Mac OS 9 and Powerbooks [Archive]

voicegy

Jan 12, 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by dethl
The education part of the Apple store offers the ability to boot into OS 9 and X until the end of June. Only eMac, iBook, and CRT iMacs are involved with this promotion.

Yes, thank goodness for that. Our Apple rep contacted me in November to gather data regarding problems that schools may encounter if forced to boot in X only, and I gave him a lot of reasons to extend this. Heck, there's machines out there runnin' 7.6.1, 8.6 and 9.0.3 and lots of little software that some schools count on to run on those older platforms. Apple realized that.

I don't know how much buyin' will be going on here in California schools for the foreseeable future, though. Y'all may have heard that the state is 30 odd billion in debt...trickled down, that means my district alone has been hit with 60 million less this year and next year. The cuts of personnel have already begun...:(

alset

Jan 12, 2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Choppaface
why exactly does apple need to do this? to get more money out of people? :rolleyes: so much for optimum photoshop performance, using any functional yet not modern scanner, printing with proper color controls, etc etc.... at least you can still get a 1ghz model that will do it... hopefully there will be some sort of hack. why not just wait until the next hardware update? :\

Try looking at it as Apple saving development costs. I still use 9 for some apps, myself. It's a shame that I have to put up with the hassle, but maybe this will encourage the stragglers to push their apps a little further.

Remember how pissed everyone was when Apple released G3s that didn't support Serial and SCSI? Now you have external devices that support USB and FireWire. Apple wasn't first to market with USB, but they were the first company to make it the only option. I say we should thank them.

Dan

rainman::|:|

Jan 12, 2003, 02:18 AM

lets face it, 9 is dead in apple's eyes and moving on can only make sense. i realize a lot of people have older peripherals, but they probably have done a peripheral life-cycle study to determine the best time for most users to be able to support X exclusively. And as for programs, complaining that a lot of 9 apps haven't been ported to X, and then complaining when Apple moves to push developers *to* port to X, doesn't make a lot of sense. whenever you make a big change like this, there's going to be a period of hardship, but in the end everything works out much better than before.

:)
pnw

skotmiller

Jan 12, 2003, 03:35 AM

You couldn't pay me to use OS 9. I just hope MOTU updates real soon. I feel bad for my friends. As for Quark, already replaced ;)

.SKOT

macomposer

Jan 12, 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by voicegy

I don't know how much buyin' will be going on here in California schools for the foreseeable future, though. Y'all may have heard that the state is 30 odd billion in debt...trickled down, that means my district alone has been hit with 60 million less this year and next year. The cuts of personnel have already begun...:(

Yeah, such budget problems are everywhere. I administrate a music technology lab in a large public university (one of the 10 largest in the country, in fact), and what are we using? A dozen 333MHz old-school CRT iMacs, maxed out at 288MB RAM and mired in OS9.

With the current economic situation, there's no chance of getting the $15K needed to load the lab with fresh new machines capable of functioning efficiently in OS X. Nonetheless, we are totally committed to the Mac platform because of the software we use (Pro Tools, Max/MSP, Finale, etc.) Of course, beyond the expense of new machines, is the cost of new software to make the switch to X. We're screwed.

It's not our fault, and it's not Apple's fault, and least of all the developers' fault, that our loyalty to Macs keeps us working in OS9. It's the fault of the state legislature and our hellish economy. I've gladly made the jump to X on my personal machines, as have the rest of our music technology faculty.

Continuing support of OS9 in the education sector is a wise move by Apple, as long as the economy is s***.

Arcady

Jan 12, 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by macomposer

A dozen 333MHz old-school CRT iMacs, maxed out at 288MB RAM and mired in OS9.

How can your iMacs be "maxed out" when they don't have the 512MB RAM required to do so? You know the lower 32MB SO-DIMM is removeable, right? :D

Kheraha

Jan 12, 2003, 08:58 AM

I too admire the stance taken by Apple as far as booting only into X goes, however, there is a little problem with that for some of us. I, along with many others upgraded to X from 9 and with that ugrade, I also upgraded many of my apps. Sadly, many of these X upgrades (apps) need the original 9 version to be on the drive before they will load etc - now I realise that some can be loaded through Classic and that Office X has a workaround for this, but what about those apps that need the full 9 version and cant be loaded through Classic - I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades? Are there any workarounds for this? I also have a full suite of Adobe apps that are the upgrades (PS7, ID2, Ill10 etc). Anybody have any views on this?

Kheraha

Telomar

Jan 12, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Kheraha
I too admire the stance taken by Apple as far as booting only into X goes, however, there is a little problem with that for some of us. I, along with many others upgraded to X from 9 and with that ugrade, I also upgraded many of my apps. Sadly, many of these X upgrades (apps) need the original 9 version to be on the drive before they will load etc - now I realise that some can be loaded through Classic and that Office X has a workaround for this, but what about those apps that need the full 9 version and cant be loaded through Classic - I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades? Are there any workarounds for this? I also have a full suite of Adobe apps that are the upgrades (PS7, ID2, Ill10 etc). Anybody have any views on this?

If you have another comp you can network them and do it that way but I would suggest talking to Apple about one. They probably didn't think much about that unfortunately.

Trekkie

Jan 12, 2003, 11:28 AM

I really feel for the schools that can't upgrade due to costs and the current dismal lack of funding from every state. I live in Kansas and the words CUT and EDUCATION are used every five seconds around here.

Funny how you never hear CUT and ELECTED PERSON salary, you only here the regular worker and the kids getting bent over, but that's another discussion.

I'm very happy OS X is moving forward, but then, I'm not a lifelong mac user, I've just recently switched to Mac OS X (hey, ads worked) in July of 2002.

However, I did use/service Macintosh machines from '94 - '97 so I do remember and love Mac OS 6 (back when it was just Macintosh), OS 7, 7.5, and 8. I remember when 8 came out, dragging folders over one to copy and they just opened. Very cool (heh)

I really hope this forces the vendors out there on the fence to move forward with OS X. I am a unix geek and a server admin by trade so I really am comfortable with the Unix underpinnings of OS X and I have fun getting server programs such as Apache, Tomcat, MySQL to run on my powerbook. (g4 550).

I'm trying to convince the wife the 12" is for me. I love the 15" screen but it doesn't fit well in my camera backpak, and the 5 hr battery life of the Apple machines vs. the 1.1 hr battery life I seem to get with Intel machines (Use a Thinkpad for work) makes me just love this platform.

Though the lack of the PCMCIA card is disturbing. How am I going to easily (easily = no 6 ft cord to go 1 ft) copy my Microdrives from my camera over?? Where is my bluetooth CF reader!

locovaca

Jan 12, 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Trekkie
Though the lack of the PCMCIA card is disturbing. How am I going to easily (easily = no 6 ft cord to go 1 ft) copy my Microdrives from my camera over?? Where is my bluetooth CF reader!

You should go with a Firewire CF reader- it actually exists, and would be infinitely faster than one that worked on bluetooth. You'll see the same speeds as with a PCMCIA reader. Take a look at this one (http://www.sybercom.com/cgi-bin/sybercom/crcw011001.html?mv_pc=PriceWatch)

NitroPye

Jan 12, 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by springscansing
Hey.. Apple had to do it sometime. Now.. I use OS 9 daily for audio work, Classic doesn't cut it. So does this mean I can't get a new powerbook? Yep. Am I disappointed? No way.

Blaim lack of osx apps ported over or rewritten on the developers... they are being a touch sluggish on the switch , hence why the lack of os9 booting, if as soon as osx came out all apps were brought over then apple would have no need to do this

PsiFire

Jan 12, 2003, 12:38 PM

I think part of this OS X push is aslo for the switchers.

