I agree with Andrew's original article, OS X's underpinnings are compelling, and his reasons on why Aqua is flawed are
I have an iBook as well (see below for specs), and like Charles Moore who runs and similar machine (Pismo 500), it does not run well enough on my machine to be useable because of its inherent UI deficiencies.
I have an iBook as well (see below for specs), and like Charles Moore who runs and similar machine (Pismo 500), it does not run well enough on my machine to be useable because of its inherent UI deficiencies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's really weird. I really don't have any problems with the UI. The only different between our iBooks is that you have 320MB RAM and I have 384MB.
i'm in EmAn's book. I'm not doing any really heavy lifting on my home iBook, but even with 192 MB of RAM and 366 MHz G3, it runs fine. There's still the slow Finder action, mostly when I ignore it for a long time and its contents have been swapped to disk, but not "unusable" or unresponsive by any means. This is on 10.1 BTW.
Obviously, take The Register with a salt lick. I hear it's a tasty combination. It is unfortunate that we're stuck with an iffy choice of operating systems right now (OS 9 is half-dead and OS X is half-ready), but I doubt the majority of OS X users 'loathe' the system.
I have a Sawtooth G4/400 with 768 MB of RAM and X runs pretty doggone good. If I am losing any time on speed I am making it up by restarting once every few days instead of 1-2 times a day. There's a lot to do with X yet, but I think Apple has a very solid start.
DVD playback isn't perfect, but then again it wasn't with 9 either.
I've noticed that if someone at the register doesn't like something, then that something is going to go thru a permanent trip to hell on the register. I used windows 2000 for a long time, and when I switched mac, I actually found adapting to OS X far easier than OS 9.
<strong>Maybe it's just that 90% of the Mac users dumb enough to read the Register don't like X. I don't bother with the Register, and I use X exclusively. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wonder how many of those who don't like aqua are really just frustrated with the Finder and legacy unix code? I really like aqua/quartz, but the Finder, kernel and Cocoa frameworks have so much crusty unix crap in them that sometimes it's difficult to use. I still like aqua though.
<strong>I wonder how many of those who don't like aqua are really just frustrated with the Finder and legacy unix code? I really like aqua/quartz, but the Finder, kernel and Cocoa frameworks have so much crusty unix crap in them that sometimes it's difficult to use. I still like aqua though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That could be it for a lot of people but I also think alot of people don't like Aqua because of the colors and stuff.
osx - love it, osx UI - hate, err, uncomfortable with it. A huge complaint of mine is latencey/inconsistancy. With everything sliding around it is a huge delay. programming in Project builder is a huge victum of this. Often there are multiple sheets/drawers sliding around everywhere. this is just slow. another big problem is with the finder (no sh*t...). One big problem apple has created is that they have blurred the line between a browser style interface and a spacially oriented one. my solution: keep browsers, however never allow a folder when double clicked to be opened as a browser view. that way, the old finder metaphore is preserved, and the browser can still be used without getting in the way of other things...
I like the Register...they bash M$ constantly and now they are bashing OS X...fine.
I am not a big fan of it either. Icons are TOO big and if Apple doesn't add an option to remove the stoopid butt ugly drop shadow crap I just might jump ship too (not).
Give it time and it'll soon knock the socks off any other OS...but hurry up...and listen to us Apple!
People are more likely to complain than to praise which would explain these warped results. If I saw an article talking about Aqua, I would never e-mail in and tell him how I like it.
To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.
<strong>I think the Register is harping on the unavoidable fact that even if it [i.e, OS X] mimicked OS 9's UI, it would still have its rough edges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since from my albeit limited experience cruising the Mac bulletin boards many of the complaints regarding OS X lie with the UI, I wonder why Apple didn't do what you suggest -- simply overlay the OS9 UI over the OS X "guts"? Perhaps later they could have introduced some of the Aqua elements we have today.
Why did Apple seemingly want to start all over again developing a UI?
Well I think there are a few reasons, some better than others.
1. They have a new engine under the hood. Even if they kept the old UI elements, they would likely still have the performance problems that older machines have now and all machines had when it first came out.
2. They genuinely want to improve the GUI. That's a very empirical process judging by how they publicly have developed it.
