PDA

View Full Version : the emperor has no clothes - OS X is not useable


favedave
Apr 21, 2003, 06:15 AM
How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??

OS X.2 is SLOWER than 9.2.2 on my dual gig machine. I have things to do so I don't waste my time with OS X.

They shouldn't release any upgrades until they figure out how to ACHIEVE THE SAME SPEED THEY HAD WITH THE OLD OPERATING SYSTEM.

Am I the only one who sees the emperor has no clothes? Who gives a crap about aqua interface and pretty windows. I have work to do, not stare at blue bubbles.

OS X is an upgraded operating system for more money that offers: slower speed, confusing file system, the annoying extra level of crap to deal with because now it's GUI shell over another operating system, being forced to use CLI to tweak things.

And for what? Where are the advantages? My friends who use it say "well, there's no crashes!" I got news for you tech boy, I have very few crashes now. If you added up all the crashes I get and subtract the lost time from my work time, I'd still be way ahead in productivity because OS 9 RUNS FASTER ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY.


OS X was a terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity. BUt now we're stuck with it. THe least they could do is make it run as fast as the old OS. How embarrassing for them!

I love Macs, but why are people so hesitant to speak the truth, which is: OS X is not useable for anyone with reasonably quick computer skills who has work to do. Going from 9.2.2 to OS X is like going from a computer back to a manual typewriter.

Fortunately, I won't be forced to use X til at least mid 2004. BY then, maybe it will be useable.

I have always been an Apple champion, but not any more. Apple really blew it by making the Mac more Windows-like. Blech. A real step backwards.

maradong
Apr 21, 2003, 07:02 AM
I can t understand your point of view. jaguar is so "snappy", the ease of use is xtremly good. Everything is so nice, and best of all everything is based on open source, as well darwin, as the base operating system, freebsd.
It has many advatages, for instance newbies @ computers or technical challenged people learn it really fast.
The file system is the best ever made as it is fully unix compatible and there is no alternative for better right management fs on the world at the moment.


by the way welcome on the boards.

bennetsaysargh
Apr 21, 2003, 08:15 AM
right now, im borrowing my uncle's pismo (5oomhz) and usually im on a slot loading iMac (400mhz) and on both, jaguar is very snappy. are you sure you're not running another version of os x? if you're not using jaguar, get it. it's worth it.

edesignuk
Apr 21, 2003, 09:16 AM
How can you say this? OS X is in no way a "step back", or a "terrible idea", it is much more stable than 9, and is advancing well.
I have never had to use the CLI to "tweak" the OS, what r u talking about?
You sound like an old man stuck in his ways, get over it! OS X is here to stay and is a GREAT OS! :p
What is "confusing" about the file system to you?

And out of interest...how much RAM do u have?

LOVE IT!...

Catfish_Man
Apr 21, 2003, 10:29 AM
Actually file transfers and multitasking are both faster on OSX than on OS9 (even on my beige G3 233MHz). Either your system is messed up or you're mistaking interface latency (snappiness) for actual speed. It's probably a combination of both, since almost the entire Mac community + all of the reviewers + a bunch of the PC community disagrees with you. When I go back to OS9 it feels like being trapped in a cage, I try to do multiple things at once and it laaaaags. In addition, Rendezvous, IPv6, the Dock, and many many other technologies help (or will help in the future) productivity without increasing speed.

Troll -1 (unless your system is messed up, which seems likely)

NavyIntel007
Apr 21, 2003, 10:32 AM
Yeah dude, your computer is wack. Get some more ram. that single 128 MB stick isn't going to cut it anymore. My 500 ibook is kicking better than it ever did. OS X is getting more switchers... it got me.

Deal with it.

chewbaccapits
Apr 21, 2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by favedave
How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??

OS X.2 is SLOWER than 9.2.2 on my dual gig machine.

Dude, get more RAM and relax..I have a G4 450 running OSX with 512 megs of RAM and it purrs like a kitten, so I don't know WTF your writing about.

[i]If you added up all the crashes I get and subtract the lost time from my work time, I'd still be way ahead in productivity because OS 9 RUNS FASTER ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY.[/B]

BTW, the only fool here is the one that believes his computer his computer (dual gig???come on!) is virtually useless because of a couple of crashes...I mean come on, what the heck are you doing that you crash all the time? How many times have you crashed to make such a statement? I'd love to see how many times you ACTUALLY do crash to TRY to make such a arguement.

VIREBEL661
Apr 21, 2003, 10:55 AM
It all depends on what you use it for... Make no mistakes, I think 9 was a GREAT operating system, cooperative multitasking and all; it kills even modern windoze... However, it requires a degree of knowledge to troubleshoot extensions, etc... It is also the SNAPPIEST OS I've ever used - and I agree with you to this extent! But, multitasking in X makes all the difference in the world! Try running Fetch, GoLive, Photoshop, IE, burn a CD in the background using Toast, downloading smut from newsgroups (ok, maybe you don't do that), etc... I have a Blueberry G3 - and, belive it or not, it really rocks!

