel" to it. But OS X is actually faster, and now that I'm used to OS X's multitasking, OS 9 feels slow to me. I hate waiting for OS 9 while it "thinks" about doing something--in OS X the second one app starts doing a long task, I'm in another doing something.
I figure by next summer I'll have all the apps I need for OS X and I'll be using it full time. That's on a G4 400 MHz, Radeon system--not the fastest of Macs at all. I can only imagine what X is like on a fast Powermac, anything 733 MHz and above, or dual processor. If I'm lucky then I'll be able to buy a CPU upgrade for my system, but even as is OS X is acceptable. And I'm sure that 10.2 will be even faster.
Face it: OS X rocks! Once you've used OS X for a few weeks and are used to it, there is no going back to OS 9.
<strong>Usability comes before eyecandy imho</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm pretty much still in OS9. I use Linux, w2k, OS9 and OSX, so I feel my decisions are rational and not based on some idiotic teenage love for Apple or die.
If all I want is an mp3 player, an e-mail client, and a web browser, I could use Linux on a junk PII 266 at a total cost of $175. I would not need thousands of dollars of Apple hardware. I digress, but must continue my long running rant on Apple's pricing scheme.
For me, it's the stupid things:
1. Generally slow interface reaction in OSX. You don't really notice it until you use OSX for a few days, and then boot into OS9. Under OS9 windows pop open _much_ faster, I can use spring loaded folders, i can right click everywhere. Under OSX I feel like I'm fighting the interface more than I'd like. At this point, OS9 just has too many years refinement in useability/workflow issues too even make the comparison fair.
2. Classic sucks my nuts. Everyone says otherwise, but my experience is that TruBlu falls asleep and then you're done for. I have to open Illustrator before Photoshop if I want to see a menu in Photoshop, and sometimes if I try to open a Quicktime file, even though I'm in OSX, it will fire up classic and try to open it under Quicktime in OS9. Sure I could dick with file association or whatever, but no! I won't do it.
3. Photoshop this summer? Sure it's a complex program, but people, OSX has been coming since, like 1973 or something, and this is Adobe's best development effort for what is arguably the flagship Mac product of all-time? I don't need the politics. If Adobe wants to prick Apple for some wrong in the past, leave me out of it.
4. After using OSX for, say, a week, and booting into OS9, yes, OS9 looks tired and dated. But, I use my Macs for work and I just get frustrated under OSX. The PShop announcement for next summer was the last straw.
OTOH, I'm not a total luddite:
1. OSX is the future. Who does not want all the advantages of the BSD underpinnings? We all do. I have Cinema 4d which performs well under OSX, except I need animation from AE, textures from PShop and splines from AI. So, even though a complex program like C4d is ready and works well under OSX, I really can't use it, and yes, I have tried.
2. The busy look grew on me, and I don't hate the dock, but the interface really is sluggish, and I'm really irked at Apple for not going the BeOS inspired lean mean video/audio machine path, and instead following M$oft down the candy coated bloat road. I have a dual 800 and it just feels so throttled.
I'm a long term fan of OSX, and it is a "do something or die" scenario that Apple is up against, but for the next 6 months or so, OS9 for me.
I don't notice it in photoshop. I'm running my new ibook600combo and the only time i booted from 9 was when i took it out of the box. X is great!
I have a question though. PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING: does Windows98 have it? and is that what always let me multitask like 3-4 pro apps on 128mb in windows? Because OS 9 would never let me do that, which was my big apprehension over going MAC.
I have a question though. PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING: does Windows98 have it? and is that what always let me multitask like 3-4 pro apps on 128mb in windows? Because OS 9 would never let me do that, which was my big apprehension over going MAC.
C.pres</strong><hr></blockquote>
Classic is useable, and it's not deathly slow, but it just always seems to wig out on me- fall asleep forever or something dumb that makes me stop working and reboot classic, or whip out the terminal and poke around. If I'm just dorking, who cares, but if I'm jumping between tasks trying to create something, I want to scream if I have to stop and troubleshoot my "environment."
Windows98 does not Premptive Multitask. Windows does automatically assign memory allocation though, whereas under OS9 you manually set max/min allocation and have to pay attention to how you open apps to maximize your total memory.
OS9 is archaic, don't get me wrong, but for working Pros, it's the only real option right now.