Honestly I'm new to the Mac as of this last June. I saw OS X and fell in love with it, not to mention the stylish white case and perfect size of the small iBook.

To be Frank, OS 9 always confused me. So I tend to spend as little time in it as possible, only having Classic activte when I install a game here and there and booting into OS 9 once, when the Sims install disc was being odd. I know a good lot of other people like me, who broke their teeth onto Macs in OS X only. While I understand a sizable portion of the userbase needs 9 for profession functioning; on the other side of the coin are the millions of little guys like me who want to keep things as simple as possible. That's what X does. X is amazingly simple and provides a more intutavie interface for those of us with no Mac experience.

While developers may be slow to catch on, weary of change and what it means in this economy, applications for the Education and Professional market may be slow in coming. But this is the chance that is taken when a company ,like Apple, stands on the edge of innovation always pushing forward.

gotohamish

Jan 12, 2003, 12:38 PM

I think Apple is going to keep the other macs available, but try to lure them with the very cool new hardware.

The existing 1.25 machine is the last of the current connectivity of powermacs - aside from faster ethernet, the connectivity is the same at the very first G4s - this will not se so with the next wave (bluetooth, FireWire800 etc) so come May/June when people think they should play it safe and get the 9-compatible machine - they will feel even worse about it as the 'current' proper PowerMac offerings will show SO MUCH more life - it might force them to upgrade to X.

I hope so anyway!:D

MasterX (OSiX)

Jan 12, 2003, 12:46 PM

If a slimmer ROM makes the machines faster in OSX I can see an advantage to the consumer immediately.

If all macs boot into OSX, those "laggards" will be forced to recode (not actually that hard to go to Carbon, from what I hear) or give up (which would be the BAD thing).

Apple has had all the tools needed to get your apps working in OSX since 1999 with the developer previews. I know something like MOTU must be huge, but how many YEARS does it take? IMHO I think most developers seem to want to push OSX as a feature, not a patch (which was done in the early 10.0/pre-10.0 days.)

I know a lot of people use apps which used to be popular, or never were and are just less expensive, and others use apps which weren't supported for a while.

As for the upgrade thing, since you're only allowed one running installed copy of Apple's software there's no reason for them to make pirating FCP easier. Perhaps (like Adobe) you can put in the origional CD for FCP2? I don't know. Personally I was waiting for FCP4, but FCE fits my needs, so I'll be putting down the $149 for the educational version any day now.

It's too bad the OSX transition will leave some people REALLY in the dust, especially the niche markets. Will there be a MacOS X driver for an Iris or Gclay pritner? I dunno, they charge $10,000 per unit, so you would think so.....

As for the printers not having correct color control (and in my experience with my EPSON lack of edge-to-edge printing) i think it's a driver issue now. In OS9 the drivers were much harder to code, but some people (EPSON in particular) took it upon themselves to write speciailized drivers for OSX, not ideal, but they work. As for scanners, I don't know what you're talking about. Jaguar has a finalized version of TWAIN in it, so it's the same deal as with OS9 to make drivers. In my Epson 2450's case the built-in drivers would be better if they supported the TPU. Too bad, I'll have to use Epson's downloadable drivers for a while now.

Hopefully OSX-only booting will help us see those people with software/hardware which won't work in Classic working to create a real OSX-transition plan.

locovaca

Jan 12, 2003, 01:06 PM

It's no different than when Microsoft switched to the NT/2k codebase for XP- it forced many companies who were lazy and relied on only 98/ME drivers to update them for 2k/XP. I have a WinTV card that was just atrocious under 2k, and they ignored user's pleas for a proper driver that would make tv watching bearable. But, when Microsoft said, "No more, you will write XP drivers," they finally got their act together. Some people may kick and scream, but in the end, it's the kick in the butt most companies need.

macomposer

Jan 12, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Arcady

How can your iMacs be "maxed out" when they don't have the 512MB RAM required to do so? You know the lower 32MB SO-DIMM is removeable, right? :D

Sorry, that was sloppy late-night writing on my part. We've reached our effective maximum RAM for the same reason we are stuck in OS9: lack of money. According to Crucial and other RAM sites, the 256MB chips are going for nearly $100 each, will little in the way of an education discount to help. Still, with the current economic situation, we could not get them if they were only $10 each.

In fact, one of the iMacs has a dead hard drive, and we've been going through war trying to get $75 to get it replaced. The administration does not want to spend money in upgrades or repairs on old technology that should be replaced soon, yet they also give no assurances that it actually will be replaced.

I guess I am supposed to just reach into my butt and pull out hard drives and RAM. The only guy I ever saw do that was Data on Star Trek.

avkills

Jan 12, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Kheraha
I too admire the stance taken by Apple as far as booting only into X goes, however, there is a little problem with that for some of us. I, along with many others upgraded to X from 9 and with that ugrade, I also upgraded many of my apps. Sadly, many of these X upgrades (apps) need the original 9 version to be on the drive before they will load etc - now I realise that some can be loaded through Classic and that Office X has a workaround for this, but what about those apps that need the full 9 version and cant be loaded through Classic - I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades? Are there any workarounds for this? I also have a full suite of Adobe apps that are the upgrades (PS7, ID2, Ill10 etc). Anybody have any views on this?

Kheraha

I only have OS X on my iBook and this is how I did the FCP3 upgrade:

I installed OS9 on my iPod and then installed FCP1.2.5 on my iPod as well. Obviously a older computer will be needed to do this step, but that should not be a problem.

Since the FCP3 upgrade only looks to see whether you have a valid older version of FCP installed, it works. The FCP3 installer will find it on the iPod and do the install.

It is a major pain in the butt, but it works. I have been OS9 free on my iBook for almost a year, in fact the first thing I did was re-partition the HD and start over from scratch.

-mark

bbarker

Jan 12, 2003, 03:14 PM

I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades?

I had been holding off on buying a new PowerBook until I found out through Apple Support that you can order a full install version of FCP 3 for OS X for $20. All you need to do is fax Apple proof of purchase of your original full install CD. I also got the 1.5 upgrade of DVD SP, albeit for $200, but it is also a full install CD. Apple has thought about this, but they just don't promote it much. For a mere $220, I can now put all my video production apps on my new 17" PB when it arrives. Not too bad.

bbarker

medea

Jan 12, 2003, 04:12 PM

This is a smart move for Apple, and like it or not if you want to use and support Apple in the future it's going to be through OS X, developers need to get on the ball already and finish porting software over, I mean where the hell is Xpress already....

pyrotoaster

Jan 12, 2003, 05:14 PM

We all knew this was going to happen. The sad part is that OS 9 was so young when OS X began to steal its thunder. I'll admit that I upgraded to ten about a month after 10.0 was released (although I was ignorant enough to not realize that it would kill my Cable internet), but I also think that OS 9 is unjustly being killed.

It was really unfortunate that 10.0 had to come out when OS 9.1 was the major Mac OS. This made sure that 9 wouldn't have the chance to die of old age, but would surely be killed by SJ. I know this isn't as simple as 8.6 to 9.0, but OS 9 had a very short life, and that's why Apple has had such a hard time killing it.

I also want to point out that I've seen three different schools, in two different districts, all running OS 9.1 or earlier on their Macs. One of those Schools (which happens to be its own district), primarily uses PCs (lots of Dells... :mad: ), but recently purchased two new eMacs, which they have operating on OS 9, not Jaguar.
The problem with the schools is simple. The people who manage the computers generally don't know Macs, so it's a stretch for them to keep OS 9 in working order. The thought of a new OS is strange to these people (I'm guessing on that one), so they avoid it at all costs.