POINT - X isn't as 'snappy' as 9 (at opening windows, using a web browser, etc. - I think you'll agree), however, it can do far more far more efficiently. In my opinion, this is where it really shines! I believe UNIX was the only logical step for Apple to take - and I'm glad they did! UNIX is what runs mainframes - we have it on our desktops! But hell, I would love to see Apple make it as snappy as OS 9 also!

VIREBEL661
Apr 21, 2003, 10:59 AM
My apologies to everyone for a second consecutive post...

I think that the hardware hasn't come up to X yet... I believe most of you will agree... X is really sort of ahead of it's time! Hopefully in the next couple of years we'll see the hardware match the software efficiently... Also consider that 9 was in development since 1984!!! Apple has done a fantastic job, and continues to do so (aside from hardware - I think that will be changing soon)...

chewbaccapits
Apr 21, 2003, 11:15 AM
I never had a computer to my name till I was 26 (29 now) and during that time in high school and college I had to use others peoples' computers(which sucked horribly). During that time, I used, both, windows and Macs...Everytime I had an important project to accomplish, Macs were there for me. As far as windows is concerned, well, just look at the fact that I don't capitalize the "w" when I describe it to let you know what I feel about that OShat.
So, I just love it when people have a WAY better computers than mine and try complain that its "useless". Your computer is, what, 3 times faster and more powerful than mine, yet, you consider it unfunctional... While, I can declare that OSX isn't free of viable criticism, it sure isn't a "terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity". I think your post is, and I'm quoting you here, a great example of "annoying extra level of crap".

favedave
Apr 21, 2003, 01:02 PM
I have a dual gig with 1.5 gigs of RAM. 4 internal hard drives - all very snappy and fast. So RAM is not my problem. Let me give you an example of how slow X is:
A friend of mine had an old clamshell iBook with a 300mhz G3. She just got a new iBook 600mhz G3. We had them side by side because we had to transfer over files for her. Now she is NOT a computer person by any means. The 300mhz machine was running OS 9.2 and the 600mhz machine was running Jaguar.

She started complaining immediately - "what's wrong with my new computer? Why is it so much slower than the old one?" This is someone who barely knows what the Finder is and she noticed that a computer running Jaguar at TWICE the speed of a computer running OS 9 was much slower for her to use!

I love Macs, and am annoyed at finding myself in the position of complaining about them.

All your replies say the same things: "DUDE, get more RAM." I have 1.5 gigs.
"DUDE, it's so much better because I can do 800 things at once!" No you can't. A human being can only do one thing at a time. Now, your computer can do more things at once, but not you. My computer does plenty at once for me - downloading whatever while I work in Final Cut Pro with Photoshop open. Or Adobe GoLive with PhotoShop and IE and NEtscape and Opera and Flash MX all open at the same time. No crashes!

The bottom line: OS X offers NO ADDITIONAL USER FEATURES to someone who is using OS 9. I'm talking about end users who make movies, music, web design. People like me. I don't give a crap about Unix (hey - isn't Windows a shell over another OS? So is OS X!) I don't give a crap about Auqua (oohhh-pretty blue.)

It gives me NOTHING NEW that I can use. All it gives me is a sloooooooow down to my workflow. I rarely crash! So I don't care about protected memory. Slowing down my entire system is not worth the occasional non-crashing feature.

OS X is designed with buzzwords in mind so that computer geeks worldwide can embrace it.

Eventually, it will be an OS for end users, but for now, it's a UNIX shell. UNIX is NOT for end users. It's for geeks who live and breathe computers.

Pedro Estarque
Apr 21, 2003, 02:10 PM
Try using an opaque theme and ShadowKiller ... aqua flies. You fell like using 9 again although it looks odd. The biggest problem for me is file organization:

Files that concerned the system
OS 9 - System folder
OS X - 3 folders (libraries), one in your user's folder, other in the system folder and another one in the root of the HD.

Open/Save dialog boxes
OS 9- Desktop in the root of the system, where people can find there stuff
OS X- Even if you are the only one using the machine you have to deal with multiple users issues, for example your desktop is a folder within your home folder which is inside the Users folder, inside the HD.

not to mention permissions ...

Catfish_Man
Apr 21, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by favedave
I have a dual gig with 1.5 gigs of RAM. 4 internal hard drives - all very snappy and fast. So RAM is not my problem. Let me give you an example of how slow X is:
A friend of mine had an old clamshell iBook with a 300mhz G3. She just got a new iBook 600mhz G3. We had them side by side because we had to transfer over files for her. Now she is NOT a computer person by any means. The 300mhz machine was running OS 9.2 and the 600mhz machine was running Jaguar.

