i've been using X since 10.0.0.4 (or i think that was it) and recently having to go back to 9 because i have to use a different computer, 9 sucks haha, 9 is like a good windows in comparison now
I was in our graphics department on Monday and they still use 9. I caught myself thinking, "this is painful." But contrast that still to my very liberal use of four letter words in very loud tones when I'm on my Win2K machine.
As a relatively new mac user at 10 months, I must say that OS X looks so much better than OS 9.
Unfortunately, I dun use OS 9 much and i can't say OS X is better. But I've heard many wonderful stories about OS 9 and i like to tink OS 9 as a great OS that is slowly fading away and OS X as the future.
for someone who has never seen a computer before, os 9 is twice as easy to use.
for someone who doesn't want a bulky operating system involving thousands of files (and the complications with them), os 9 is again twice as good as 9.
for someone with a G3, the speed of X doesn't even compare to 9.
if you want a more windows-like, pretty interface, go with X (or maybe if you have a dual 1ghz+ G4)
on my iBook G3 700, X slows me down. 9 gets out of my way. but no, the widgets aren't as pretty.
For someone who's never used a mac before, X is much easier to use. It runs sufficiently fast on my 400Mhz G3, and gets faster with each update.
Applications don't hog the system anymore, so I can do something else while one app is loading. I'm down to 1-2 crashes per year instead of 1-2 crashes per month.
for a computer used by multiple people, X is much nicer for keeping people's files and settings seperate.
For someone who likes to do programming or web design, X is much better.
For someone who wants to run any kind of server, X is much better.
Actually, I've had to do a LOT less coaching for both Windows and non-computer users with OS X than I ever did for 9. The main sticking points are switching applications, memory allocation, and hangs (not crashes, just sometimes you wait for stuff to finish, sometimes you don't have to so it makes it more frustrating when you do).
What, you mean that'd make OS 9 more bearable? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had to read that twice, good point! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Had to read that twice, good point! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
And of course: </strong><hr></blockquote>
haha, i just got that too
and filthily is a word...my word <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Iis easier for common people to understand just what is going on with their computer under OS 9. You can point them to the system folder and they can quickly see where all the components of the operating system are an have a good idea of what they do (control panels, extensions, etc.) without a whole lot of complexity or explaining. This simplicity makes the system much more easy to fix and troubleshoot. With OS X, there are files all over the place, libraries, blah, blah, blah...well, of course there are, it is unix...and unix is inherently way to complex for most non-techy folks to grasp. so what we have is an insanely complex operating system with a pretty face. if the delicate balance between the pretty face and the operating system goes, most people haven't a chance to fix it wihtout reinstalling the OS. the beauty of OS 9 was that WYSIWYG, no barrage of hidden folders all over the place secretly controlling your day-to-day work.
Apple has done an admittadly admirable job of making OS X not too unix-ish for those who don't want it to be, but they have no done a perfect job, and that probably isn't possible. No one's mom or pop with their iMac (unless they are savvy) will ever repair their permissioins or even know what that means.
OS 9 took the wizardry of how an OS works and threw it out, empowering the user. OS X has a ton of wizardry that none but the most savvy users will ever understand.
<strong>You can point them to the system folder and they can quickly see where all the components of the operating system are an have a good idea of what they do (control panels, extensions, etc.) without a whole lot of complexity or explaining.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. I noticed that when I logged in under root way back when that there are also tons of invisible directories and files floating around. So X is a lot more complex under the hood. Difference is, I don't look under the hood because I don't need to. I never even look in the System folder. I've suggested beofre to just keep it invisible to users -- there's no reason to go there. I only go to the root Library folder to install a service or a font for everyone. Sort of a quid-pro-quo. On one hand, I could manage OS 9's system stuff more easily but under OS X I don't manage the system stuff.
True. I noticed that when I logged in under root way back when that there are also tons of invisible directories and files floating around. So X is a lot more complex under the hood. Difference is, I don't look under the hood because I don't need to. I never even look in the System folder. I've suggested beofre to just keep it invisible to users -- there's no reason to go there. I only go to the root Library folder to install a service or a font for everyone. Sort of a quid-pro-quo. On one hand, I could manage OS 9's system stuff more easily but under OS X I don't manage the system stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
true
...but its kinda sad there was never a problem in 9 that i couldn't fix with a bootup disc, now if there would be a problem with OS X (pray to god there isn't ever) what am i going to do.
It would be nice if apple could make it like 9 by using alias' and invisible folders, but that can't happen with users, i mean trying to explain to somone about users's and everyone has their own thing and how the library has ur prefrences, and the library on the HD has the computer prefecnes, i dont think its hard but people seem to
Part of the cost of the advanced stability and the security of a multi-user UNIX system is more complexity -- in some respects -- than OS 9. It's unfortunate, but well worth it.
(OTOH, I find OS X's strict seperation of system and userspace very clean and pretty easy to grasp.)
I do hope Apple will continue to simplify OS X and hide UNIX as much as possible for the general user. Some things I'd like to see:
- an application similar to CCC built into Apple's Backup software, enabling full backups
- aliases becoming less dependent on file paths (ugh)
- ? (I'm sure there's more, but that's all I think of at the moment.)