It's a bold move to kill OS 9 like this, but I can't say that I blame SJ for doing so. There are many good reasons (many of which have already been brought up in this thread), but there are still some reasons not to, especially in the education area. But I don't know any schools buying Powerbooks. So it isn't a problem there, yet.

bmull

Jan 12, 2003, 07:30 PM

I am the Technology Director on a K-8 school where we run all Macs. I would switch to OS X school wide in half a heart beat if it weren't for one thing...a lot of the software elementary schools use have not been ported to X yet. Yes we have AppleWorks, etc., but two of the most popular pieces of software for elementary schools have not made the switch yet (Hyperstudio and KidPix). I will not run X and classic. So, I am waiting. Once those two switch over, I'll be jumping on the X transition.

MisterMe

Jan 12, 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
We all knew this was going to happen. The sad part is that OS 9 was so young when OS X began to steal its thunder. I'll admit that I upgraded to ten about a month after 10.0 was released (although I was ignorant enough to not realize that it would kill my Cable internet), but I also think that OS 9 is unjustly being killed.

....
Just exactly how did MacOS X 10.0 "kill" your Cable internet? Most cable ISPs use DHCP to configure your system. Apple supports DHCP. My cable modem ISPs implementation of DHCP is actually superior to the implemention at work. I have used every shipping version of MacOS X from 10.0 to 10.2.3 to access the Internet via cable modem. I am using it now.

pyrotoaster

Jan 12, 2003, 08:54 PM

My Cable ISP was AT&T Broadband.
They told me that their service wasn't OS X compatable, and I couldn't get it to work myself.

It's alright, AT&T Cable Internet suffered major problems and reorganization a few months later. I have Earthlink DSL now, it isn't as fast, but the service is reliable.

skotmiller

Jan 12, 2003, 09:04 PM

AT&T discontinued support for their old modems and did not tell their customers. I had the same problem. Technicians were at my house at least once a week. One of them finally told me to get a new modem. Service has been good (not great) since then.

Pedro Estarque

Jan 12, 2003, 10:39 PM

Apple must go OSX only, but we need a better classic mode.I'm a professional Photographer and just bought FinePixProS2 from fuji.The shooting software doesn't run in OSX nor does it work in classic mode. So I just had to go back to OS9 and remember ( with no nostalgy at all ) the days of constant crashes and out of memory messages.
Apple should build in 10.3 a better classic support, and maybe even share some of the aqua interface.They did a much better job, as someone stated before, with X11 then they did with classic.

bretm

Jan 12, 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Kheraha
I too admire the stance taken by Apple as far as booting only into X goes, however, there is a little problem with that for some of us. I, along with many others upgraded to X from 9 and with that ugrade, I also upgraded many of my apps. Sadly, many of these X upgrades (apps) need the original 9 version to be on the drive before they will load etc - now I realise that some can be loaded through Classic and that Office X has a workaround for this, but what about those apps that need the full 9 version and cant be loaded through Classic - I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades? Are there any workarounds for this? I also have a full suite of Adobe apps that are the upgrades (PS7, ID2, Ill10 etc). Anybody have any views on this?

Kheraha

Adobe does not require that any of it's products be on the system to install an upgrade. Neither does Macromedia. When switching machines, I tried too to keep OS9 off teh system. The ONLY app that required the previous version to be installed was Final Cut Pro. Not the entinre Adobe Suite or Macromedia's Suite. Pretty ironic. I sympathize with you there on FCP.

I think I would call Apple Computer and ask them exactly how you're supposed to install your FCP upgrade on your new Powerbook. i'm going to guess that the issue can be resolved with some sort of installer patch which will most likely show up on the FCP page before the notebooks are shipped.

bretm

Jan 12, 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by bmull
I am the Technology Director on a K-8 school where we run all Macs. I would switch to OS X school wide in half a heart beat if it weren't for one thing...a lot of the software elementary schools use have not been ported to X yet. Yes we have AppleWorks, etc., but two of the most popular pieces of software for elementary schools have not made the switch yet (Hyperstudio and KidPix). I will not run X and classic. So, I am waiting. Once those two switch over, I'll be jumping on the X transition.

If those apps run in classic I'd make the switch. Less kids complaining that they had to reboot or that the system has frozen.

When OS9 apps lock up in classic, classic just reboots. You don't have to reboot X or the sytem. And on my new dual, classic boots in 10 seconds.

MisterMe

Jan 13, 2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
My Cable ISP was AT&T Broadband.
They told me that their service wasn't OS X compatable, and I couldn't get it to work myself.

It's alright, AT&T Cable Internet suffered major problems and reorganization a few months later. I have Earthlink DSL now, it isn't as fast, but the service is reliable.
Congratulations on the switch to Earthlink. My ISP is Cox Internet. Cox switched to DOCSIS cable modems and introduced an issue with MacOS X. The workaround is to cut the power to the modem for 30 seconds and force it to get a new IP address. Then everything is kosher.

Cox now explicitly supports only versions of Windows. The company's web site states that it does not support the Mac or Linux. However, I don't care. I don't need its support. I need its connection. So long as it uses standard protocols like DHCP, then I will be fine.

john123

Jan 13, 2003, 01:18 AM

Some of you say X is easier to use and understand than 9...I think it's the opposite, but I guess it's all about what you learned first and best.

My biggest beef with OS X is that it's noticeably slower. For the person who started in X and remained that way, I guess he/she has no real basis for comparison. But in everyday tasks -- especially pilfering around in the Finder -- 9 has X beat hands-down. Apple's advice, of course, would be to get the newest hardware, but all that does is speed up BOTH 9 and X. On my PB1Ghz/SD, 9 is still considerably faster than X, and that is the one thing that cools my jets on getting a 17" model for myself.

backspinner

Jan 13, 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by john123
But in everyday tasks -- especially pilfering around in the Finder -- 9 has X beat hands-down.
Not for me - I would be stuck in searching for the column view button.

HalimC

Jan 13, 2003, 08:24 AM

I'v heard a lot about hostility and resentment towards Apple over the dropping of support of OS 9 on new hardware.

I think there are a few points people that are complaining need to realize:

You can continue to run OS 9 on your systems already running OS 9. Apple is never going to disable this. If you don't want to switch your existing systems to OS X, don't. Nobody, especially Apple, is going to force you to do this.

Mac OS X is simply a natural evolution in the life of operating systems on the Mac platform. Why didn't you write and complain to Apple that your G3 systems didn't run OS 7? What about OS 6?

Try installing a Microsoft OS like Windows 95 on current PC hardware. It will NOT work. It is a simple issue of driver support. Why waste resources upgradiing an OS that has been declared dead for some time now?

If you have legacy applications that require OS 9, you can either run them in classic, or pressure the manufacturer to update their software for OS X, as most responsible companies have already done. If software is not availble in OS X, try looking for alternatives rather than giving up and blaming Apple. Software companies should realize by now that they are going to lose customers if they don't support OS X.

I've been using OS X for nearly 2 years now as my full time OS, and I could never go back to OS 9. It would not only kill my productivity, but it would probably have forced me to buy a Windows system if I had to continue using OS 9.

Technology changes. OS X is in, and OS 9 is on its way out. Apple is doing the right thing here. If you're not on the OS X bandwagon, you're the one that is going to miss out, not Apple.

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by HalimC
Try installing a Microsoft OS like Windows 95 on current PC hardware. It will NOT work. It is a simple issue of driver support. Why waste resources upgradiing an OS that has been declared dead for some time now?