She started complaining immediately - "what's wrong with my new computer? Why is it so much slower than the old one?" This is someone who barely knows what the Finder is and she noticed that a computer running Jaguar at TWICE the speed of a computer running OS 9 was much slower for her to use!

I love Macs, and am annoyed at finding myself in the position of complaining about them.

All your replies say the same things: "DUDE, get more RAM." I have 1.5 gigs.
"DUDE, it's so much better because I can do 800 things at once!" No you can't. A human being can only do one thing at a time. Now, your computer can do more things at once, but not you. My computer does plenty at once for me - downloading whatever while I work in Final Cut Pro with Photoshop open. Or Adobe GoLive with PhotoShop and IE and NEtscape and Opera and Flash MX all open at the same time. No crashes!

The bottom line: OS X offers NO ADDITIONAL USER FEATURES to someone who is using OS 9. I'm talking about end users who make movies, music, web design. People like me. I don't give a crap about Unix (hey - isn't Windows a shell over another OS? So is OS X!) I don't give a crap about Auqua (oohhh-pretty blue.)

It gives me NOTHING NEW that I can use. All it gives me is a sloooooooow down to my workflow. I rarely crash! So I don't care about protected memory. Slowing down my entire system is not worth the occasional non-crashing feature.

OS X is designed with buzzwords in mind so that computer geeks worldwide can embrace it.

Eventually, it will be an OS for end users, but for now, it's a UNIX shell. UNIX is NOT for end users. It's for geeks who live and breathe computers.

You can't use ANY of these???

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

Obviously OS9 is better suited to your workflow. For most users it's the other way around. Your experience is not typical, as shown by the number of glowing reviews OSX gets. I still think something's wrong with your machine, because I have a similar one (dual 867/512MB) and it's just as quick as the 1.7GHz P4 I use at school (which is quite snappy). Sure menus open a hair faster under OS9, but the difference is measured in milliseconds at most, and I really don't care about that. That said, OSX has a lot of room for improvement. The Finder is a mess, as is FTP (although that was nonexistent in OS9). Java is immensly improved over OS9, but still could use some work. Interface latency (Snappyness) could use some work, and Internet Explorer should be trashed as the default browser. OSX isn't perfect, but I'll take it over Windows 2000 Pro (which I'll take over any other version of Windows or Mac OS <X, although OS9 comes close).

bousozoku
Apr 21, 2003, 02:20 PM
For perceived speed, Mac OS 9.x is much faster. The Finder is multi-threaded and there is the pico kernel, so response seems more than adequate.

In actuality, Mac OS 9.x is quite a bit slower than Mac OS X, esp. 10.2.x, where more than one task is running at a time.

I only worked with one application at a time when, and rarely even then, when Mac OS 9.x was the active operating system. I would imagine that most of us do not work on one application at a time and benefit greatly from what Mac OS X has given us.

You've gone from saying that you have plenty of RAM, which you do, to transfer us to your friend who probably doesn't. Stay on course, please. If she doesn't have enough RAM, the new machine will seem slower.

Windows NT, 2000, and XP are not a shell over another OS and neither is Mac OS X.

Perhaps, because you don't care about such matters, you simply lash out without trying to understand anything or to get professional help.

You've obviously spent a lot of money without understanding what makes a computer fast. Perhaps, you listened to the advice of someone who didn't understand either and that person influenced your decision. I don't know but I can tell you that Mac OS X is not the slowest and nanosecond to nanosecond, is not slower overall than Mac OS 9.x

You should also be happy at changes coming to the Finder. It will give you the perceived speed you so vocally crave.

digitalgiant
Apr 21, 2003, 02:32 PM
Hey dave, if you hate OS X so much then go back to OS 9. Why do you use Jag at all? If its so bad?

Just wondering.

FattyMembrane
Apr 21, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by favedave

OS X is an upgraded operating system for more money that offers: slower speed, confusing file system, the annoying extra level of crap to deal with because now it's GUI shell over another operating system, being forced to use CLI to tweak things.

on my 500mhz g3 imac without qe, everything but a few interface things (like the occasional menu) is faster than os9 (and osx is doing a lot more on a window redraw than os9). the filesystem is exactly the same buddy, do you mean how they are arranged? name one thing that you have to set through cli (that you should be setting at all).

this "osx sucks" topic seems to be popular now; about every month or so, there's an "osx is slower than a frozen turd" post or something similar. people just like to bitch. the interface is the only thing that is sometimes slower on my machine and osx does twice as much as os9. i find it really hard to believe that the speed difference is noticible if even existant on a dual gig with 1.5 gigs of ram.

crazytom
Apr 21, 2003, 02:59 PM
From my limited knowledge of OS X, it operates best when left on (or put into sleep mode). It gives the OS some time to do 'housecleaning'. I've noticed that after OS updates, certain things do open slower (sometimes much slower) the first couple of times. Updating to 10.2.5, when I first opened Mail, the icon bounced about a dozen times...then it only bounced once opening it thereafter.

