Let's put these dude's arguements into perspective, okay? They're complaining about X, and defending their perfect OS. Let's now see what their perfect OS is: an OS that REQUIRES you to manage your own memory allocations to programs, an OS that requires you to learn how to manage your extensions, an OS that crashes when another app goes down, an OS that doesn't distribute processor power properly, an OS that needs to be TOLD which network port to use because it can't scan the ports and figure out which one is active, an OS that needs an energy saver control panel more complicated than most control panels because it can't dynamically allocate power and resources on the fly, an OS that allows you to go into the system folder and remove and throw away things without even blinking.............. I can go on and on. OS 9 wasn't perfect, okay? Yet you defend it like it is. The truth here is, you're just USED to OS 9 and all of its quirks. OS X isn't perfect, but it sure the **** kicks the shit out of anything prior ANY DAY. You call yourself a power user because you've learned OS 9's tricks? Than become an OS X power user and learn it's tricks; there's MUCH more to learn if you want, but, like all the OS 9 tricks, it's not NECESSARY to learn. So, stop bitching about OS X because it's Unix and let everyone else who wants to learn here learn without your annoying and pointless whining in the background.
I personally love OSX. But like many people out there wish it was more optimized. On my G3 450, transparency can bring my processor load from 1 dot all the way to the top. And that is just from one effect. I love how it looks, but do not see why they do not move that work to the GPU. To quote Steve jobs when he showed off Aqua "We have over a gigaflop of power so why not put it to use. Here is what a button looks like......"
They have a lot of power that I want to use for my apps however, and not my interface. And I have a GPU that is not using many cycles in the OS, so I REALLY hope they make some way to take this load off of the CPU. Now, whether they do or not, I will of course stay with Macs, but I think I along with others would be much more productive with the os allowing more cpu time to the things that really need it.
<strong>Poster Boy, while you new UNIX people are very helpful, Steve666 is right. OS X sucks. I have enough RAM (so no VM issues) and also no crashes, with my OS 9. OS 9 is still better, in every damn respect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, the first mac I used, was back in elementary school, it was a Mac Plus.
I had no prior experience with UNIX before I installed OS X on my 333 iMac, (which I recently sold to upgrade to a iBook 600 14") but I did some research on the net, talked in forums, and read a few articles, and now I am very comfortable using OS X to its full potential.
OS 9 is very comfortable. I myself was overwhelmed at first with OS X due to the massive change that it represents, but considering some of the other UNIX and Linux Distributions I have played around since my first inrodes into X, believe me, it could be much worse. My only real complaint about OS X right now is that although they say that 128 MB of ram is the minimum, it really doesnt function very well until you have 256 MB.
There is a rule of thumb with a UNIX operating system that states "The more ram you have the faster your system run, and the better it will perform." Under OS 9, you can cram 640 MB into an iBook, and it will only make a difference in the apps that you proporly re-allocate the ram to. Another Point is that OS X is still very very young. Its just over a year old. OS 9 has 18 years of refinements behind it, and it is going to take a while for those to all be integrated into X.
What I am trying to say is that OS X is kind of scary when you are switching from OS 9, but keep an open mind, because in the end it will be a better computer experience than OS 9 ever was.
Sorry for the long rantlike post.
--PB
Edit: PS: And I have to agree with Jeremiah, I wish that OS X was optimised for G3 and G4 systems, as opposed to G4 optimisation only. It's great how well it runs on G4s, but there are a lot of G3 users out there still, and some of us are getting annoyed.
Steve, why do you end every post with ".................."? Is there a point to it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whenever i post to some message boards the last word or two never seem to make it. I always assumed this was a Mac thing, but since noone has that problem on this board I will stop doing it and see what happens. When I add the periods at the end it drops down the word that would get cut off. Lets see what happens if i don't.
I don't want to leave the impression that i think OS9 is perfect. The lack of memory allocation is quite annoying-I tried printing from notepad and I got a low memory warning! It said to allocate more memory to HP deskjet utility-I did that and same problem-then i added more memory to notepad-and it worked! Not many newbies would know to try that so in that sense OS9 was always inferior.
