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.
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]" />
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.
<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]" />
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?
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.
<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.
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
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?
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 )
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?
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?"
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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>
<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
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.
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>
[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
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.
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
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.
<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.
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>
Oner way to do a fast backup is simply to backup your home directory.
[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
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>
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?
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
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.
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>
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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.