It sounds like you have some other problem going on. I have a Dual Gig with 2 GB memory and 3 drives and there's nothing slow about it. I also have a G4 450MHz with 1.5 GB memory running 10.2.5...I don't do much on it, but for the simple things I do use if for (surfing) it does just fine.

Did you get a hardware test disk? Maybe you should run that and see if there's something else weird going on with your hardware. I think you're barking up the wrong tree blaming the OS.

My $.02.

Les Kern
Apr 21, 2003, 03:43 PM
I'm a Mac user from 1986, and I have to say OSX was TOUGH to go to. It took 3 hard tries, but the third time was a charm. I did notice, as anyone would, that opening apps and windows is painfully slow. But once open, it flies. I have it on an 867 SP 1.5ram at home, and 9.2.2 on an OS9 at work on the same machine. X is "better" in like models hands down. True, apps fly open in 9... absolutely everything else flies in X. As for productivity, for me, X has surpassed 9 after I became comfortable knowing just where everything "wants" to go. Oddly, Ghost Recon, my only "diversion" works better in 9 with an ATI 64mb card!!?? Bottom line, learn to deal with the latency and your X-perience will go better. How do I deal with the latency? Want "snappy" apps? I never quit an app, except Safari when it quits all by itself! Oh, and I never crash. So there.

Taft
Apr 21, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by favedave
I have a dual gig with 1.5 gigs of RAM. 4 internal hard drives - all very snappy and fast. So RAM is not my problem. Let me give you an example of how slow X is:
A friend of mine had an old clamshell iBook with a 300mhz G3. She just got a new iBook 600mhz G3. We had them side by side because we had to transfer over files for her. Now she is NOT a computer person by any means. The 300mhz machine was running OS 9.2 and the 600mhz machine was running Jaguar.

She started complaining immediately - "what's wrong with my new computer? Why is it so much slower than the old one?" This is someone who barely knows what the Finder is and she noticed that a computer running Jaguar at TWICE the speed of a computer running OS 9 was much slower for her to use!

I love Macs, and am annoyed at finding myself in the position of complaining about them.

All your replies say the same things: "DUDE, get more RAM." I have 1.5 gigs.
"DUDE, it's so much better because I can do 800 things at once!" No you can't. A human being can only do one thing at a time. Now, your computer can do more things at once, but not you. My computer does plenty at once for me - downloading whatever while I work in Final Cut Pro with Photoshop open. Or Adobe GoLive with PhotoShop and IE and NEtscape and Opera and Flash MX all open at the same time. No crashes!

The bottom line: OS X offers NO ADDITIONAL USER FEATURES to someone who is using OS 9. I'm talking about end users who make movies, music, web design. People like me. I don't give a crap about Unix (hey - isn't Windows a shell over another OS? So is OS X!) I don't give a crap about Auqua (oohhh-pretty blue.)

It gives me NOTHING NEW that I can use. All it gives me is a sloooooooow down to my workflow. I rarely crash! So I don't care about protected memory. Slowing down my entire system is not worth the occasional non-crashing feature.

OS X is designed with buzzwords in mind so that computer geeks worldwide can embrace it.

Eventually, it will be an OS for end users, but for now, it's a UNIX shell. UNIX is NOT for end users. It's for geeks who live and breathe computers.

You are not making coherent points toward the specific problems you have with X. What exactly do you find slow about X? Is it the menus? Opening windows? Resizing windows? Opening applications? Switching between apps? Rendering in the background while browsing the web? Copying files while working in FCP?

If you truly believe X is slower in all these things, you aren't viewing the situation realistically. OS X has its strong points and its weaknesses. OS X may not meet all of YOUR particular needs, but that by no means makes it useless.

People like myself LOVE the Unix underpinnings and the total package. Not just for the command line, but for the stability (yes, many of us DO have problems with OS 9's stability), the multi-tasking, the compatibility with the rest of the computing world, the services, Cocoa as a programming language, improved networking, improved Java support, the availability of enterprise-level products (Oracle, Tomcat, Borland products, etc.), not having to set pre-defined memory sizes, not having to mess with extenstions to prevent crashes, Rendevous, not to mention the renewed interested it is generating in the computing world...nerds LOVE it!

In short, the world doesn't revolve around you. You need to look past the fact that some daily activities are arguably more difficult for YOU and start looking at how OS X benefits you and the rest of the Mac community as a whole. If you don't like the way something works, complain about it constructively. Try to make changes. Sitting here, refusing to use OS X and bitching about it and belittling its users is not a productive approach.

