<strong>1) Printing in OSX, yes it stinks. [...] 10.2 will feature better printer detection and even (WOW on this one) support for unsupported printers (? but OK).</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sounds strange, but MacOS veterans will recall Apple's LaserWriter driver, which was useful as a generic driver many years after the last LaserWriter rolled off an assembly line. In many cases, it was actually better than the manufacturer's driver.
I guess that's coming back, and maybe an analogous driver for inkjets?
[quote]<strong>5) Why no one has mentioned networking i have no idea. The finder has a lot of flaws, starting with the fact that I don't like carbon. But I have faith that soon the finder will run completly in Cocoa, LaunchCMF will die and we'll all be happy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Give Carbon time to mature, and Carbon programmers time to get used to the fact that things really are different in OS X. Face it, it's not going to be going anywhere.
[quote]<strong>6) Daemons are evil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blasphemy! Daemons are Good! Daemons provide countless valuable services in any UNIX or UNIX-alike (for example, networking). You just have to know how to write one. I suspect that the ones you're critical of are ports of MacOS FBAs that are still using WaitNextEvent(), or some other legacy cruft.
Norton is evil, however.
[quote]<strong>9) Driver support. Only scanning seems REALLY bad, with OSX 10.2 the printer and networking issues should be fixed. Hopefully software base station too, i had being bound, and i don't have $300, even for Airport.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've gone and forgotten its name, but there's a nice little command-line app (a daemon, actually, I believe ) that lets you use your machine as a software base station.
Apple has claimed that there isn't much demand for SBS.
[quote]<strong>Neither OSX nor OS9 has a defrag tool which is a shame because Norton is evil as mentioned before.</strong><hr></blockquote>
UNIXen treat disks differently than OS 9 did, and what a MacOS disk utility would call severe fragmentation a UNIX tool would call healthy and prudent.
That said, it's all about Tech Tool Pro. Forget Norton.
The last few people here said norton is evil. What program would you recommend for a drive utility if not norton Utilities? Surely the hard drive will need one even in OSX.....................................
Apple will be spending the next 5 years making OSX more like OS9. They will also work harder at insulating the normal user from eunuchs, oops I mean UNIX.
<strong>Apple will be spending the next 5 years making OSX more like OS9. They will also work harder at insulating the normal user from eunuchs, oops I mean UNIX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all... I remember some people here bitching about OS X, but now you are too good for OS 9 also? The OS we have rallied behind for HOW many years?
MacOS 9 is the shit. If X picked up some legacy features that everyone has been asking...nay.....SCREAMING for, I would hardly call it de-evolution...
Maybe something like "convergent evolution". Besides, there is no such thing as de-evolution (excecpt in your pretty little heads)... Evolution by defn. is an on-going, undirected process, therefore a de-evolution would suppose some sort of regression to a past form that was less superior. Since "superiority" would be some sort of objective direction, then it would invalidate the original definition.
Well, I am probably getting way off point here, but IMHO its kinda stupid to compare OS development to evolution. Its just not the same thing as directed development AT ALL. Damn Apple are their naming schemes...
yeah, i hate the profile directory structure, but if i want to use a picture or a music file, I just open iPhoto or iTunes and drag the image or song title to the desktop.... TRY IT.. now THAT is Mac simplicity
or i drop it to my mounted PC desktop over the network... right from iPhoto. its on the PC before i can swivel my chair around... OSX talks real nice with my PC and it will only get better with Jag.
OS X allows me to integrate my Mac with my PC seamlessly... and dont talk about simplicity, then say that 3rd party software is the answer.... thats a stopgap solution.
I could just not imagine using an OS without protected memory... gives me the heebie jeebies.
OS X has a long way to go to become accepted, but its definetly a step in the right direction ofr Apple.
Well, I have noticed a few differences personally.
1) My HP laser printer now works flawlessly. Under OS9, it was 50/50 whether I get an error message.
2) My Sony cd-rw now works seamlessly with iTunes, and I can now drag and drop objects to it on the desktop. Before, I had to use the crap Sony Spressa software to burn a disc. Now it's a joy to use.
3) Under OS9, no matter how much memory I gave to the DVD player, it would still pause occasionally. Under OSX, I get flawless playback.
When I get the upgrade for Illustrator and PhotoShop (which I hope to do soon) I will most likely never go into OS9 again.
BTW- this is on a key lime iBook with extra RAM. I can only imagine how much nicer it must be on a G-4 machine with more screen real estate.