I mainly liked OS9 because it is easier to find things, easier to reach things, easier to customize. Now, I am using both OS9 and OSX, switching between the two. I still believe OS9 makes more sense-however, OSX is much nicer to look at, which is important to many consumers. The main problems i see are a OS that doesn't seem to realize that i own a decent graphics card, an OS that is slower on the internet than 9, and an OS that most definitely needs to be worked on. Like i said before, i will wait until 10.2 comes out, pay the upgrade price, install it, and hope it fixes some things. I will live with the GUI inconsistencies because I can live with them. i just want the performance to match the previous OS. If it turns out I purchased a less than year old computer that is now obsolete i will be very unhappy. Honestly, i don't think this will be the case. I have hope that 10.2 will fix many issues for us. There-thats more positive than my usual post
<strong>I mean no offense to ANYONE that's posted here... all of the replies have valid points... but how did it get so far off topic...?
I was merely asking about the smoothness of scrolling and yet again, here we are with lots of debates and discussions that are off-topic. Heheh.
I'm not upset or anything... just steering the conversation back on topic. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you.
I haven't heard anything explicit, but perhaps something will come out of WWDC next week. Apple is a long way from finished with OS X.
Contrary to some of the suspicions on these boards, most Apple employees don't have up-to-the-minute hardware, so they're as aware of OS X's less polished areas as we are.
Instead of bitching about my bitching, maybe YOU can come up with a solution. If not, then your entire post was meaningless and you really have nothing of interest to say...............................</strong><hr></blockquote>
98% of all the posts on this thread are pointless. including all of yours. including mine.
Heres a wierd one. i downloaded the airport update even though i don't use it aand it isn't installed. After I restarted, OSX was noticably faster, especially on the internet. i don't get it, but I have used AOL for OSX all night and IE also and i actually like it much better now. This thing is quirky as heck but if they get it all worked out I may actually start liking OSX after all. Another wierd thing, though, my video resolutions keep changing when i start up. I now have it on 832x624, which i prefer, and it makes the switch easier on me because i am used to this setting. Don't you guys get eye strains trying to read text when the resolution is 1024x768? I even have a 17 in monitor..
Your Mac was probably faster after the update because every OS-level installer you get from Apple will automatically optimize (aka pre-binding) your files. If you needed some pre-binding done and you were hitting your HD a lot while opening files or apps, the optimization could have cured that.
As far as resolution - eye strain at 1024x768? Are you serious? 1024x768 is too big for me, I much prefer higher resoutions. Unfortunately 1024x768 is as high as my flat panel iMac goes, but I can live with it. I would rather push it higher though. At home, my 18" flat panel monitor runs at 1280x1024, which I really like.
<strong>98% of all the posts on this thread are pointless</strong><hr></blockquote>I hope someone found mine a little informative. [quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>After I restarted, OSX was noticably faster, especially on the internet.</strong><hr></blockquote>Xaqtly is correct. Prebinding can give major improvements for some systems. Basically, when you add an application and don't update the prebinding, that application will load slower because each time it loads it has to go find any dynamic libraries. The man pages say it best: "By pre-determining where a function in another library is destined to be placed, the dynamic linker does not have to resolve symbols at application startup time, and the application can launch faster."
Also, it's too late now since you've already changed the resolutions, but next time you ought to check if your color mode switched from millions to thousands. This will give a noticeable speed bump. It's never happened to me, but I have read several reports of other people's color settings changing after an update and therefore giving them a false sense of increased speed.
[QB]Poster Boy, while you new UNIX people are very helpful, Steve666 is right. OS X sucks. I have enough RAM (so no VM issues) and also no crashes, with my OS 9. OS 9 is still better, in every damn respect.<hr></blockquote>
If OS 9 doesn't crash on you, then you aren't using it for much more than email. Even then I find it hard to believe that OS 9 doesn't crash on you, and often. As for VM "issues", OS 9 is designed to run with VM on and actually is faster and uses less RAM with VM on.
[quote]I am "baffled" at the need to go into a damn "Terminal" to simply do what Apple should have in OS X 10.0.0. Why the F*CK isn't Window Compression in the System Prefs somewhere? :eek: <hr></blockquote>
I believe window compression IS on in the most recent version of OS X...but if it isn't then I'm sure Apple leaves it off for a reason. But since you said you have plenty of RAM, you shouldn't need window compression.