I just don't think Apple got everybody on board for OSX and this lingering dual OS environment makes it hard to win new customer converts. Did Apple scare developers off when they showed themselves as wishy-washy after dropping Rhapsody? A lot of work for nothing there.
Ever since I had Photoshop7 beta, I haven't even needed to start up classic(for the most part).
With PS7, Illus10, BBedit, and Painter10, Office vX. It's all I need. They all run surprisingly well unlike 9 which I fear being crashed from so many heavy hitters.
My Mac was sitting in a closet until OS X was released. I cringe at the thought of using OS 9. I love my Mac now that X is here.
I've really not experienced any of the problems all the whiners whine about, and my machine is up 24/7.
[quote]Originally posted by kelib:
<strong>I haven't [Yet] but am seriously considering to do so. I'm having endless font problems (I'm in a non English country) and it's certeinly not crash free</strong><hr></blockquote>
Microsoft claimed Windows 95 would run on a 386sx. True, it would.. but it took 90 minutes or more to install, and every operation in the OS was painful.
Who ever actually believes that the minimum is useful?
There's a minimum configuration, a recommended configuration, and a USEFUL configuration.
I have OS X 10.1.2 on a DP G4-500 with a gig of RAM. It works fine, there are no speed issues. It boots in about 40 seconds, login is quick, MS Word X works great. GraphicConverter is fast. I just don't understand all the whiners.
[quote]Originally posted by gfeier:
<strong>
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting. I have found X-native apps to do everything I ever do on my Mac. DIE OS9, DIE!
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It all boils down to getting apps to the new OS. That's a perfectly legit reason to remain in OS 9 until these companies either get on the ball or drop it and others uproot their apps and user base. In three to (God forbid) six months, we should bring this up again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>It all boils down to getting apps to the new OS. That's a perfectly legit reason to remain in OS 9 until these companies either get on the ball or drop it and others uproot their apps and user base. In three to (God forbid) six months, we should bring this up again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but why should companies come out with OS X apps if everyone's using OS 9. The companies would probably make things quicker if they see more people using OS X as their main OS.
[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
Chicken or egg?
Chicken or egg?
Chicken or egg?
Chicken or egg?
Chicken or egg?
Chicken or egg?
On a G4 400 w/ Radeon, OS X is slow, but not unusable. Compared to OS 9, I find the following differences in speed:
GUI/finder: OS X is much slower than OS 9. 9's GUI is lightening fast, responding instantaneously to user input.
Processes: OS X is much faster. For many tasks in OS 9, the GUI responds instantly, but then the OS stalls while something is done, and the user is left slack-jawed, stareing at the screen with drool dripping onto the keyboard. In OS X, when a task starts you can always do something else. The multitasking is TRUE speed, while in OS 9 the GUI speed makes it feel faster inititally, but when one is intimate with the OS it is actually slower.
So in summary, for speed, OS 9 has a faster "feel" to it. But OS X is actually faster, and now that I'm used to OS X's multitasking, OS 9 feels slow to me. I hate waiting for OS 9 while it "thinks" about doing something--in OS X the second one app starts doing a long task, I'm in another doing something.
I figure by next summer I'll have all the apps I need for OS X and I'll be using it full time. That's on a G4 400 MHz, Radeon system--not the fastest of Macs at all. I can only imagine what X is like on a fast Powermac, anything 733 MHz and above, or dual processor. If I'm lucky then I'll be able to buy a CPU upgrade for my system, but even as is OS X is acceptable. And I'm sure that 10.2 will be even faster.
Face it: OS X rocks! Once you've used OS X for a few weeks and are used to it, there is no going back to OS 9.
If X had audio apps, that would be the ticket.
<strong>Usability comes before eyecandy imho</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm pretty much still in OS9. I use Linux, w2k, OS9 and OSX, so I feel my decisions are rational and not based on some idiotic teenage love for Apple or die.
If all I want is an mp3 player, an e-mail client, and a web browser, I could use Linux on a junk PII 266 at a total cost of $175. I would not need thousands of dollars of Apple hardware. I digress, but must continue my long running rant on Apple's pricing scheme.
For me, it's the stupid things:
1. Generally slow interface reaction in OSX. You don't really notice it until you use OSX for a few days, and then boot into OS9. Under OS9 windows pop open _much_ faster, I can use spring loaded folders, i can right click everywhere. Under OSX I feel like I'm fighting the interface more than I'd like. At this point, OS9 just has too many years refinement in useability/workflow issues too even make the comparison fair.