Face reality: OS X is the Mac OS of the future. You need to accept that and either try to make it the best OS possible, or switch platforms if you really can't take the change.

The choice is yours. Think about the best coarse of action in this situation.

Taft

Les Kern
Apr 21, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Taft
In short, the world doesn't revolve around you. You need to look past the fact that some daily activities are arguably more difficult for YOU and start looking at how OS X benifits you and the rest of the Mac community as a whole.

But it DOES revolve around him. See, HIS productivity is important to him, not Mac evengelism. I say it's up to the Mac community to help HIM, not berate him. Saying he should buck-up and "take it" because it's good for the Mac community is ridiculous. If X doesn't fill his bill, and WE can't help him, then for now maybe 9 is the answer for him, and shame on us.

Sun Baked
Apr 21, 2003, 04:27 PM
If you run a comparison of the two OS's on single processor computer, there is a good chance that a hoggy application WILL be faster under OS 9.x than OS X.

The multi-threading and multi-processing built into OS X takes up some CPU cycles, and OS X does isolate the programmers from the hardware.

But while you are isolated from the hardware a bit and running a tad slower, you also get a heck a lot of stability allowing you to load more apps -- and run more stuff at the same time. So the user may be multi-tasking in OS X, by doing more at the same time, without worry that the doing something else is either frustrating or will make the big job crash.

---

Toss a second processor into the mix an the machine running OS X pulls ahead, since OS 9 isn't a really good dual CPU platform -- it's locked into specific tasks written to take advantage of the 2nd CPU.

---

But the transition from OS 9 to OS X is a pain, most everyone complained about it until they got used to it. And it does take awhile...

Taft
Apr 21, 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
But it DOES revolve around him. See, HIS productivity is important to him, not Mac evengelism. I say it's up to the Mac community to help HIM, not berate him. Saying he should buck-up and "take it" because it's good for the Mac community is ridiculous. If X doesn't fill his bill, and WE can't help him, then for now maybe 9 is the answer for him, and shame on us.

Strike that, reverse it. If OS 9 is the only thing that works for him right now, that is great! Use it! Be happy!

But he is not coming here saying, "Help me! OS X doesn't fit my need perfectly, and I want it to. What can I do?" He is coming here saying, "OS X is a sham! Its useless! Its slow! It sucks!"

How is that productive? We need to have a rational discussion about what exactly he thinks is wrong with OS X and how we can make it a better OS so he can use it in the future. But all he can deliver is vague hand-waving like "Its twice as SLOW!"

There are good points, and there are bad points. If he is unable to admit there are ANY good reasons to go to OS X, then this will not be a productive conversation. And further, he will likely never convert to OS X because he obviously has his mind made up, irrespective of the facts.

Taft

Jimong5
Apr 21, 2003, 04:49 PM
I have a Dual 867 MDD with a Gig of RAM and a Radeon 9000. I think Its VERY VERY zippy. Everything, even App launching Is near Instant. Even a large app like Photoshop takes only 10 seconds to open. Menus are instant, and IMO X actually feels faster then 9. Another thing I lose In 9 is the second G4, as OS 9 isnt coded to handle Duals, and X is made for them. I can't say how much I love this thing.

Gelfin
Apr 21, 2003, 05:09 PM
I'm gonna be blunt about this: The differences in speed you are reporting are not realistic. You either need to get your G4 repaired under warranty or stop exaggerating to make it seem like your whining has some basis in fact. It does not.

Yes, in OS 9 Finder windows do still generally draw very quickly. The reason for that is that every last bit of processing power your machine has to offer is being devoted exclusively to nothing other than drawing that window on the screen. Classic Mac OS is the only OS I've ever used where opening a menu and holding the mouse button down brings the entire system to an absolute halt.

You may not care about the geek stuff, but you know what? It still affects you, because the people who write the applications you use are geeks. Without getting into the buzzwords you hate, the classic Mac OS is extremely primitive. A primitive OS is a huge pain to develop on. An OS with modern features under the hood means that YOU, the non-techie around whom the world clearly revolves, get more and better applications sooner because the geeks you consider irrelevant aren't sitting around cursing the Mac as a development platform. They're writing software for you to use.

You don't like change, fine. Don't upgrade, use OS 9 and live with the consequences. OS X is here to stay, and on the whole both Apple and their customers are benefitting enormously from it, not just "the geeks."

beatle888
Apr 21, 2003, 06:00 PM
this post again? double poster.

anyway like i said before, whats your problem, if you dont use osx and are happy with os9 then USE IT, and be content. why are you complaining about osx if you already said you dont use. it. fine dont use it, who cares. why are you complaining about something you dont even USE? i dont get it.