3. The new appearance ties (or perhaps tied ) into the hardware, and Apple considers software and hardware to be inextricably linked - "the whole widget" concept.
4. These guys came up with the NeXT UI which wasn't too shabby either. Seems like they want to wed the best of both worlds.
5. They had to rewrite this stuff anyway. A lot of my gripes with Aqua would still be true if they kept the same elements and appearance from OS 8/9.
Scott, what the hell are you talking about? OS X is slow on a G3? Maybe your 3 year old iMac, but my ibook and imac handle OS X extremely well. Speed has never been one of my complaints since the release of 10.1. Maybe OS 9 is faster every once in a while, but the lack of multitasking kills any speed benefit.
Here's some advice: get over yourself and either build that linux box you've been talking about or shut up. Your complaining is getting really old.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X is slow for some people, but not for everyone. You're wife's iBook may seem slow, but mine doesn't. You can't say in general the OS X is slow. It's slow for some people and for others it isn't.
Comments
<strong>Hello from the 10%.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I second that.
It reminds me of something else, though...
I have an iBook as well (see below for specs), and like Charles Moore who runs and similar machine (Pismo 500), it does not run well enough on my machine to be useable because of its inherent UI deficiencies.
<strong>
I have an iBook as well (see below for specs), and like Charles Moore who runs and similar machine (Pismo 500), it does not run well enough on my machine to be useable because of its inherent UI deficiencies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's really weird. I really don't have any problems with the UI. The only different between our iBooks is that you have 320MB RAM and I have 384MB.
DVD playback isn't perfect, but then again it wasn't with 9 either.
<strong>Maybe it's just that 90% of the Mac users dumb enough to read the Register don't like X. I don't bother with the Register, and I use X exclusively.
Same with me.
<strong>I wonder how many of those who don't like aqua are really just frustrated with the Finder and legacy unix code? I really like aqua/quartz, but the Finder, kernel and Cocoa frameworks have so much crusty unix crap in them that sometimes it's difficult to use. I still like aqua though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That could be it for a lot of people but I also think alot of people don't like Aqua because of the colors and stuff.
I am not a big fan of it either. Icons are TOO big and if Apple doesn't add an option to remove the stoopid butt ugly drop shadow crap I just might jump ship too (not).
Give it time and it'll soon knock the socks off any other OS...but hurry up...and listen to us Apple!
To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.
<strong>I think the Register is harping on the unavoidable fact that even if it [i.e, OS X] mimicked OS 9's UI, it would still have its rough edges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since from my albeit limited experience cruising the Mac bulletin boards many of the complaints regarding OS X lie with the UI, I wonder why Apple didn't do what you suggest -- simply overlay the OS9 UI over the OS X "guts"? Perhaps later they could have introduced some of the Aqua elements we have today.
Why did Apple seemingly want to start all over again developing a UI?
Idle thoughts...
1. They have a new engine under the hood. Even if they kept the old UI elements, they would likely still have the performance problems that older machines have now and all machines had when it first came out.
2. They genuinely want to improve the GUI. That's a very empirical process judging by how they publicly have developed it.
3. The new appearance ties (or perhaps tied
4. These guys came up with the NeXT UI which wasn't too shabby either. Seems like they want to wed the best of both worlds.
5. They had to rewrite this stuff anyway. A lot of my gripes with Aqua would still be true if they kept the same elements and appearance from OS 8/9.
6. Marketing. Got lots of people's attention.
<strong>
Scott, what the hell are you talking about? OS X is slow on a G3? Maybe your 3 year old iMac, but my ibook and imac handle OS X extremely well. Speed has never been one of my complaints since the release of 10.1. Maybe OS 9 is faster every once in a while, but the lack of multitasking kills any speed benefit.
Here's some advice: get over yourself and either build that linux box you've been talking about or shut up. Your complaining is getting really old.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.
<strong>
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X is slow for some people, but not for everyone. You're wife's iBook may seem slow, but mine doesn't. You can't say in general the OS X is slow. It's slow for some people and for others it isn't.
Don't you know that there is no arguing with Scott when it comes to Mac OS X? He's always right!