Not true. It will install. You may not have accellerated drivers, but the default drivers will still work. If I wanted to, I can install Windows 3.1 and Dos 6.2 on a brand new Dell and nobody would care.

The issue is not that Apple has declared OS 9 dead. It's that they've artificially made new systems unable to run it. Everyone would be understanding if, when the new 970s come out, OS 9 was physically unable to run on them (which wouldn't happen hypothetically, because the 970 will run 32bit code natively). If a super large company wants the newest hardware and still run OS 9, if they're willing to write or adapt drivers to support the new GeForce FXs, Airport Extreme, etc., I say go for it. But nobody can have that opportunity because Apple artificially limited it instead of letting it die on its own.

jefhatfield

Jan 13, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by insidedanshead
It is going to need to happen sometime though.. but I know as a design professional there are some things we still need to boot into 9 for... (i.e. printing)

quark express isn't osx compatible yet, right?

and how about os x and scanner support?

os x still has a ways to go to become apple's only os...but then again, windows xp hasn't exactly replaced windows 98/ME/or 2000

nighthawk

Jan 13, 2003, 02:24 PM

Switching from SCSI to IDE and USB the smartest thing that Apple could have done at the time...

1) SCSI cost more (both hard disks and controllers) -- better profit margin.
2) IDE is more reliable (less drive failures) -- which meant less Applecare repairs.
3) IDE was faster than standard SCSI. At that time IDE was overtaking SCSI speeds except for the even more expensive Ultra40/80 SCSI. Controllers for that were over $300, and you could not justify the cost in including it in a machine (except as an add-on option).

Being that this was one of the first things that Steve Jobs did (besides the iMac), this was one of the major ways that Apple started recovering financially. Now, we have OS9 in the same position, and when it is completely dead (in Apples eyes) when the June contract with older machines is finished...

1) 90 days after last machine ships, Apple Support will no longer support OS9 with free support calls (paying support only). Less training required for support staff, etc...
2) No more development (as of I think 6 months ago) of OS9 -- all eggs in the OSX basket.
3) Cool new hardware that does not need to support two OS's. For example, the backlit keyboard controls and ambient light sensor only needs to be added the the OSX controls.
4) All new software will only run in OSX... for example Appleworks or the rumored Microsoft Office competition -- a majorly upgraded Office suite (with Keynote included).
5) Removes the hardware limits of the computers... especially when the 64bit IBM 970 comes out, it will allow larger hard drives are more main system memory... OS9 was limited to 1.5gb of memory (2gb theoritical) and would remain that way until for all 32bit systems.

I see it as all good... and refering back to the car analogy, the MacOSX is a new type of engine that runs on a new type of fuel. Apple developed engines that would support the old fuel and the new, but now that the resources are in place to support the new fuel has decided that it is FINANCIALLY more sound to support only the new fuel in future models.

eric_n_dfw

Jan 13, 2003, 02:52 PM

To the person who said you can install Win95 on a new PC:

Yes, you might be able to, but if you will not be able to use USB and probably will have a 640x480x256 screen resolution and no sound. (Same with NT 4)

And I think Apple had gone to IDE hard drives before Job's came on, didn't they?

nighthawk

Jan 13, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
And I think Apple had gone to IDE hard drives before Job's came on, didn't they? [/B]

They have had internal IDE hard drives in their consumer line (Performa) for a few years (although even they had external SCSI support). It wasn't until the Blue & White G3 tower came out that the pro machines had IDE and completely removed SCSI support from the motherboard.

jefhatfield

Jan 13, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
To the person who said you can install Win95 on a new PC:

Yes, you might be able to, but if you will not be able to use USB and probably will have a 640x480x256 screen resolution and no sound. (Same with NT 4)

And I think Apple had gone to IDE hard drives before Job's came on, didn't they?

actually you can use windows 95/revision C with usb 1.0 and code the rest to make it compatible with usb 1.1

i am an MCP for windows nt so i don't know 95 perfectly, but there are hacks on the internet that can make windows 95 work with a 900 mhz PIII (rather recent pc) from what i know from a friend of mine who had his CIO of his company make that machine work with windows 95/revision C

sure, it's not easy and it takes an expert (in this case an mcse who is also a great programmer) but it is, in a sense, do-able

but in most instances, windows 95, or 95 revision A, will not work with most pentium 4 class pcs...there will be issues if you know what i mean:p

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
To the person who said you can install Win95 on a new PC:

Yes, you might be able to, but if you will not be able to use USB and probably will have a 640x480x256 screen resolution and no sound. (Same with NT 4)

Yes, you've proven my point. You can do it. You can't install OS 9 on a new powerbook. Nobody is debating that Windows wouldn't be running ideally on a 2003 Dell. OS 9 may not run ideally on a PPC 970, but it is technically possible. Apple, in their quest to be the hand of god and control everything, artificially disabled support for OS 9 on powerbooks. That is why people are upset. Not because OS 9 became naturally obsolete due to developer support or a major hardware change, but because Apple just decided it was so.

(and Nvidia still supports windows 95 and NT 4. SB Live drivers exist for both 95 and NT. But that's not the point here)

Phil Of Mac

Jan 13, 2003, 10:50 PM

Apple is not "artifically disabling" support for Mac OS 9. They're removing extraneous OS 9 support from the firmware and the ROMs so that everything's more efficient.

We heard the same uproar when our beloved ADB, serial and SCSI was lacking in the original iMac. "Waah, my MacAlly Ergonomic Extended Keyboard won't work anymore! I can't use my old scanner or printer!" Get over it. Apple needs to push the envelope and innovate. If you want new hardware, get new software, and get on the damn boat already!

locovaca

Jan 14, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Apple is not "artifically disabling" support for Mac OS 9. They're removing extraneous OS 9 support from the firmware and the ROMs so that everything's more efficient.

We heard the same uproar when our beloved ADB, serial and SCSI was lacking in the original iMac. "Waah, my MacAlly Ergonomic Extended Keyboard won't work anymore! I can't use my old scanner or printer!" Get over it. Apple needs to push the envelope and innovate. If you want new hardware, get new software, and get on the damn boat already!

The ROM is about a 512 kb program that gets executed before the OS starts. All it does is initialize the hardware (indirectly or otherwise) and start the OS. That's it. There's very little that would be specific to OS 9 in there- perhaps maybe where it looked for the OS, but I guarantee you that there will not be any kind of speed gain that is noticeable by it.

On top of that, the OS 9 support in the rom did nothing to make X work any less efficient. The rom has no effect on the OS after execution. It just sits there. Go ahead, accept that Apple did it to make Macs better. It does nothing to improve performance. It's like Apple taking their Senior in college and throwing them out on the street when they're only home for 3 weeks in the year. They're going to leave on their own in a year and a half or so, but Apple feels the need to be all powerful and do it themselves.

john123

Jan 14, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by HalimC

Mac OS X is simply a natural evolution in the life of operating systems on the Mac platform. Why didn't you write and complain to Apple that your G3 systems didn't run OS 7? What about OS 6?

...

If software is not availble in OS X, try looking for alternatives rather than giving up and blaming Apple. Software companies should realize by now that they are going to lose customers if they don't support OS X.

(1) It's not the "natural evolution." 7, 8, and 9 were all built on the core of the preceding OS. X was not. X was the culmination of Rhapsody and several other projects. If you don't know what Rhapsody was, then you have no business commenting on this stuff in the first place.

(2) It'snot about software availability for me. It's about speed.

