The Macintosh has always meant to me a computer that I didn't have to tinker with. I like living in blissful ignorance in OS X. For those who do want to tiker, now you can really tinker with Darwin/*nix, scripting and all the other goodies in OS X. What lies in between IMO is just a mess, neither powerful enough for the tinkering types nor mindless enough for the rest of us. That would be OS 9 and its archaic extensions, components, UI hacks in a few places (only a few though).
I remember ages ago when I first got my Mac, I started to pick nits about what modem scripts and printers and extensions were getting loaded into the system. I bought a ton of utilities and spent more time tweaking the thing than getting work done on it. When I upgraded to 8.6, I was about to do the usual thing and realized that I wasn't missing or gaining much for all that bother. I just let the machine run and things went a lot smoother than when I was constantly trying to discover the bare minimum number of extensions to load on startup. And I saved a lot of money by not bothering with even more utilities catering to the the obsessed junior-geek.
Now OS X comes long and I have to think about these things even less. Woo-hoo.
Look how excited people get when they go spelunking in those places when there's nothing of interest or use to them there. It might be better just not to tempt most users with seeing the System folder anyway. (Now if we could just get apps to not fiddle with it, we'd be all set.)
Don't think too much. Don't worry about fooling around with tweaking the system too much. Computers shouldn't be so complicated anyway. That's why I bought a Mac.
Not saying you're wrong, Clive, you have your own experiences. However, I've had my new imac for about 6 weeks now and only booted into system 9 twice. OSX has never crashed and I read talk of kernel panics out of curiosity. I have no idea what they are as they have never happened. I freely admit I know nothing about how OSX works - i keep finding things in strange places - and I did know a little about previous OSs but I'm learning and it's allowing me to learn slowly by not crashing about my ears. If yours is crashing as often as it seems to be you must be doing something wrong. Relax and enjoy learning and give Apple credit for something which seems to be earning more than a few plaudits from a diverse range of people. And don't keep picking - wait for 10.2 and lets see. (never used a smilie before - probably not a good time to start.)
Clive: you reply to my post without reading all of it, which addressed and explained a lot of what you wanted, and then you get mad when you're labeled 'ignorant.' You're not ignorant because of your opinion, Clive. You're ignorant because you blast MacOS X without knowing or caring or bothering to find out anything about it. THAT'S ignorance.
You once had to learn the ins and outs of 9. Now shut up for a second and take the time to learn X. THEN you'll have a better understanding of the hows and whys and your arguments might actually come off valid instead of ignorant flames from someone who doesn't know any better.
......... or you can go back and read what I wrote. If you *ignore* the harsh words (which I apologize for), you might actually learn something. I can repost a special, edited version for you if you want, all sarcasm removed.
Ok, suddenly we all sort of mellowed out, so I'll do the same.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>Ok I told myself I wouldn't reply anymore but you're confusing the shiznit out of me here.
X won't run Quark, or Photoshop but at the same time you want to disable ColorSync?
Call me dumb but ColorSync is a VITAL component to a system if this user wants to run Quark, and Photoshop PROPERLY.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm really trying to post and example here, rather than say "I really want to disable ColorSync". But I'll tell you "I really want to ensure there's no 'personal web sharing'", and doubtless there are other items, that don't readily spring to mind (didn't someone mention a driver that was crashing X, you wouldn't want to leave that lying around just for the sake of it - there's got to be an element of housekeeping here).
XPress and Photoshop (in fact all Adobe apps) have their own colour management which run independently of ColorSync, you essentially choose which colour management model you want to apply. If you think about it this is logical, because both apps run on systems that don't have system-wide colour management (ie Windows).
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>Were you just pulling a system resource name out of the air or were you SERIOUS when you were saying that you don't want ColorSync?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The former, just an example, I'm sure there are other examples that I could have used. Maybe a better one is when you're dealing with new media development, you may have the latest, beta, QuickTime, when your "product" is intended for a wider audience who have "last year's model". Under the circumstances it has to be feasible, and easy, for you to swap around components to put together the system you need.
Again, this is an "extensions manager", let's call it a "component manager".
I really don't want X to get into the same position I hve with Windows - where I keep multiple disk images of various Windows system builds to run under Virtual PC.