Les Kern
Apr 21, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Strike that, reverse it. If OS 9 is the only thing that works for him right now, that is great! Use it! Be happy!

But he is not coming here saying, "Help me! OS X doesn't fit my need perfectly, and I want it to. What can I do?" He is coming here saying, "OS X is a sham! Its useless! Its slow! It sucks!"

How is that productive? We need to have a rational discussion about what exactly he thinks is wrong with OS X and how we can make it a better OS so he can use it in the future. But all he can deliver is vague hand-waving like "Its twice as SLOW!"

There are good points, and there are bad points. If he is unable to admit there are ANY good reasons to go to OS X, then this will not be a productive conversation. And further, he will likely never convert to OS X because he obviously has his mind made up, irrespective of the facts.

Taft

Yep, you're right. I should read my own signature more often!

beatle888
Apr 21, 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by favedave

Fortunately, I won't be forced to use X til at least mid 2004. BY then, maybe it will be useable.


FINE, then why waist your time (which seems soooooo very precisous to you) by complaining about an os that your not going to be using till mid 2004?

ok ive made my point to this silly thread way to many times.

beatle888
Apr 21, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by digitalgiant
Hey dave, if you hate OS X so much then go back to OS 9. Why do you use Jag at all? If its so bad?

Just wondering.

funny thing is, HES NOT USING OSX:D :D :D :D hehehehe. but he sure is mad about it.:p

Flowbee
Apr 21, 2003, 06:17 PM
So many responses to such a obvious troll...


:confused:

bousozoku
Apr 21, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Flowbee
So many responses to such a obvious troll...


:confused:

It was a slow day. :)

Sun Baked
Apr 21, 2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
this post again? double poster. :eek:

I personally don't use turds as a measuring stick, so I didn't catch his double posting. :rolleyes:

No point in arguing with somebody that thinks OS X is slower on a dual GHz machine than OS 9.

Because it's strange that I'm able to get more done on a single CPU 400MHz G4 under OS X, than under OS 9.

--- Maybe in the app he is using, or because he's not used to OS X (but that takes time to get used to).

bennetsaysargh
Apr 21, 2003, 06:30 PM
i want to know what system you are using. im on a 400mhz g3 and snappy in os x
if you think it is slow, you must be on something.

MacPorter
Apr 21, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Flowbee
So many responses to such a obvious troll...


:confused:

I was thinking the same. Always seem to come around when Apple is in the news. Yawn...

macktheknife
Apr 21, 2003, 07:32 PM
I think OS X is truly an amazing OS, considering its rock-solid Unix underpinnings and general stability. Nonetheless, I do see favedave's point about OS X being slow. Generally, my PCs are more responsive and fast. I switched directly to OS X, so I rarely dealt with OS 9 before. Nonetheless, I was forced once to boot into OS 9, and I must admit that it does feel *very* fast compared to OS X. I have spoken with many Macusers personally who have two opinions regarding OS X: 1) It's a pretty cool OS but 2) it's too slow compared to OS 9 and Windows.

scem0
Apr 21, 2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by maradong
I can t understand your point of view. jaguar is so "snappy", the ease of use is xtremly good. Everything is so nice, and best of all everything is based on open source, as well darwin, as the base operating system, freebsd.
It has many advatages, for instance newbies @ computers or technical challenged people learn it really fast.
The file system is the best ever made as it is fully unix compatible and there is no alternative for better right management fs on the world at the moment.


by the way welcome on the boards.

snappy???!?? I love OS X, but it is everything BUT snappy. Mac
OS X's GUI is the SLOWEST ever. I love the OS but it is NOT
snappy. :)

Jimong5
Apr 21, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by scem0
snappy???!?? I love OS X, but it is everything BUT snappy. Mac
OS X's GUI is the SLOWEST ever. I love the OS but it is NOT
snappy. :)

not on my dual 867 G4... :D;):D

kansaigaijin
Apr 21, 2003, 08:17 PM
booted OS9 yesterday to do some backing up to an old unsupported USB drive.
Had multiple freeze ups requiring complete restarts. That has never happened in more than 1 year of using OSX.

nothing at all confusing about the OSX filesytem or finder.

rainman::|:|
Apr 21, 2003, 08:24 PM
if X sucks so much, why does everyone but you love it? obviously to the majority of people, either OS X is better, or 9 sucks more. Either way, speak for yourself. Obviously X is more than fast enough for many people in many professions, including evidently yours. I know I do a LOT of work on my iMac and i would never go back to 9.

pnw

favedave
Apr 21, 2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
For perceived speed, Mac OS 9.x is much faster. The Finder is multi-threaded and there is the pico kernel, so response seems more than adequate.

In actuality, Mac OS 9.x is quite a bit slower than Mac OS X, esp. 10.2.x, where more than one task is running at a time.