Jaguar already handles permission problems far, far better than 10.1. I'm looking forward to see what else they'll do.
<strong>OS 9 took the wizardry of how an OS works and threw it out, empowering the user. OS X has a ton of wizardry that none but the most savvy users will ever understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make some good points, but I feel that because OS X has a somewhat different philosophy regarding OS layout and presentation, you can't judge it on the same grounds as OS 9. The system and the user are sharply separated in OS X. You simply do not go spelunking into the System folder the way you do the System Folder in OS 9. No extensions, no messing around, no hacks, less problems. This is not to say there were never be any problems, but the multiple user aspect of the system keeps things isolated and clean. Your home is the Home folder, and within this realm, everything is as much within the grasp of the normal user as OS 9's System Folder was.
I have a friend who does not understand computers very much, and when she was faced with having to use OS 9, she was utterly confused. There is nothing but a large screen with a hard disk icon in the upper right corner. What do you do with that? It doesn't look like it launches applications or does anything in particular. It doesn't beg you to "Start" here. In fact, it's very passive. On the other hand, a user faced with OS X has a beautiful dock loaded with a handful of applications to help you get started.
<strong>I've suggested beofre to just keep it invisible to users -- there's no reason to go there. I only go to the root Library folder to install a service or a font for everyone. Sort of a quid-pro-quo. On one hand, I could manage OS 9's system stuff more easily but under OS X I don't manage the system stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My theory is that Apple left "System" visible because people with Classic installed on the same partition (like myself) have OS 9's "System Folder" on the root level of their HD.
IOW, it's there visibly for contrast only -- so people don't get confused and think altering "System Folder" will affect OS X.
As a tangent, one thing I'm seeing a lot of users having problems with isn't the multi-user aspect of the OS, that seems to be sinking in, but rather how to selectively share data among users. We've sort of traded one advantage for another to some extent, well, were it not for the Shared folder/user. I think Apple could afford to put a little more attention to the Shared folder, or at least bring more people's attention to it even if it means just giving it a special icon.
<strong>As a tangent, one thing I'm seeing a lot of users having problems with isn't the multi-user aspect of the OS, that seems to be sinking in, but rather how to selectively share data among users. We've sort of traded one advantage for another to some extent, well, were it not for the Shared folder/user. I think Apple could afford to put a little more attention to the Shared folder, or at least bring more people's attention to it even if it means just giving it a special icon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a great point -- I've seen this come up with increasing frequency on the messsage boards.
I haven't been so aware of the Shared folder. Can you use it to share libraries between users in iPhoto and iTunes? (I know that sharing iTunes libraries is much easier than sharing iPhoto's.)
<strong>(I know that sharing iTunes libraries is much easier than sharing iPhoto's.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the thing. iTunes 3 is a lot more flexible to allow you to place your iTunes library in the Shared folder, or even allow both a shared iTunes folder and a user's personal iTunes folder. iPhoto AFAIK (maybe iPhoto 2 is better abot this?) doesn't have this flexibility.
Apple could do more to make the iApps more Shared-aware, and even place the Shared folder's alias in a user's Favorites folder by default where it will also show up in open/save dialogs.
Comments
I was in our graphics department on Monday and they still use 9. I caught myself thinking, "this is painful." But contrast that still to my very liberal use of four letter words in very loud tones when I'm on my Win2K machine.
I am thinking when this program is waiting to load:
" Ohkay, it is loading, lemme just go to internet explorer"
All the teachers love the idea of multiple users (hey never implemented it under 9) and the iChat Rendezvous...
When I look at 9, I am thinking...whoaw...lets put this person on X!
<strong>
When I look at 9, I am thinking...whoaw...lets put this person on X!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, you mean that'd make OS 9 more bearable?
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
Unfortunately, I dun use OS 9 much and i can't say OS X is better. But I've heard many wonderful stories about OS 9 and i like to tink OS 9 as a great OS that is slowly fading away and OS X as the future.
Cheers to OS X and Apple. Good bye OS 9!
for someone who doesn't want a bulky operating system involving thousands of files (and the complications with them), os 9 is again twice as good as 9.
for someone with a G3, the speed of X doesn't even compare to 9.
if you want a more windows-like, pretty interface, go with X (or maybe if you have a dual 1ghz+ G4)
on my iBook G3 700, X slows me down. 9 gets out of my way. but no, the widgets aren't as pretty.
Applications don't hog the system anymore, so I can do something else while one app is loading. I'm down to 1-2 crashes per year instead of 1-2 crashes per month.
for a computer used by multiple people, X is much nicer for keeping people's files and settings seperate.
For someone who likes to do programming or web design, X is much better.
For someone who wants to run any kind of server, X is much better.
<strong>
What, you mean that'd make OS 9 more bearable?
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had to read that twice, good point! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
And of course:
<strong>
Had to read that twice, good point! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
And of course:
haha, i just got that too
and filthily is a word...my word <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Apple has done an admittadly admirable job of making OS X not too unix-ish for those who don't want it to be, but they have no done a perfect job, and that probably isn't possible. No one's mom or pop with their iMac (unless they are savvy) will ever repair their permissioins or even know what that means.