(3) It's Apple that loses. Specifically, my money that I would otherwise spend on a new Apple machine.

john123

Jan 14, 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Apple is not "artifically disabling" support for Mac OS 9. They're removing extraneous OS 9 support from the firmware and the ROMs so that everything's more efficient.

We heard the same uproar when our beloved ADB, serial and SCSI was lacking in the original iMac. "Waah, my MacAlly Ergonomic Extended Keyboard won't work anymore! I can't use my old scanner or printer!" Get over it. Apple needs to push the envelope and innovate. If you want new hardware, get new software, and get on the damn boat already!

I will point out that there are solutions to lots of the problems you mentioned. Keyspan USB adapter, anyone?

Now, if some third party wanted to go the distance and make new machines bootable in OS 9, why I'd be the first in line to buy such a product. Even if that were "basic" OS 9 functionality -- i.e., no ambient light keyboard, no Firewire800, no Bluetooth. For me, no problem! I could ride that out until OS X matures (read: OS X becomes streamlined and Apple offers us the opportunity to not have to put up with the CPU and GPU intensive GUI, smoothed fonts which I despise, etc).

It's all well and good to have these nice things that make people go "ooooh" and "aaaah." But shouldn't true power users have the choice to turn these things off in the name of productivity? Everyone remembers Greg's Buttons (I think that was the name) back in OS 8 -- it gave the Finder many of the traits that came to be in OS 9. And it took a performance hit on your machine as well. So people CHOSE whether to enjoy the aesthetics or to enjoy the faster speed. I want such a choice when it comes to OS X.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 14, 2003, 02:47 AM

Okay. Anyone remember when System 6 was faster than System 7? Were you mad when Apple made systems that wouldn't run System 6? The more and more powerful the computer itself gets, the less it matters that you have a lot of OS overhead. If you want minimal overhead and maximum performance, run some command-line shell over a Linux distribution on an Athlon.

jefhatfield

Jan 14, 2003, 02:06 PM

john123

Jan 15, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Okay. Anyone remember when System 6 was faster than System 7? Were you mad when Apple made systems that wouldn't run System 6? The more and more powerful the computer itself gets, the less it matters that you have a lot of OS overhead. If you want minimal overhead and maximum performance, run some command-line shell over a Linux distribution on an Athlon.

Noobs....

As I said in my first post, X is radically different because it marks a complete departure from 6, 7, 8, and 9. Each of those built incrementally upon their predecessors.

Second, I don't think my requests are that unreasonable. The option to turn off elements in the GUI so that we don't all have to suffer the performance hit if we don't want to? The ability to have the Apple menu back instead of the Dock? These are not monumental things to ask. It's ridiculous that to get functionality such as Windowshade and the Apple menu we have to download a third party haxie...

It is a classic case of ARTIFICIAL product differentiation.

syco

Jan 15, 2003, 09:12 AM

In the back corner of my mind, when Apple decided to stop supporting OS 9 booting, I thought that they had a new version of Classic coming...one that would give all Classic apps instant execution (no starting Classic - either loading it as a startup kernel, or just running like a Carbon app), the Aqua interface, and all that jazz. They'd be slower, possibly, but still better than that current shlock of Classic we run now.

But, I guess not.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 15, 2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by john123

As I said in my first post, X is radically different because it marks a complete departure from 6, 7, 8, and 9. Each of those built incrementally upon their predecessors.

Second, I don't think my requests are that unreasonable. The option to turn off elements in the GUI so that we don't all have to suffer the performance hit if we don't want to? The ability to have the Apple menu back instead of the Dock? These are not monumental things to ask. It's ridiculous that to get functionality such as Windowshade and the Apple menu we have to download a third party haxie...

It is a classic case of ARTIFICIAL product differentiation.

Mac OS 9 is based upon the original System and Finder included with the Macintosh 128k, which were designed to run one application at a time, in black and white, on a Motorola 68000 processor. System 6 introduced MultiFinder (a hack for running muliple applications at once) while System 7 introduced color and true (albeit primitive) multitasking.

Mac OS X is based upon BSD Unix.

That's not "artificial" product differentiation. It is a "complete departure" because System 7 wasn't hacking it anymore. Doesn't anyone here remember the real reason for Mac OS X? Don't we remember Copland? We needed protected memory, preemptive multitasking, dynamically allocated memory, symmetric multiprocessing, and all the other hallmarks of a "modern operating system". At the same time, Apple created a revolutionary and innovative user interface that was a quantum leap in both usability and aesthetics.

As for that interface: OS X does have an Apple menu. Oh, you meant to launch applications from. Heh. How quaint. You probably think the designated hitter rule was the death of baseball too.

The Dock is a massive improvement. Every day, I just start up the programs I use every day by clicking all the way across my Dock. For any other programs, I have LaunchBar, which I hope Apple buys out and integrates into the OS.

As for WindowShade: again, how quaint! What are you running your resolution at, 640 by 480?? It's not that hard to minimize, folks. And you can even resize the Dock. Do you really want big ol' title bars all over the screen when you can just have your windows in a little box in the Dock?

Your arguments were heard in 2001, and you were proven wrong. Stagnation will never defeat innovation. If you want yesterday's technology, use Windows. I'm running a 400 MHz iMac, and Jaguar is plenty fast for me. Of course, I have some things set so it'll run faster, like the Scale effect when minimizing. I just turned off text smoothing for 12 point or smaller fonts, but it was ugly, so I switched back. It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow you to totally turn off text smoothing, but that's availible in the Terminal and makes everything ugly as sin, so I can understand Apple's decision not to allow that.

The performance hit is there just because it's a more sophisticated OS, not because of various GUI elements. My OS 9 System Folder is less than 300 megs, but the OS X System is well over 700 megs. There's just more there, and you can't optimize that out of existence.

Originally posted by john123

It's all well and good to have these nice things that make people go "ooooh" and "aaaah." But shouldn't true power users have the choice to turn these things off in the name of productivity? Everyone remembers Greg's Buttons (I think that was the name) back in OS 8 -- it gave the Finder many of the traits that came to be in OS 9. And it took a performance hit on your machine as well. So people CHOSE whether to enjoy the aesthetics or to enjoy the faster speed. I want such a choice when it comes to OS X.

"True power users" have been disabling these things in the Terminal ever since Public Beta.

(Multiple edits to consolidate what would have been a triple post)

john123

Jan 15, 2003, 11:16 PM

Response to Phil Of Mac

Mac OS X is based upon BSD Unix.

That's not "artificial" product differentiation. It is a "complete departure" because System 7 wasn't hacking it anymore....
As for that interface: OS X does have an Apple menu. Oh, you meant to launch applications from. Heh. How quaint. You probably think the designated hitter rule was the death of baseball too.

You missed the entire point of what I said. I was commenting on the features -- such as the limitation on the Apple menu and the forced use of the Dock. (I'll point out that under System 8, you could get something very similar to the Dock IN ADDITION TO the Apple menu. Greg's Buttons, anyone?)

Incidentally, the DH does ruin baseball and is why NL baseball is much more exciting than AL baseball.

As for WindowShade: again, how quaint! What are you running your resolution at, 640 by 480?? It's not that hard to minimize, folks. And you can even resize the Dock. Do you really want big ol' title bars all over the screen when you can just have your windows in a little box in the Dock?

1280x854 -- standard resolution on the new PowerBooks. Minimizing eliminates your ability to see what's on your screen simultaneously. It also requires you to take the time to go to the bottom of your screen to bring the window back up. And you have to run your cursor over a series of tiny thumbnail windows to find the one you want. If you are web browsing, for example, and a site doesn't name its pages uniquely, that poses a really annoying problem. The process is much quicker by collapsing window menu bars. So do answer your question, YES, I want "big ol' title bars all over the screen." So do lots of other people -- hence the popularity of the WindowShade haxie.