[quote]Jeez, this is getting ludicrous! I like the new ways in which we can troubleshoot, and configure things, but be required to use UNIX? NO.<hr></blockquote>
You aren't required to use UNIX at all in OS X. I find OS X much easier to use than fiddling with OS 9's memory allocation, Extension sets, and corrupted preferences on practically a daily basis.
[quote]OS X chokes under heavy use, too, and my iBook has nothing but iTunes and Tinker Tool on it, with no real mods. <hr></blockquote>
No, OS 9 "chokes" under heavy use. In OS X I can multitask much, much better than in OS 9. Try downloading, playing iTunes, and playing Quake 3 all at the same time in OS 9? Oh, that's right, you can't, because OS 9 chokes.
[quote]Except... I used an application called Window Licker to turn on compression. No Terminal for me, no thank you. Although it says compression is on, with my iBook 500 & measly 128 megs of RAM, I don't see any difference. But, just a thought, to anyone wanting to turn it on, and not mess with the Terminal.<hr></blockquote>
Earlier you said you had plenty of RAM, but 128 MB RAM isn't enough for OS X. Slip a 256 MB stick of RAM in your iBook and you'll realize a huge speed increase for OS X.
Comments
They have a lot of power that I want to use for my apps however, and not my interface. And I have a GPU that is not using many cycles in the OS, so I REALLY hope they make some way to take this load off of the CPU. Now, whether they do or not, I will of course stay with Macs, but I think I along with others would be much more productive with the os allowing more cpu time to the things that really need it.
<strong>Poster Boy, while you new UNIX people are very helpful, Steve666 is right. OS X sucks. I have enough RAM (so no VM issues) and also no crashes, with my OS 9. OS 9 is still better, in every damn respect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, the first mac I used, was back in elementary school, it was a Mac Plus.
I had no prior experience with UNIX before I installed OS X on my 333 iMac, (which I recently sold to upgrade to a iBook 600 14") but I did some research on the net, talked in forums, and read a few articles, and now I am very comfortable using OS X to its full potential.
OS 9 is very comfortable. I myself was overwhelmed at first with OS X due to the massive change that it represents, but considering some of the other UNIX and Linux Distributions I have played around since my first inrodes into X, believe me, it could be much worse. My only real complaint about OS X right now is that although they say that 128 MB of ram is the minimum, it really doesnt function very well until you have 256 MB.
There is a rule of thumb with a UNIX operating system that states "The more ram you have the faster your system run, and the better it will perform." Under OS 9, you can cram 640 MB into an iBook, and it will only make a difference in the apps that you proporly re-allocate the ram to. Another Point is that OS X is still very very young. Its just over a year old. OS 9 has 18 years of refinements behind it, and it is going to take a while for those to all be integrated into X.
What I am trying to say is that OS X is kind of scary when you are switching from OS 9, but keep an open mind, because in the end it will be a better computer experience than OS 9 ever was.
Sorry for the long rantlike post.
--PB
Edit: PS: And I have to agree with Jeremiah, I wish that OS X was optimised for G3 and G4 systems, as opposed to G4 optimisation only. It's great how well it runs on G4s, but there are a lot of G3 users out there still, and some of us are getting annoyed.
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]</p>
<strong>Off topic for a sec...
Steve, why do you end every post with ".................."? Is there a point to it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whenever i post to some message boards the last word or two never seem to make it. I always assumed this was a Mac thing, but since noone has that problem on this board I will stop doing it and see what happens. When I add the periods at the end it drops down the word that would get cut off. Lets see what happens if i don't.
I was merely asking about the smoothness of scrolling and yet again, here we are with lots of debates and discussions that are off-topic. Heheh.
I'm not upset or anything... just steering the conversation back on topic.
- Scott
I mainly liked OS9 because it is easier to find things, easier to reach things, easier to customize. Now, I am using both OS9 and OSX, switching between the two. I still believe OS9 makes more sense-however, OSX is much nicer to look at, which is important to many consumers. The main problems i see are a OS that doesn't seem to realize that i own a decent graphics card, an OS that is slower on the internet than 9, and an OS that most definitely needs to be worked on. Like i said before, i will wait until 10.2 comes out, pay the upgrade price, install it, and hope it fixes some things. I will live with the GUI inconsistencies because I can live with them. i just want the performance to match the previous OS. If it turns out I purchased a less than year old computer that is now obsolete i will be very unhappy. Honestly, i don't think this will be the case. I have hope that 10.2 will fix many issues for us. There-thats more positive than my usual post
<strong>I mean no offense to ANYONE that's posted here... all of the replies have valid points... but how did it get so far off topic...?