I want to manage what I have in an easy mannner, I don't think that's unreasonable.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>(BTW I'm a Professional Graphic Designer and I use OS X 100% of the time. It's called InDesign and a Photoshop Beta. The beta is to tide me over till Photoshop is out but I can still make a decent living off of it. X IS Ready and IN USE by MANY MANY professional people.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't doubt you're using X, and getting away with it. I don't really have the luxury of being able to mess around with something for a couple of hours to get it to work, and then have to pass that info on to my colleagues... I really mean it when I say that I know no one using X full time. To be realistic I know no one that would be even remotely happy about using beta versions of anything in a production environment (I mean ID and Photoshop).
Great that you can get by without XPress, but I've got 12+ year's of legacy files to deal with, files coming from multiple sources and multiple versions of multiple apps. XPress is the industry standard, and it's going to stay that way for a long time - not that we're ecstatic about XPress, but because we know it's bounds, and it's our "comfort zone".
I could not afford to lose business/production time leading myself down a dead-end path, because unless you can see the end that's what it is. I've had too many bad experiences getting burned by software vendors' promises of features and delivery times. We don't do that stuff any more, if it's real and we can see it, then we'll use it, if it's in the fog somewhere then it'll stay there, and the reality is it may stay there forever.
Adobe promised the world with InDesign 1.0, and didn't deliver. They did it again with 1.5, and 2.0 will probably fall short again. don't get me wrong, i think Adobe are doing some truly great things with InDesign, particularly the typographic controls and the integration of OpenType across their product line... but it isn't all there yet.
I'm not basing my professional career on a single beta, I have a retail version of InDesign and while Quark may well be the industry standard InDesign is catching up fast.
[quote] Adobe promised the world with InDesign 1.0, and didn't deliver. They did it again with 1.5, and 2.0 will probably fall short again. <hr></blockquote>
Yes I have to agree with you on InDesign 1.0 and 1.5... they blew ROYALLY. I remember all the hype about how InDesign 1.0 was a Quark killer and how scared Quark was... yadda yadda yadda... but now that InDesign 2.0 is out a LOT of that has come to pass.
I'm not saying InDesign makes Quark obsolete, they both hold thier own, I'm saying that EVERYTHING Quark 4.1 can do I can get done with InDesign at the same speed and sometimes even faster due to Adobe's "similar GUI" plan.
I have run accross a dozen people or so who ALL work professionally with Quark and were adamantly against InDesign, but after telling them to do nothing but work in ID2.0 for a week they have all but thrown out thier copies of Quark. It is a really nice package and best of all ALL of my Quark and Pagemaker docs open in it with little to no problem at all.
I still use Quark every once in a while when my boss decides that he might want to work jointly with me on a project, he has a PC (YUCK) and Quark. But for the most part I am 100% ID2.0 since it is THE best native OS X page layout app ON THE PLANET.
Not saying you're wrong for using Quark it's just that it seems you are using the same blanket arguments for Adobe migrating to X as you are for X itself... use em, know em THEN talk.
[QBNot saying you're wrong for using Quark it's just that it seems you are using the same blanket arguments for Adobe migrating to X as you are for X itself... use em, know em THEN talk.
Mac Guru, I don't know, it seems to me that it is a case of "he's never wrong, we're never wrong". I'm not making blanket decisions (I never said I'm blocking ID 2.0 - I've a copy on my desk right now - just that ID, so far, isn't up to it. You agreed with that assessment of < 2.0, well, let's see what 2.0 does).
I'm also not saying "everyone else is wrong", but pretty much everyone wants to take a black and white view... I see a lot of grey here.
A friend of mine mailed me a couple of days ago, wanting to know about compatibility between X and SCSI-based CD writers. Specifically what was going on with the "burn" functionality. Well we did some research between us, discovered that the built-in burn functionality comes a very poor second to Toast... and that there's apparently no drivers for SCSI burners for either the built-in burning or Toast!?
That's plenty of grey.
Finally, my friend remarked that this seemed to be basic compatibility problems "the type of things PC users go through every day" - and that, exactly, is my problem with X.
BTW, I'd be really happy to be wrong about the lack of SCSI drivers!
What's there to be wrong about? SCSI support is lacking in OS X.
Listen, the ONLY one who's being black and white about things is you, Clive. We're saying OS X is awesome and we agree it's a work in progress. You're saying OS X outright sucks because it's a work in progress. WE KNOW what needs to be worked on and so does Apple, so just leave it at that.