OS 9 took the wizardry of how an OS works and threw it out, empowering the user. OS X has a ton of wizardry that none but the most savvy users will ever understand.
<strong>You can point them to the system folder and they can quickly see where all the components of the operating system are an have a good idea of what they do (control panels, extensions, etc.) without a whole lot of complexity or explaining.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. I noticed that when I logged in under root way back when that there are also tons of invisible directories and files floating around. So X is a lot more complex under the hood. Difference is, I don't look under the hood because I don't need to. I never even look in the System folder. I've suggested beofre to just keep it invisible to users -- there's no reason to go there. I only go to the root Library folder to install a service or a font for everyone. Sort of a quid-pro-quo. On one hand, I could manage OS 9's system stuff more easily but under OS X I don't manage the system stuff.
<strong>
True. I noticed that when I logged in under root way back when that there are also tons of invisible directories and files floating around. So X is a lot more complex under the hood. Difference is, I don't look under the hood because I don't need to. I never even look in the System folder. I've suggested beofre to just keep it invisible to users -- there's no reason to go there. I only go to the root Library folder to install a service or a font for everyone. Sort of a quid-pro-quo. On one hand, I could manage OS 9's system stuff more easily but under OS X I don't manage the system stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
true
...but its kinda sad there was never a problem in 9 that i couldn't fix with a bootup disc, now if there would be a problem with OS X (pray to god there isn't ever) what am i going to do.
It would be nice if apple could make it like 9 by using alias' and invisible folders, but that can't happen with users, i mean trying to explain to somone about users's and everyone has their own thing and how the library has ur prefrences, and the library on the HD has the computer prefecnes, i dont think its hard but people seem to
(OTOH, I find OS X's strict seperation of system and userspace very clean and pretty easy to grasp.)
I do hope Apple will continue to simplify OS X and hide UNIX as much as possible for the general user. Some things I'd like to see:
- an application similar to CCC built into Apple's Backup software, enabling full backups
- aliases becoming less dependent on file paths (ugh)
- ? (I'm sure there's more, but that's all I think of at the moment.)
Jaguar already handles permission problems far, far better than 10.1. I'm looking forward to see what else they'll do.
<strong>OS 9 took the wizardry of how an OS works and threw it out, empowering the user. OS X has a ton of wizardry that none but the most savvy users will ever understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make some good points, but I feel that because OS X has a somewhat different philosophy regarding OS layout and presentation, you can't judge it on the same grounds as OS 9. The system and the user are sharply separated in OS X. You simply do not go spelunking into the System folder the way you do the System Folder in OS 9. No extensions, no messing around, no hacks, less problems. This is not to say there were never be any problems, but the multiple user aspect of the system keeps things isolated and clean. Your home is the Home folder, and within this realm, everything is as much within the grasp of the normal user as OS 9's System Folder was.
I have a friend who does not understand computers very much, and when she was faced with having to use OS 9, she was utterly confused. There is nothing but a large screen with a hard disk icon in the upper right corner. What do you do with that? It doesn't look like it launches applications or does anything in particular. It doesn't beg you to "Start" here. In fact, it's very passive. On the other hand, a user faced with OS X has a beautiful dock loaded with a handful of applications to help you get started.
<strong>I've suggested beofre to just keep it invisible to users -- there's no reason to go there. I only go to the root Library folder to install a service or a font for everyone. Sort of a quid-pro-quo. On one hand, I could manage OS 9's system stuff more easily but under OS X I don't manage the system stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My theory is that Apple left "System" visible because people with Classic installed on the same partition (like myself) have OS 9's "System Folder" on the root level of their HD.
IOW, it's there visibly for contrast only -- so people don't get confused and think altering "System Folder" will affect OS X.
Just a theory.
<strong>As a tangent, one thing I'm seeing a lot of users having problems with isn't the multi-user aspect of the OS, that seems to be sinking in, but rather how to selectively share data among users. We've sort of traded one advantage for another to some extent, well, were it not for the Shared folder/user. I think Apple could afford to put a little more attention to the Shared folder, or at least bring more people's attention to it even if it means just giving it a special icon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a great point -- I've seen this come up with increasing frequency on the messsage boards.
I haven't been so aware of the Shared folder. Can you use it to share libraries between users in iPhoto and iTunes? (I know that sharing iTunes libraries is much easier than sharing iPhoto's.)
<strong>(I know that sharing iTunes libraries is much easier than sharing iPhoto's.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the thing. iTunes 3 is a lot more flexible to allow you to place your iTunes library in the Shared folder, or even allow both a shared iTunes folder and a user's personal iTunes folder. iPhoto AFAIK (maybe iPhoto 2 is better abot this?) doesn't have this flexibility.
Apple could do more to make the iApps more Shared-aware, and even place the Shared folder's alias in a user's Favorites folder by default where it will also show up in open/save dialogs.
It would take care of placing iPhoto and iTunes libraries (or aliases of them, if that would work) in the Shared folder.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>