I only worked with one application at a time when, and rarely even then, when Mac OS 9.x was the active operating system. I would imagine that most of us do not work on one application at a time and benefit greatly from what Mac OS X has given us.

You've gone from saying that you have plenty of RAM, which you do, to transfer us to your friend who probably doesn't. Stay on course, please. If she doesn't have enough RAM, the new machine will seem slower.

Windows NT, 2000, and XP are not a shell over another OS and neither is Mac OS X.

Perhaps, because you don't care about such matters, you simply lash out without trying to understand anything or to get professional help.

You've obviously spent a lot of money without understanding what makes a computer fast. Perhaps, you listened to the advice of someone who didn't understand either and that person influenced your decision. I don't know but I can tell you that Mac OS X is not the slowest and nanosecond to nanosecond, is not slower overall than Mac OS 9.x

You should also be happy at changes coming to the Finder. It will give you the perceived speed you so vocally crave.

You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME.

You only use one program at a time. I have plenty of programs open and I switch back and forth as I need them. OS X does not change or improve this in any way.

And my friend had MORE RAM on the OS X machine than on the OS 9 machine. She had 760 megs of RAM on the OS X machine. Even typing in the WP was slower....

it's amazing the lengths people go to in order to defend having to shell out money for an OS that simply is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT. It's like people defending religion when you point out that if there were no religion than those people would never have run two airplanes into the world trade center.

Not a shell? Hello? It's BASED ON UNIX. duh?!?!

favedave
Apr 21, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by digitalgiant
Hey dave, if you hate OS X so much then go back to OS 9. Why do you use Jag at all? If its so bad?

Just wondering.

I don't use it. I tried it and trashed it.

I'm just really disappointed about my favorite computer company making such a bonehead OS.

MacPorter
Apr 21, 2003, 08:46 PM
Anybody watch "Mr. Personality" tonight?

A human being can only do one thing at a time? Ya' can't type a post while working in Photoshop? Oye!

Again, yawn...

Let's close this puppy.

Jimong5
Apr 21, 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by favedave
You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME.

I can't believe how stupid people are responding to my post. Come on! You can't really be this stupid! You only use one program at a time. I have plenty of programs open and I switch back and forth as I need them. OS X does not change or improve this in any way.


Wrongo. If you listen to music in iTunes, Play a QT movie, or render something in Photoshop. They keep going in X, but studder to a halt in OS 9. heck, in 9, you click a menu, and everything, even THE CLOCK studders to a halt. Care to tell me how this is Better? I play WarCraft 3, and frequently go into window to check on another application. Should I freeze the Game and leave others hanging?(like in 9) or should It be kicked over to the other G4 while my other task is executed?(like in X) the point is that apps shouldnt die when i change the frontmost one. and when playing WC in full screen, OS 9 CANT CHANGE THE VOLUME because the finder is locked in the background.

Gelfin
Apr 21, 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by favedave
You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME.

I can't believe how stupid people are responding to my post. Come on! You can't really be this stupid!

Yes, of course, anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is in fact an idiot, because the way you do things is obviously the best way to do anything, bar none... but what about when you've got a kind of long Photoshop filter executing, or for us irrelevant and stupid geek-types, for when we're building a large software project, as I'm doing right now, while typing this post?

We use computers because the computer does some things for us. There's no reason the computer shouldn't be able to do those things well in the background freeing the user to go ahead with other things that do require his direct attention. Mac OS 9 simply does not do that sort of thing very well, because it was originally designed fundamentally to do only one thing at a time. Any application other than the one you're typing in right now suffers from that primitive design.

it's amazing the lengths people go to in order to defend (...)

Please don't tell me my motivations. I've been using OS X since public beta, suffering through far worse bugs and performance problems than you're snivelling about now, because this is the OS I've been waiting for somebody to make for years, and Apple's finally done it. Call me biased, because I am, but don't start attributing weird psychological conditions to me just because I don't agree with the likes of you.

Not a shell? Hello? It's BASED ON UNIX. duh?!?!

For a non-techie, you seem to be really confident that your technical claims aren't incredibly shallow and uninformed.

bousozoku
Apr 21, 2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by favedave
You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME.

I can't believe how stupid people are responding to my post. Come on! You can't really be this stupid! You only use one program at a time. I have plenty of programs open and I switch back and forth as I need them. OS X does not change or improve this in any way.

And my friend had MORE RAM on the OS X machine than on the OS 9 machine. She had 760 megs of RAM on the OS X machine. Even typing in the WP was slower....

it's amazing the lengths people go to in order to defend having to shell out money for an OS that simply is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT. It's like people defending religion when you point out that if there were no religion than those people would never have run two airplanes into the world trade center.