I mean, seriously? What's more black and white than your statement that OS X sucks based on half assed arguments and assumptions? Lack of drivers is definitely not enough to condemn an operating system. Again, who's being black and white? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
its not just SCSI drivers, but SCSI as a whole that is pretty bad in OSX. Its VERY buggy, and will take the whole OS down. It may seem inconsequential, but SCSI is very important to those people who are supposed to a part of Apple's core market, and that includes video. SCSI is the only protocol to give speed needed to really workout Photoshop (SCSI UW2 array for a scratch disk--no matter how much RAM you have you WILL hit the harddrive), and its a very good way to work with DV (again large SCSI arrays).
Firewire is not quite there yet, but maybe if bridge boards improve and Apple provides an internal FW connector SCSI wouldn't be such a big loss.
Comments
I remember ages ago when I first got my Mac, I started to pick nits about what modem scripts and printers and extensions were getting loaded into the system. I bought a ton of utilities and spent more time tweaking the thing than getting work done on it. When I upgraded to 8.6, I was about to do the usual thing and realized that I wasn't missing or gaining much for all that bother. I just let the machine run and things went a lot smoother than when I was constantly trying to discover the bare minimum number of extensions to load on startup. And I saved a lot of money by not bothering with even more utilities catering to the the obsessed junior-geek.
Now OS X comes long and I have to think about these things even less. Woo-hoo.
Look how excited people get when they go spelunking in those places when there's nothing of interest or use to them there. It might be better just not to tempt most users with seeing the System folder anyway. (Now if we could just get apps to not fiddle with it, we'd be all set.)
Don't think too much. Don't worry about fooling around with tweaking the system too much. Computers shouldn't be so complicated anyway. That's why I bought a Mac.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
You once had to learn the ins and outs of 9. Now shut up for a second and take the time to learn X. THEN you'll have a better understanding of the hows and whys and your arguments might actually come off valid instead of ignorant flames from someone who doesn't know any better.
......... or you can go back and read what I wrote. If you *ignore* the harsh words (which I apologize for), you might actually learn something. I can repost a special, edited version for you if you want, all sarcasm removed.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>Ok I told myself I wouldn't reply anymore but you're confusing the shiznit out of me here.
X won't run Quark, or Photoshop but at the same time you want to disable ColorSync?
Call me dumb but ColorSync is a VITAL component to a system if this user wants to run Quark, and Photoshop PROPERLY.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm really trying to post and example here, rather than say "I really want to disable ColorSync". But I'll tell you "I really want to ensure there's no 'personal web sharing'", and doubtless there are other items, that don't readily spring to mind (didn't someone mention a driver that was crashing X, you wouldn't want to leave that lying around just for the sake of it - there's got to be an element of housekeeping here).
XPress and Photoshop (in fact all Adobe apps) have their own colour management which run independently of ColorSync, you essentially choose which colour management model you want to apply. If you think about it this is logical, because both apps run on systems that don't have system-wide colour management (ie Windows).
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>Were you just pulling a system resource name out of the air or were you SERIOUS when you were saying that you don't want ColorSync?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The former, just an example, I'm sure there are other examples that I could have used. Maybe a better one is when you're dealing with new media development, you may have the latest, beta, QuickTime, when your "product" is intended for a wider audience who have "last year's model". Under the circumstances it has to be feasible, and easy, for you to swap around components to put together the system you need.
Again, this is an "extensions manager", let's call it a "component manager".
I really don't want X to get into the same position I hve with Windows - where I keep multiple disk images of various Windows system builds to run under Virtual PC.
I want to manage what I have in an easy mannner, I don't think that's unreasonable.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>(BTW I'm a Professional Graphic Designer and I use OS X 100% of the time. It's called InDesign and a Photoshop Beta. The beta is to tide me over till Photoshop is out but I can still make a decent living off of it. X IS Ready and IN USE by MANY MANY professional people.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't doubt you're using X, and getting away with it. I don't really have the luxury of being able to mess around with something for a couple of hours to get it to work, and then have to pass that info on to my colleagues... I really mean it when I say that I know no one using X full time. To be realistic I know no one that would be even remotely happy about using beta versions of anything in a production environment (I mean ID and Photoshop).
Great that you can get by without XPress, but I've got 12+ year's of legacy files to deal with, files coming from multiple sources and multiple versions of multiple apps. XPress is the industry standard, and it's going to stay that way for a long time - not that we're ecstatic about XPress, but because we know it's bounds, and it's our "comfort zone".
I could not afford to lose business/production time leading myself down a dead-end path, because unless you can see the end that's what it is. I've had too many bad experiences getting burned by software vendors' promises of features and delivery times. We don't do that stuff any more, if it's real and we can see it, then we'll use it, if it's in the fog somewhere then it'll stay there, and the reality is it may stay there forever.