2. Classic sucks my nuts. Everyone says otherwise, but my experience is that TruBlu falls asleep and then you're done for. I have to open Illustrator before Photoshop if I want to see a menu in Photoshop, and sometimes if I try to open a Quicktime file, even though I'm in OSX, it will fire up classic and try to open it under Quicktime in OS9. Sure I could dick with file association or whatever, but no! I won't do it.
3. Photoshop this summer? Sure it's a complex program, but people, OSX has been coming since, like 1973 or something, and this is Adobe's best development effort for what is arguably the flagship Mac product of all-time? I don't need the politics. If Adobe wants to prick Apple for some wrong in the past, leave me out of it.
4. After using OSX for, say, a week, and booting into OS9, yes, OS9 looks tired and dated. But, I use my Macs for work and I just get frustrated under OSX. The PShop announcement for next summer was the last straw.
OTOH, I'm not a total luddite:
1. OSX is the future. Who does not want all the advantages of the BSD underpinnings? We all do. I have Cinema 4d which performs well under OSX, except I need animation from AE, textures from PShop and splines from AI. So, even though a complex program like C4d is ready and works well under OSX, I really can't use it, and yes, I have tried.
2. The busy look grew on me, and I don't hate the dock, but the interface really is sluggish, and I'm really irked at Apple for not going the BeOS inspired lean mean video/audio machine path, and instead following M$oft down the candy coated bloat road. I have a dual 800 and it just feels so throttled.
I'm a long term fan of OSX, and it is a "do something or die" scenario that Apple is up against, but for the next 6 months or so, OS9 for me.
I don't notice it in photoshop. I'm running my new ibook600combo and the only time i booted from 9 was when i took it out of the box. X is great!
I have a question though. PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING: does Windows98 have it? and is that what always let me multitask like 3-4 pro apps on 128mb in windows? Because OS 9 would never let me do that, which was my big apprehension over going MAC.
C.pres
<strong>is classic really that slow???
I have a question though. PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING: does Windows98 have it? and is that what always let me multitask like 3-4 pro apps on 128mb in windows? Because OS 9 would never let me do that, which was my big apprehension over going MAC.
C.pres</strong><hr></blockquote>
Classic is useable, and it's not deathly slow, but it just always seems to wig out on me- fall asleep forever or something dumb that makes me stop working and reboot classic, or whip out the terminal and poke around. If I'm just dorking, who cares, but if I'm jumping between tasks trying to create something, I want to scream if I have to stop and troubleshoot my "environment."
Windows98 does not Premptive Multitask. Windows does automatically assign memory allocation though, whereas under OS9 you manually set max/min allocation and have to pay attention to how you open apps to maximize your total memory.
OS9 is archaic, don't get me wrong, but for working Pros, it's the only real option right now.
I just don't think Apple got everybody on board for OSX and this lingering dual OS environment makes it hard to win new customer converts. Did Apple scare developers off when they showed themselves as wishy-washy after dropping Rhapsody? A lot of work for nothing there.
With PS7, Illus10, BBedit, and Painter10, Office vX. It's all I need. They all run surprisingly well unlike 9 which I fear being crashed from so many heavy hitters.
Something to think about come Q2 02.
~kuku
I've really not experienced any of the problems all the whiners whine about, and my machine is up 24/7.
[quote]Originally posted by kelib:
<strong>I haven't [Yet] but am seriously considering to do so. I'm having endless font problems (I'm in a non English country) and it's certeinly not crash free</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who ever actually believes that the minimum is useful?
There's a minimum configuration, a recommended configuration, and a USEFUL configuration.
I have OS X 10.1.2 on a DP G4-500 with a gig of RAM. It works fine, there are no speed issues. It boots in about 40 seconds, login is quick, MS Word X works great. GraphicConverter is fast. I just don't understand all the whiners.
[quote]Originally posted by gfeier:
<strong>
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.
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>It all boils down to getting apps to the new OS. That's a perfectly legit reason to remain in OS 9 until these companies either get on the ball or drop it and others uproot their apps and user base. In three to (God forbid) six months, we should bring this up again.</strong><hr></blockquote>