Not a shell? Hello? It's BASED ON UNIX. duh?!?!

It's not just based on UNIX, it is UNIX with a GUI front end. It's understandable that you have a lack of knowledge about computers. It's as much UNIX as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and System V. Calling it a shell is incorrect. You can say that it contains various shells for use or that Win3.x, Win95, Win98, or WinMe were shells on top of DOS. Actually, those versions of Windows were Operating Environments, not shells.

Perhaps, you don't even realise that you do more than one thing at a time. Perhaps, your consious self is only working on one thing at a time, which shows great concentration, but in the background, you're thinking of other things. I happen to listen to music or the t.v. while I'm programming, chatting with buddies, and doing research.

If you sit there waiting for Photoshop filters to finish and don't do something else (since your machine is so slow) you're wasting your precious time. I'm sure even you would know that most Photoshop filters are not accelerated on a G4. The Guassian Blur and Unsharp Mask are two examples of accelerated filters. Perhaps, you only work on very small files, so you've never noticed.

760 MB of RAM on a machine that only supports 640 MB? That's hard to believe. Your friend has a very, very unique iBook 600. Once again, you show your lack of knowledge. If you don't agree that it's a lack of knowledge, then, perhaps, it's all just a big story on your part.

In any case, calling people stupid tends to make you look smaller than you already are.

G4scott
Apr 21, 2003, 09:58 PM
Tell me, what did you do in 9.2 when exporting a large movie, spooling a large file to be printed, and worked on an open document? Oh wait, you couldn't do this with OS 9... OS 10 has advanced multitasking. The speed may not feel snappier, and that is mainly because the Unix underpinnings are split up into a million files scattered all over your hard disk, but the majority of users are able to do more because of its advanced archeticture... A force quit doesn't bring down the whole system...

Also, make sure you have plenty of RAM. That usually helps.

And before you shoot me down by saying you can do more than one thing at a time, remember that some things take time, and they can run in the background, allowing you do work on other stuff...

G4scott
Apr 21, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by favedave
You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME.

I can't believe how stupid people are responding to my post. Come on! You can't really be this stupid! You only use one program at a time. I have plenty of programs open and I switch back and forth as I need them. OS X does not change or improve this in any way.

And my friend had MORE RAM on the OS X machine than on the OS 9 machine. She had 760 megs of RAM on the OS X machine. Even typing in the WP was slower....

it's amazing the lengths people go to in order to defend having to shell out money for an OS that simply is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT. It's like people defending religion when you point out that if there were no religion than those people would never have run two airplanes into the world trade center.

Not a shell? Hello? It's BASED ON UNIX. duh?!?!

Where's alphatech when ya need him?

OK, look mr. If you want to get a good answer, don't post like a troll. It gets you nowhere. If you are a pee-cee troll, go the ***** back now. We don't need people like you here wasting bandwidth and space on arn's server with your stupid ******** complaints.

OS X is an improvement. Like it or not.

The vast majority of the people here use multitasking. You use multitasking.

OS X makes life easier for video professionals, audio pro's and other people who depend on their computers to make a living.

Now, tell us what your specific problems are, or just shut the ***** up and go away. This is MacRumors, a Mac forum, where we discuss Macs, not bash them. Feel free to discuss the bad points, but don't complain like a little b¡tch. It will get you nowhere...

Sun Baked
Apr 21, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by favedave
You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME. I guess you do not want to do anything BUT go get a cut of coffee while a big job is chewing away in the background, or a critical file is downloading, etc.

This has been a problem with the Classic OS for a long time, and a big flag the Windows crowd has been saying is the "point and laugh option" under the classic Mac OS.

At least now I know why he posted in the "Slower than a frozen turd" thread, OS X may interfere with the critical OS 9 "workflow" -- ie. the bowel movement, coffee chugging, and cig smoking parts of having OS 9 in your life.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=158571

beatle888
Apr 21, 2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by favedave
" You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME."


oh man your making this really easy. i cant believe you even said that.:rolleyes: man you really dont know what your talking about...this is now my favorite thread. it gives me the most entertainment i think ive ever experienced here at macrumors. oh man. and the way you capped off the statement...:rolleyes: please continue.

Jimong5
Apr 21, 2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
Originally posted by favedave
" You're missing my point. A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIME. YOU CANNOT TYPE THIS POST AND WORK IN PHOTOSHOP AT THE SAME TIME."


oh man your making this really easy. i cant believe you even said that.:rolleyes: man you really dont know what your talking about...this is now my favorite thread. it gives me the most entertainment i think ive ever experienced here at macrumors. oh man. and the way you capped off the statement...:rolleyes: please continue.

that makes 7 flames to this guys point :D:D:D:D

Rower_CPU
Apr 22, 2003, 12:45 AM
Let's shut this down before it goes any farther...