Your arguments were heard in 2001, and you were proven wrong.

Proven wrong? Haha, this is the most amusing part of your angry little tirade! These are opinions of style, and we are all entitled to them. If anything, the only cogent proof provided by anyone is by me and my citation of the popularity of third party hacks to the OS. Just go to versiontracker.com and read the comments on programs like WindowShade and Fruitmenu. Clearly, there are many of us who miss lots of great FEATURES from the previous OSes.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow you to totally turn off text smoothing, but that's availible in the Terminal and makes everything ugly as sin, so I can understand Apple's decision not to allow that.

Wasn't ugly in OS 9....

The performance hit is there just because it's a more sophisticated OS, not because of various GUI elements. My OS 9 System Folder is less than 300 megs, but the OS X System is well over 700 megs. There's just more there, and you can't optimize that out of existence.

What a waste of space. If you think bloated code isn't a reality, I'd suggest that you're not in touch with reality itself. Or, put more nicely and accurately, that you don't know much about code and programming.

"True power users" have been disabling these things in the Terminal ever since Public Beta.

And my point, which I thought was made so clearly that a retarded gorilla would understand it, was that we should not have to. It's a Mac. If I wanted to fool around with code, I'd have bought a real UNIX machine or fiddled around with DOS.

Your arrogant decision to dismiss comments like mine is very interesting, and how angry your post was brings up more questions than I can count. Most of those are far off-topic, so we'll just leave it at that.

You comment that:
We needed protected memory, preemptive multitasking, dynamically allocated memory, symmetric multiprocessing, and all the other hallmarks of a "modern operating system".
At the risk of not being sufficiently prospective and forward looking, I ask, "Why?" How many Mac users really do true multitasking? And how much of the time are they multitasking? I'd wager that given a true power user, he or she would save more time using 9 than X over the course of an average week. But that's just me, and I'm sure you'll disagree since you like to be argumentative.

Nevertheless, I still contend that limiting options is not the way for a company like Apple to maximize its profits. In case any of you failed to notice, Apple posted its second quarterly loss today. Seems to me that a company posting losses should focus on giving its customers options and not trimming its user base at the edges.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 15, 2003, 11:52 PM

To me, it sounds like you just liked Mac OS 9 better. You're not accepting of change of any type. Maybe LaunchBar changed this for me, but I have no need for having apps in the Apple menu. I really suggest you get LaunchBar, it is an excellent program and is better than anything else at launching apps. Of course, LB is new and different, which you appear to despise, but oh well.

If you like the WindowShade functionality (and if you like to minimize dozens of windows at once), it's up to you to choose to get that software. It was third party before Apple got it. I should note here that when you minimize a window, the minimized window in the dock looks like a miniature version of the window itself, when and if it helps. (I'll also note that if don't multitask, like you suggest below, you wouldn't be minimizing windows anyway.)

As for font smoothing, I turned it off for 12 point fonts, and they became so amazingly hideous I immediately turned it back on. Mac OS 9 is so ugly compared to OS X, it's like going 10 years into the past.

As for "These are opinions of style, and we are all entitled to them," I would agree. Apple has opinions too, and it's rather pathetic of you to demand that they just serve your outdated tastes when you can freely download third party software to change what you want. And, very often, Apple is right in these cases. We don't *need* hard drive icons on the desktop, nor do we need an Applications Menu when we have the Dock. Those of us who actually adapted to the OS X user interface largely agree that it's better. And as for "you can't just optimize [the OS X performance hit] out of existence", I was paraphrasing a remark I read by an Apple programmer, who probably knows more than either of us.

As for "we shouldn't have to change settings in the Terminal", apart from questioning your power user status, I'd like to point out that a lot of Jaguar's features are all about changing settings without resorting to the Terminal. And where those fall short, there's third party software.

You posted:
We needed protected memory, preemptive multitasking, dynamically allocated memory, symmetric multiprocessing, and all the other hallmarks of a "modern operating system".
At the risk of not being sufficiently prospective and forward looking, I ask, "Why?" How many Mac users really do true multitasking? And how much of the time are they multitasking? I'd wager that given a true power user, he or she would save more time using 9 than X over the course of an average week. But that's just me, and I'm sure you'll disagree since you like to be argumentative.

I'm multitasking right now. I'm running 11 apps and a number of background processes. Most of us probably are as well. And as for why we need these features, "so it doesn't crash" and "so it doesn't lock up and prohibit you from switching apps when one app is busy" are really good reasons. "So I don't have to mess with memory allocations or virtual memory settings" and "so dual-processor systems are actually worth a damn" are great reasons too. If you only run one program at a time, you don't need multitasking. If you only run one program at a time, I feel very sorry for you. (And you you one only one program at a time, you're not a power user.)

(Technical note for you "power users" out there--the definition of "multitasking", is OS terms, is something like "running more than one program at once". It's slightly more technical than that, but that's the general gist of it.)

And as for why I appear agitated: I don't suffer fools well.

john123

Jan 16, 2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Phil of Mac
And as for why I appear agitated: I don't suffer fools well.

Ah, once again you resort to personal invective and ad hominem attacks. Very interesting. :) My education and IQ are both quite good, and your attempt to attack my intelligence only illustrates to me that you are increasingly aware of your own inability to answer my criticisms. That's too bad.

Back to font smoothing for the moment: one advantage you have is having an iMac. Font smoothing doesn't look quite as good on an LCD. LCDs have component pixels, and each pixel can only be one color (that color is reflected as the combination of the three subpixels). As such, OS X's fonts look a lot better on a tube than on any TFT screen.

Now, to multitasking: you don't seem to understand quite what multitasking is in the true sense of the word. True multitasking is not about having a bunch of apps open simultaneously. It's about multiple apps *concurrently* using processor cycles. Your failure to understand that led you to completely misunderstand my post, resulting in yet another angry and irrelevant tirade.

An example would be simultaneously running a filter in Photoshop, ripping tracks in iTunes, and duplicating a directory with 1000 files totaling a gigabyte of space -- all simultaneously. Try it in OS X and OS 9, respectively. It is there that OS X shines and blasts 9 out of the water...but on the other hand, how many of us do that much stuff simultaneously? Let's be honest...

If you have 11 apps open and none are doing anything, you are not really multitasking. Incidentally, I routinely run about a dozen programs at once -- very comfortably in OS 9, too. I find it more than stable for my needs, and I rarely crash. If you crash in OS 9, given that I don't crash often, maybe you should ask yourself what you aren't doing right.

Start with your computer, and go from there....

locovaca

Jan 16, 2003, 12:25 AM

The performance hit is there just because it's a more sophisticated OS, not because of various GUI elements. My OS 9 System Folder is less than 300 megs, but the OS X System is well over 700 megs. There's just more there, and you can't optimize that out of existence.

I do not remember where I read it but approximately 10% of a modern GUI OS is the actual code that does the work- the rest is graphics and special effects. That's why all these new OSs- be it from Microsoft, Apple, a *nix company, or even Window Managers in Linux- are needing exponentially more disk space because all these cutesy graphics are being added, not necessarily because more features are being added. A 70 meg linux installation can do everything X can- it may not be the most efficient way of, say, editing a picture, but to say that X isn't bloated is way out of line. All the cute graphics like the super high resolution icons do nothing but waste space when standard 32x32 icons would do. I'm not criticizing the actual use of high res stuff because I'm willing to pay the price, but there is plenty of stuff that can be optimized or removed to make the X system much, much smaller.

john123

Jan 16, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by locovaca

I'm not criticizing the actual use of high res stuff because I'm willing to pay the price, but there is plenty of stuff that can be optimized or removed to make the X system much, much smaller.