Adobe promised the world with InDesign 1.0, and didn't deliver. They did it again with 1.5, and 2.0 will probably fall short again. don't get me wrong, i think Adobe are doing some truly great things with InDesign, particularly the typographic controls and the integration of OpenType across their product line... but it isn't all there yet.
A bit like X.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
[quote] Adobe promised the world with InDesign 1.0, and didn't deliver. They did it again with 1.5, and 2.0 will probably fall short again. <hr></blockquote>
Yes I have to agree with you on InDesign 1.0 and 1.5... they blew ROYALLY. I remember all the hype about how InDesign 1.0 was a Quark killer and how scared Quark was... yadda yadda yadda... but now that InDesign 2.0 is out a LOT of that has come to pass.
I'm not saying InDesign makes Quark obsolete, they both hold thier own, I'm saying that EVERYTHING Quark 4.1 can do I can get done with InDesign at the same speed and sometimes even faster due to Adobe's "similar GUI" plan.
I have run accross a dozen people or so who ALL work professionally with Quark and were adamantly against InDesign, but after telling them to do nothing but work in ID2.0 for a week they have all but thrown out thier copies of Quark. It is a really nice package and best of all ALL of my Quark and Pagemaker docs open in it with little to no problem at all.
I still use Quark every once in a while when my boss decides that he might want to work jointly with me on a project, he has a PC (YUCK) and Quark. But for the most part I am 100% ID2.0 since it is THE best native OS X page layout app ON THE PLANET.
Not saying you're wrong for using Quark it's just that it seems you are using the same blanket arguments for Adobe migrating to X as you are for X itself... use em, know em THEN talk.
Mac Guru
[QBNot saying you're wrong for using Quark it's just that it seems you are using the same blanket arguments for Adobe migrating to X as you are for X itself... use em, know em THEN talk.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
heh. I'm starting to sense a pattern.
Mac Guru
I'm also not saying "everyone else is wrong", but pretty much everyone wants to take a black and white view... I see a lot of grey here.
A friend of mine mailed me a couple of days ago, wanting to know about compatibility between X and SCSI-based CD writers. Specifically what was going on with the "burn" functionality. Well we did some research between us, discovered that the built-in burn functionality comes a very poor second to Toast... and that there's apparently no drivers for SCSI burners for either the built-in burning or Toast!?
That's plenty of grey.
Finally, my friend remarked that this seemed to be basic compatibility problems "the type of things PC users go through every day" - and that, exactly, is my problem with X.
BTW, I'd be really happy to be wrong about the lack of SCSI drivers!
Listen, the ONLY one who's being black and white about things is you, Clive. We're saying OS X is awesome and we agree it's a work in progress. You're saying OS X outright sucks because it's a work in progress. WE KNOW what needs to be worked on and so does Apple, so just leave it at that.
I mean, seriously? What's more black and white than your statement that OS X sucks based on half assed arguments and assumptions? Lack of drivers is definitely not enough to condemn an operating system. Again, who's being black and white? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
This is getting really old. I'm done.
I never wrote anywhere that MacOS X sucks.
What I wrote, several times, in several ways is that it's not ready for me, on the desktop, yet. And I gave several examples of that.
These problems with SCSI drivers add further weight to my argument.
I also said that I am pretty much ready to start giving X a run for it's money in the file/web server area.
I can't imagine anyone being greyer on the issue than that.
You want to keep stating crap like "X is awesome", tell you what, I'll agree. But might I add that it has some "awesome" problems too.
Perhaps you'll allow me to go greyer still: MacOS X has some awesome potential.
Firewire is not quite there yet, but maybe if bridge boards improve and Apple provides an internal FW connector SCSI wouldn't be such a big loss.
<strong>Gambit, I'm sorry of say this, but you're an outright arsehole.
I never wrote anywhere that MacOS X sucks.
What I wrote, several times, in several ways is that it's not ready for me, on the desktop, yet. And I gave several examples of that.
These problems with SCSI drivers add further weight to my argument.
I also said that I am pretty much ready to start giving X a run for it's money in the file/web server area.
I can't imagine anyone being greyer on the issue than that.
You want to keep stating crap like "X is awesome", tell you what, I'll agree. But might I add that it has some "awesome" problems too.
Perhaps you'll allow me to go greyer still: MacOS X has some awesome potential.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol Don't be sorry. You can have your opinions.
Finally we agree: MacOS X has some awesome potential. I'm just saying let OS X be judged as OS X and let Apple run its course. Then it's settled.