<strong>When I get the upgrade for Illustrator and PhotoShop (which I hope to do soon) I will most likely never go into OS9 again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's something I can guarantee for you, if you're a serious Illustrator user, you will be slapping back into MacOS 9 quicker than you can say "the kerning don't work". :-)
Basically, Apple thankfully tore the last vestiges of a profoundly dead OS out, mashed them up on the floor and hosed 'em down the drain (Carbon got stuck in the drain and plugged it up, so that's why it's there for legacy purposes). Seriously, it is SO nice that Apple finally did away with the old-school mishmash of crazy nonsense that they called OS 9. Now, complain as you will of the Mach microkernel or BSD or what have you, it rocks. Quartz is beautiful, it simplifies greatly many of the tasks that you whiners in the crowd are spending ALL DAY doing sometimes. Now that Apple has an add-on network transparency program for quartz (that ****ing costs EXTRA, [BAFF] (kicking Steve right in the nuts)) it is possible to have all kinds of fun and greatly simplifies the programmer's job. Since it all comes down to the programmers, and they like the system if they can use Cocoa (brainless ones aside) there will be an ever fount of OS X users and programmers.
First of all... I remember some people here bitching about OS X, but now you are too good for OS 9 also? The OS we have rallied behind for HOW many years?
MacOS 9 is the shit. If X picked up some legacy features that everyone has been asking...nay.....SCREAMING for, I would hardly call it de-evolution...
Maybe something like "convergent evolution". Besides, there is no such thing as de-evolution (excecpt in your pretty little heads)... Evolution by defn. is an on-going, undirected process, therefore a de-evolution would suppose some sort of regression to a past form that was less superior. Since "superiority" would be some sort of objective direction, then it would invalidate the original definition.
Well, I am probably getting way off point here, but IMHO its kinda stupid to compare OS development to evolution. Its just not the same thing as directed development AT ALL. Damn Apple are their naming schemes...
Darwin...geez... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No...but there is such a thing as degenerative evolution. Odd how the results of this are virii and intestinal parasites...
<strong>ok, so i'm reading through the genius bar area, and the OS X area, and i start noticing a trend.
[QUOTE] [QB]OS X is hard to use. not impossible hard, but it's not easy. to me that doesn't matter all that much, i'm used to windows, but what about all the old school mac folks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm an old school mac folk...
[quote] <strong>like partitioning your drive into different areas for the different OS'es, that's a joke! you shouldn't have to have a partition for OSX and another for OS 9 just to get things to work right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't need to partition your HD. I have an iMac & iBook & neither are partitioned...
[quote] <strong>and i have been less than impressed with the number of drivers for Mac hardware that support OS X too. this didn't bother me before because OS 9 was the shipping OS.
now all of the new iMacs are coming with OS X as the default.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a way its a push by Apple, the best way to get developers on to it is to make them realize they need to support it...
[quote] <strong>dunno, just seems like i was walking down a dim hallway, and suddenly a light goes on and i realize this isn't my wonderful mac hallway, this is some bastardized Unix hallway.
yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Photoshop was not ment to be installed that way, in classic or X.... But I'm assuming if you do install it in X you can still do the same thing afterwards...
<strong>One of the big things about my mac is that I feel in control and freely play with the system to tailor it to my needs. With Windows I'm scared to even change basic settings becuase in the windows folder I can't tell by looking at an icon or its name exactly what the damn thing does. Thus my X mac now gives me as much control as my windows PC</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah - the power of illusion. Open up your System Suitcase in ResEdit and tell me you're free to play with the system.
So if Apple simply made the /System folder visible but unreadable to the standard user, you would have the feeling of being as much in control as under 9?
>Ah - the power of illusion. Open up your System Suitcase in ResEdit and tell me you're free to play with the system.
and why would you what to play with your systemfolder?
>So if Apple simply made the /System folder visible but unreadable to the standard user, you would have the feeling of being as much in control as under 9?
the standard user is not entended to edit the systemfolder in macos x! if some root-user whats/needs to do this - ok!
i think most problems in mac os 9.x and older are user-made. if it's running - why change it?
most people still think: "it's got to be complicated if it's a computer" and "i have to kill this and edit that". i'm working with mac's since macos 7 and i came to the conclusion that there is no need to alter system-stuff (unless your life gets boring - or you what to be a window-user)
personally . x has pushed me more and more towards a pc . after using macs since 91 - i was very happy with 7/8/9 - if apple had added a few system level tweaks id have been ecstatic
but no , they threw the baby out with the bathwater
x is to me , unfathomable and i have decided that if ive got to learn a new os i may as well go the whole hog and get a pc..