Why not just make it optional and please everyone? You'd think it's something that any competent programmer could really do within a week's time. Heck, a team of programmers working for a week could do it without a question at all. What would be the cost on that -- $100,000, max? Just think...if 30 people like myself were moved to buy the 17" PowerBook for that reason alone (and I hardly think that's a stretch), the project would have paid for itself.

john123

Jan 16, 2003, 12:54 AM

voicegy

Jan 16, 2003, 01:37 AM

Here we are, a faction of the computer world fractioning ourselves over an OS on our favorite platform. Gosh, this is getting scary...come on folks, let's not tear each other apart like we're posting against a bunch of PeeCee propeller heads.

"You're a jerk for not going over to OS X! Get with the program! What's your problem?"

"I'm happy with OS 9. Why should I spend a bunch of money for eye candy? Everything's working fine, what's the point? Why force me to change over at this stage of the game?"

I have people calling me all the time asking "Should I go to OS X?" As the Information Technology Liaison of my school district, when people at schools ask me this, my first question to them is "Does everything you have at your site work?" Then I ask, "Why are you asking?" 9 times out of 10, they feel they "should" go to OS X...in other words, they don't have a compelling reason because they just feel the "pressure" to change over.

The old adage here is true, and it's what I advise the schools: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That's why I'm grateful for Apple to see the logic in keeping OS 9 bootable for at least 6 more months on the machines we typically buy. Of all the hard times that schools usually face when it comes to the ability to purchase technology, THIS HAS TO BE ONE OF THE WORST, at least in California. Education machines are STILL running 7.6.1, 8.6 and 9. Most of the software that educators enjoy run happily on those systems, especially 9. Jumping up to OS X is too prohibitive and to NOT have certain software companies jump over to X just turns off people who are looking to augment (add to) their base of machines. Sure, sure, there's "classic" but by the time all that boots up the class period is over. I'm sorry, but it's true.

And don't get me STARTED on Macintosh Manager. The difference between that and OS X (AppleShare IP and Workgroup Manager) are like night and day, and it was hard enough to train people on the former.

I'm pro Apple. Have been since '84. But I'm not endorsing nor pushing OS X down the throats of my poor schools if they don't really have a compelling need to go there, and most don't. Yet.

Apple has tried, but not hard enough, to have seminars on OS X and some mini-classes on administration of server based software. THESE NEED TO BE FREE, and more often than once every 6 months. GIVE US THE SUPPORT, and we'll love and buy you from here to Kingdom Come. But DON'T expect us to send a few people now and then to $1,500.00 a week classes to learn this "easy to use simple technology" because to the average teacher who typically is charged with administrating such a beast, it's far from easy and simple. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT, and people may sour on the whole experience, throw up their hands, and start buying Dells. I've seen it. It's real. And it sucks.

:(

NicoMan

Jan 16, 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by voicegy
Here we are, a faction of the computer world fractioning ourselves over an OS on our favorite platform. Gosh, this is getting scary...come on folks, let's not tear each other apart like we're posting against a bunch of PeeCee propeller heads.
Agreed. There is nothing that makes feel as uneasy as that (well people switching to PeeCee maybe).
Originally posted by voicegy
"You're a jerk for not going over to OS X! Get with the program! What's your problem?"

"I'm happy with OS 9. Why should I spend a bunch of money for eye candy? Everything's working fine, what's the point? Why force me to change over at this stage of the game?"
The one thing I can say to people who don't know whether to upgrade to OSX is this: if it is a massive headache (technically or financially speaking) and you are happy about your computing experience, then don't do it. But bear in mind that as time goes by the need to get OSX will get bigger and bigger (less and less support software- and hardware-wise).
But if you can upgrade then do it!!!.

I agree with you voicegy that Apple should make an effort to make those seminars free for all those schools and everything, but telling people (individuals, not schools) to stick with OS9 when they have the possibility to move to OSX seems wrong to me: people have to understand that most of the things they find irksome in the new GUI are gonna be adressed by one haxie or another, the same way it was done in OS 9. Just saying 'this little haxie is not there I just can't move' seems a bit over the top. There are already plenty of ways to alter your OSX experience.

But anyway, sticking to OS9 without being FORCED to is like sticking one's head in the sand. I am sorry but there is no turning back and if people think that the Apple world will go back to OS 9 and ditch OS X need to get their head checked. Of course if you wanna keep your old hardware and everything running on OS9, there is nothing to prevent you from doing it (and you probably have every reason/right to do it). But I think that Apple limiting people's choice on new machines is the right way. If you want to be part of a modern Apple experience by buying new hardware, then you should be doing it on OSX.

Oh by the way john123 I know it is all a matter of taste and everything, but if Apple had stuck with OS9 and its GUI (non anti-aliased fonts, etc...), I would never have switched: it is really ugly (i mean, REALLY) when compared to OSX and would never have caught my (and some other switchers') attention in the first place. Admit it, OSX is already a much nicer (better?) computing platform than OS9 and it is only a few years old...(my opinion anyway)

My 2 cents.

NicoMan

Dunepilot

Jan 16, 2003, 08:43 AM

Personally, I'm torn.

I have a new Dual 867 sitting next to me that I will be using predominantly under OS X when I've bought a monitor, but all of my expensive music software and VST instruments will run under OS 9 only, so to make music (why I bought this machine) I'll be rebooting.

But OS 9 is bloody unstable. I'm writing this on a Powerbook G3 that has served me well over the past 3.5 years in every respect apart from stability. I freeze up completely at least once a day, and it's not because of extensions conflicts or anything like that, because I provide support for a network of OS 9 machines that also crash with unacceptably high frequency under the load of the most basic applications.

The lack of stability of OS 9 is a joke, and that is the only reason why I won't be sorry to see it go.

NicoMan

Jan 16, 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by john123
If you have 11 apps open and none are doing anything, you are not really multitasking. Incidentally, I routinely run about a dozen programs at once -- very comfortably in OS 9, too. I find it more than stable for my needs, and I rarely crash. If you crash in OS 9, given that I don't crash often, maybe you should ask yourself what you aren't doing right.
I understand where you're coming from. Like someone said 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. BUT let me ask you this: has it ever happened to you that in OS9 one of your 11 opened apps would crash, taking down the whole system and any unsaved data. How do you feel about the whole thing when it happens? I don't want to start a war of words (maybe I didn't understand what you meant), but you cannot seriously tell me that moving to a 'secure' modern OS (pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory being 2 of the characteristics of the new OS) is not necessary. Even if the scenario I described above never happened to you (which I doubt, but let's say for argument's sake that it never did), I keep hearing from other OS9 users that it does; and I rarely hear people saying that it does not happen often (I don't know if that is very clear...hmmm). So, as much as I would like to believe that you are the perfect user that never does anything wrong to upset his machine (!!!), I find it hard to believe.

Not that you would care about my opinion but let us be reasonable...

Nicoman

nighthawk

Jan 16, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by john123
At the risk of not being sufficiently prospective and forward looking, I ask, "Why?" How many Mac users really do true multitasking? And how much of the time are they multitasking? I'd wager that given a true power user, he or she would save more time using 9 than X over the course of an average week. But that's just me, and I'm sure you'll disagree since you like to be argumentative.