I was merely asking about the smoothness of scrolling and yet again, here we are with lots of debates and discussions that are off-topic. Heheh.
I'm not upset or anything... just steering the conversation back on topic.
Thank you.
I haven't heard anything explicit, but perhaps something will come out of WWDC next week. Apple is a long way from finished with OS X.
Contrary to some of the suspicions on these boards, most Apple employees don't have up-to-the-minute hardware, so they're as aware of OS X's less polished areas as we are.
<strong>
Instead of bitching about my bitching, maybe YOU can come up with a solution. If not, then your entire post was meaningless and you really have nothing of interest to say...............................</strong><hr></blockquote>
98% of all the posts on this thread are pointless. including all of yours. including mine.
*toke*
As far as resolution - eye strain at 1024x768? Are you serious? 1024x768 is too big for me, I much prefer higher resoutions. Unfortunately 1024x768 is as high as my flat panel iMac goes, but I can live with it. I would rather push it higher though. At home, my 18" flat panel monitor runs at 1280x1024, which I really like.
<strong>98% of all the posts on this thread are pointless</strong><hr></blockquote>I hope someone found mine a little informative.
<strong>After I restarted, OSX was noticably faster, especially on the internet.</strong><hr></blockquote>Xaqtly is correct. Prebinding can give major improvements for some systems. Basically, when you add an application and don't update the prebinding, that application will load slower because each time it loads it has to go find any dynamic libraries. The man pages say it best: "By pre-determining where a function in another library is destined to be placed, the dynamic linker does not have to resolve symbols at application startup time, and the application can launch faster."
Also, it's too late now since you've already changed the resolutions, but next time you ought to check if your color mode switched from millions to thousands. This will give a noticeable speed bump. It's never happened to me, but I have read several reports of other people's color settings changing after an update and therefore giving them a false sense of increased speed.
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
[QB]Poster Boy, while you new UNIX people are very helpful, Steve666 is right. OS X sucks. I have enough RAM (so no VM issues) and also no crashes, with my OS 9. OS 9 is still better, in every damn respect.<hr></blockquote>
If OS 9 doesn't crash on you, then you aren't using it for much more than email. Even then I find it hard to believe that OS 9 doesn't crash on you, and often. As for VM "issues", OS 9 is designed to run with VM on and actually is faster and uses less RAM with VM on.
[quote]I am "baffled" at the need to go into a damn "Terminal" to simply do what Apple should have in OS X 10.0.0. Why the F*CK isn't Window Compression in the System Prefs somewhere? :eek: <hr></blockquote>
I believe window compression IS on in the most recent version of OS X...but if it isn't then I'm sure Apple leaves it off for a reason. But since you said you have plenty of RAM, you shouldn't need window compression.
[quote]Jeez, this is getting ludicrous! I like the new ways in which we can troubleshoot, and configure things, but be required to use UNIX? NO.<hr></blockquote>
You aren't required to use UNIX at all in OS X. I find OS X much easier to use than fiddling with OS 9's memory allocation, Extension sets, and corrupted preferences on practically a daily basis.
[quote]OS X chokes under heavy use, too, and my iBook has nothing but iTunes and Tinker Tool on it, with no real mods. <hr></blockquote>
No, OS 9 "chokes" under heavy use. In OS X I can multitask much, much better than in OS 9. Try downloading, playing iTunes, and playing Quake 3 all at the same time in OS 9? Oh, that's right, you can't, because OS 9 chokes.
[quote]Except... I used an application called Window Licker to turn on compression. No Terminal for me, no thank you. Although it says compression is on, with my iBook 500 & measly 128 megs of RAM, I don't see any difference. But, just a thought, to anyone wanting to turn it on, and not mess with the Terminal.<hr></blockquote>
Earlier you said you had plenty of RAM, but 128 MB RAM isn't enough for OS X. Slip a 256 MB stick of RAM in your iBook and you'll realize a huge speed increase for OS X.