Sep 29, 2006, 02:54 PM
Link: September 29, 2001: OS X Puma Released (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060929145435)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Sep 29, 2006, 07:19 PM
While substantially better than 10.0, Puma wasn’t good enough for day-to-day use.
I don't really understand what that statement is based on. I bought my first Mac (a G3 iBook) in November of 2001 and did not use OS 9 at all. I thought OS X was plenty usable by that point. 10.0 (which I never used) had serious performance problems, but 10.1 - while still a little on the slow side - cleaned up the major issues.
A number of Mac programs had not been carbonized yet, so Classic fired up fairly often for a lot of people. And the Mac software industry was not nearly as vibrant as it is today, so beautifully designed Cocoa apps were in short supply, but it did just about everything I needed it to.
Apple apparently agreed, as they made OS X the default system for booting on all new Macs during the latter part of the 10.1 era, IIRC. Prior to that, they would boot OS 9 out of the box.
Yes it was an early release and had some rough edges; the upgrade to Jaguar was worth every penny in 2002. But the system was stable and for the most part feature complete. Jaguar significantly improved performance and added a lot of polish, but 10.1 was a fine system, as far as I'm concerned; if I felt otherwise, I would not have stuck with the Mac.