Comments
<strong>1) Printing in OSX, yes it stinks. [...] 10.2 will feature better printer detection and even (WOW on this one) support for unsupported printers (? but OK).</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sounds strange, but MacOS veterans will recall Apple's LaserWriter driver, which was useful as a generic driver many years after the last LaserWriter rolled off an assembly line. In many cases, it was actually better than the manufacturer's driver.
I guess that's coming back, and maybe an analogous driver for inkjets?
[quote]<strong>5) Why no one has mentioned networking i have no idea. The finder has a lot of flaws, starting with the fact that I don't like carbon. But I have faith that soon the finder will run completly in Cocoa, LaunchCMF will die and we'll all be happy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Give Carbon time to mature, and Carbon programmers time to get used to the fact that things really are different in OS X. Face it, it's not going to be going anywhere.
[quote]<strong>6) Daemons are evil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blasphemy! Daemons are Good! Daemons provide countless valuable services in any UNIX or UNIX-alike (for example, networking). You just have to know how to write one. I suspect that the ones you're critical of are ports of MacOS FBAs that are still using WaitNextEvent(), or some other legacy cruft.
Norton is evil, however.
[quote]<strong>9) Driver support. Only scanning seems REALLY bad, with OSX 10.2 the printer and networking issues should be fixed. Hopefully software base station too, i had being bound, and i don't have $300, even for Airport.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've gone and forgotten its name, but there's a nice little command-line app (a daemon, actually, I believe
Apple has claimed that there isn't much demand for SBS.
[quote]<strong>Neither OSX nor OS9 has a defrag tool which is a shame because Norton is evil as mentioned before.</strong><hr></blockquote>
UNIXen treat disks differently than OS 9 did, and what a MacOS disk utility would call severe fragmentation a UNIX tool would call healthy and prudent.
That said, it's all about Tech Tool Pro. Forget Norton.
<1) Printing in OSX, yes it stinks...
i work in a graphicdesign-fotostudio-prepress-webdesign-programming-firm with all kinds of printers (nothing very new).
when i installed macos x (i'm the only one in the firm - because they simply don't care) i just fired it up and got all the printers i need.
never had a problem. in fact it is so much easier then 9.x.
<2) Speed. Speed is a tricky subject...
if one realizes that this is a completly new system (ok darwin is kind of old - but macos x is much more then a kernel), this os rocks!
-and it will get better.
i love all the stuff i can do in the background!
<4) Macs need to catch up in performance...
are we talking ghz here?
i prefer real life speed with the apps i use - and not the number of ghz's on the box.
if i would want to outrun a new g4, i got to throw a lot of money and time at a wintel-box.
<5) Why no one has mentioned networking...
neetwork is easy to handle but not very fast.
this will change.
<8) People complain about the dock...
i don't. i love it more every day.
and if i don't like something- i can customize it.
<
apple did a great job 'till now and with each update will do better.
and if some noname-firm doesn't wright drivers for x - then its not apples fault.
<10) Stability, OS9 seems to start stable...
i'm not a kind person to my mac.
i do all kind of wild stuff.
and mac os 9.x told me that a once in a while.
'till now i had no problems at all with x.
os x is young.
it will get even better over time.
remember how long the journey wuz 'till 9.x.
and point out a popular system that has done the same as apple now - creating a brand new os.
xp? i don't think so.
in my humble opinion.
<strong>Apple will be spending the next 5 years making OSX more like OS9. They will also work harder at insulating the normal user from eunuchs, oops I mean UNIX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope we don't devolve to OS9.
First of all... I remember some people here bitching about OS X, but now you are too good for OS 9 also? The OS we have rallied behind for HOW many years?
MacOS 9 is the shit. If X picked up some legacy features that everyone has been asking...nay.....SCREAMING for, I would hardly call it de-evolution...
Maybe something like "convergent evolution". Besides, there is no such thing as de-evolution (excecpt in your pretty little heads)... Evolution by defn. is an on-going, undirected process, therefore a de-evolution would suppose some sort of regression to a past form that was less superior. Since "superiority" would be some sort of objective direction, then it would invalidate the original definition.
Well, I am probably getting way off point here, but IMHO its kinda stupid to compare OS development to evolution. Its just not the same thing as directed development AT ALL. Damn Apple are their naming schemes...
Darwin...geez...
or i drop it to my mounted PC desktop over the network... right from iPhoto. its on the PC before i can swivel my chair around... OSX talks real nice with my PC and it will only get better with Jag.
OS X allows me to integrate my Mac with my PC seamlessly... and dont talk about simplicity, then say that 3rd party software is the answer.... thats a stopgap solution.
I could just not imagine using an OS without protected memory... gives me the heebie jeebies.
OS X has a long way to go to become accepted, but its definetly a step in the right direction ofr Apple.
Pres
1) My HP laser printer now works flawlessly. Under OS9, it was 50/50 whether I get an error message.
2) My Sony cd-rw now works seamlessly with iTunes, and I can now drag and drop objects to it on the desktop. Before, I had to use the crap Sony Spressa software to burn a disc. Now it's a joy to use.
3) Under OS9, no matter how much memory I gave to the DVD player, it would still pause occasionally. Under OSX, I get flawless playback.
When I get the upgrade for Illustrator and PhotoShop (which I hope to do soon) I will most likely never go into OS9 again.
BTW- this is on a key lime iBook with extra RAM. I can only imagine how much nicer it must be on a G-4 machine with more screen real estate.
<strong>When I get the upgrade for Illustrator and PhotoShop (which I hope to do soon) I will most likely never go into OS9 again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's something I can guarantee for you, if you're a serious Illustrator user, you will be slapping back into MacOS 9 quicker than you can say "the kerning don't work". :-)
Sorry about the rambling nature of this post.
<strong>De-evolve?
First of all... I remember some people here bitching about OS X, but now you are too good for OS 9 also? The OS we have rallied behind for HOW many years?
MacOS 9 is the shit. If X picked up some legacy features that everyone has been asking...nay.....SCREAMING for, I would hardly call it de-evolution...
Maybe something like "convergent evolution". Besides, there is no such thing as de-evolution (excecpt in your pretty little heads)... Evolution by defn. is an on-going, undirected process, therefore a de-evolution would suppose some sort of regression to a past form that was less superior. Since "superiority" would be some sort of objective direction, then it would invalidate the original definition.
Well, I am probably getting way off point here, but IMHO its kinda stupid to compare OS development to evolution. Its just not the same thing as directed development AT ALL. Damn Apple are their naming schemes...
Darwin...geez...
No...but there is such a thing as degenerative evolution. Odd how the results of this are virii and intestinal parasites...
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Yep, Microsoft is DEFINATELY degenerative.
:cool:
<strong>ok, so i'm reading through the genius bar area, and the OS X area, and i start noticing a trend.
[QUOTE] [QB]OS X is hard to use. not impossible hard, but it's not easy. to me that doesn't matter all that much, i'm used to windows, but what about all the old school mac folks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm an old school mac folk...
[quote] <strong>like partitioning your drive into different areas for the different OS'es, that's a joke! you shouldn't have to have a partition for OSX and another for OS 9 just to get things to work right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't need to partition your HD. I have an iMac & iBook & neither are partitioned...
[quote] <strong>and i have been less than impressed with the number of drivers for Mac hardware that support OS X too. this didn't bother me before because OS 9 was the shipping OS.
now all of the new iMacs are coming with OS X as the default.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a way its a push by Apple, the best way to get developers on to it is to make them realize they need to support it...
[quote] <strong>dunno, just seems like i was walking down a dim hallway, and suddenly a light goes on and i realize this isn't my wonderful mac hallway, this is some bastardized Unix hallway.
yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Photoshop was not ment to be installed that way, in classic or X.... But I'm assuming if you do install it in X you can still do the same thing afterwards...
<strong>One of the big things about my mac is that I feel in control and freely play with the system to tailor it to my needs. With Windows I'm scared to even change basic settings becuase in the windows folder I can't tell by looking at an icon or its name exactly what the damn thing does. Thus my X mac now gives me as much control as my windows PC</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah - the power of illusion. Open up your System Suitcase in ResEdit and tell me you're free to play with the system.
So if Apple simply made the /System folder visible but unreadable to the standard user, you would have the feeling of being as much in control as under 9?
-s*
and why would you what to play with your systemfolder?
>So if Apple simply made the /System folder visible but unreadable to the standard user, you would have the feeling of being as much in control as under 9?
the standard user is not entended to edit the systemfolder in macos x! if some root-user whats/needs to do this - ok!
i think most problems in mac os 9.x and older are user-made. if it's running - why change it?
most people still think: "it's got to be complicated if it's a computer" and "i have to kill this and edit that". i'm working with mac's since macos 7 and i came to the conclusion that there is no need to alter system-stuff (unless your life gets boring - or you what to be a window-user)
only mho
but no , they threw the baby out with the bathwater
x is to me , unfathomable and i have decided that if ive got to learn a new os i may as well go the whole hog and get a pc..
is xp that bad ?
it looks like a rip off of 9 - ok by me.