Have you ever listened to a song in iTunes and typed a paper, working on a photo in Photoshop, searched the internet, or burned a CD? That is multi-tasking. Sure you could do this things is OS9, but say you were working in Photoshop, and the application crashed... in OS9, it would completely crash the machine (ususally). In OSX, it would crash the application, but leave the iTunes music running without a burp. That is protected memory and true multi-tasking working together.

Another example that is not influenced by protected memory would be when you are doing something intenstive with your computer... importing a Quicktime movie into iMovie for example. In OS9, your iTunes music would start and stop playing until the movie is imported, and then will continue as normal. With the true multi-tasking, there is smooth, uninterupted music.

Multi-tasking in OS9 worked this way... the primary application (active) had the majority of the CPU. Whatever was left over was given to other applications to use... background printing, iTunes, burning CD, scanning, etc. In OSX, the CPU usage is handled by the OS. The applications all request a percentage of usage, and the OS determines which apps get how much CPU time. There is a performance hit because the OS is using the CPU to calculate, but it is not much in the long run. It is the other applications that are "slowing down" the performance of OSX. Perhaps many of those apps are system BSD thingies that you really do not need... perhaps you do. I know that the WindowServer takes a lot of performance, and if anything needs to be optimized, that is it! Take a look at ProcessViewer to see what your machine is doing.

MacBandit

Jan 16, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by nighthawk

Have you ever listened to a song in iTunes and typed a paper, working on a photo in Photoshop, searched the internet, or burned a CD? That is multi-tasking. Sure you could do this things is OS9, but say you were working in Photoshop, and the application crashed... in OS9, it would completely crash the machine (ususally). In OSX, it would crash the application, but leave the iTunes music running without a burp. That is protected memory and true multi-tasking working together.

Just to chime in this is how I use my computer nearly all the time. OSX just works much better for this sort of multitasking with much less of a speed hit.

jayscheuerle

Jan 16, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by john123
My biggest beef with OS X is that it's noticeably slower. For the person who started in X and remained that way, I guess he/she has no real basis for comparison. But in everyday tasks -- especially pilfering around in the Finder -- 9 has X beat hands-down. Apple's advice, of course, would be to get the newest hardware, but all that does is speed up BOTH 9 and X. On my PB1Ghz/SD, 9 is still considerably faster than X, and that is the one thing that cools my jets on getting a 17" model for myself.

That's Apple's real reason for not allowing booting to 9... They don't want people to continue to be able to compare the speeds of OS9 and OSX. I wish I had the distorted perception of reality that the "OSX is faster" crack-heads do...

MacBandit

Jan 16, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle

That's Apple's real reason for not allowing booting to 9... They don't want people to continue to be able to compare the speeds of OS9 and OSX. I wish I had the distorted perception of reality that the "OSX is faster" crack-heads do...

It's not that X is faster and it's not that I am trying to say that but when you are multitasking the speed hit you take with two apps and more open is much less then you do in 9. Also fore people like me with a dual processor machine. Which is quite a few people you talk to here at Macrumors. OSX is faster simply because it support the dual processors fully where as 9 maxes one processor out and barely uses the second.

jayscheuerle

Jan 16, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

It's not that X is faster and it's not that I am trying to say that but when you are multitasking the speed hit you take with two apps and more open is much less then you do in 9. Also fore people like me with a dual processor machine. Which is quite a few people you talk to here at Macrumors. OSX is faster simply because it support the dual processors fully where as 9 maxes one processor out and barely uses the second.

I was being facetious and am a happy Jaguar wrestler, but in general Finder perusing, I am amazed at 9's snappiness when I'm forced to hop on a coworker's machine. :D

Santiago

Jan 16, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Mac OS 9 is based upon the original System and Finder included with the Macintosh 128k, which were designed to run one application at a time, in black and white, on a Motorola 68000 processor. System 6 introduced MultiFinder (a hack for running muliple applications at once) while System 7 introduced color and true (albeit primitive) multitasking.

The original Mac OS supported color long before there were color Macs. From the very beginning, software had the ability to use either 8 or 16 colors (I forget which), though few programs actually took advantage of it. System 6 definitely had support for at least 256 colors, as the old Mac II in my parents' closet is capable of demonstrating.

MacKid

Jan 16, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by NicoMan

I understand where you're coming from. Like someone said 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. BUT let me ask you this: has it ever happened to you that in OS9 one of your 11 opened apps would crash, taking down the whole system and any unsaved data. How do you feel about the whole thing when it happens? I don't want to start a war of words (maybe I didn't understand what you meant), but you cannot seriously tell me that moving to a 'secure' modern OS (pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory being 2 of the characteristics of the new OS) is not necessary. Even if the scenario I described above never happened to you (which I doubt, but let's say for argument's sake that it never did), I keep hearing from other OS9 users that it does; and I rarely hear people saying that it does not happen often (I don't know if that is very clear...hmmm). So, as much as I would like to believe that you are the perfect user that never does anything wrong to upset his machine (!!!), I find it hard to believe.

Not that you would care about my opinion but let us be reasonable...

Nicoman

I agree. I remember on my OS 9 iBook, when I would try to run iTunes, AOL (yes, that's what I had back then), and AppleWorks at the same time, up popped the little bomb with a Restart button that didn't even work! The problem is a lot of people (mainly educators) don't keep up with Apple a whole lot, so they're still stuck on 8.6/9.0 (and I must admit, Apple did a great job on 9.2, hardly ever crashed), and they don't realize that a simple 64MB more RAM would improve everything, which is why so many schools are being roped into buying some $299 Dells. So although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if you are forced to reboot at least once a month (or are just tired of OS 9), I recommend OS X as long as your computer is at least 300MHz. And john123, you must realize that maybe not every OS 9 user has 9.2 .

Phil Of Mac

Jan 16, 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by john123

Ah, once again you resort to personal invective and ad hominem attacks. Very interesting. :) My education and IQ are both quite good, and your attempt to attack my intelligence only illustrates to me that you are increasingly aware of your own inability to answer my criticisms. That's too bad.

Now, to multitasking: you don't seem to understand quite what multitasking is in the true sense of the word. True multitasking is not about having a bunch of apps open simultaneously. It's about multiple apps *concurrently* using processor cycles. Your failure to understand that led you to completely misunderstand my post, resulting in yet another angry and irrelevant tirade.

An example would be simultaneously running a filter in Photoshop, ripping tracks in iTunes, and duplicating a directory with 1000 files totaling a gigabyte of space -- all simultaneously. Try it in OS X and OS 9, respectively. It is there that OS X shines and blasts 9 out of the water...but on the other hand, how many of us do that much stuff simultaneously? Let's be honest...

If you have 11 apps open and none are doing anything, you are not really multitasking. Incidentally, I routinely run about a dozen programs at once -- very comfortably in OS 9, too. I find it more than stable for my needs, and I rarely crash. If you crash in OS 9, given that I don't crash often, maybe you should ask yourself what you aren't doing right.

Start with your computer, and go from there....

As for multitasking, nice save there, chief. It is absolutely correct that when a program is doing absolutely nothing, multitasking isn't going on. However, instant messenger programs, email programs, and iTunes all do things when you're not actively using them. Listening to iTunes, typing a post, and downloading software is multitasking too.

In fact, if it weren't for the way iTunes for OS 9 was programmed to overcome OS 9's multitasking difficulties, it wouldn't even work. Have you actually listened to an MP3 or even a MIDI in QuickTime Player on OS 9 as you started a program? It stops playing until the program's opened. Another thing I despise about 9 is when an application locks up, you can't switch out of it. You're stuck until it's done. It's wasted time.

As for how your 9 rarely crashes, could you quantify that? Once a week? Month? Year?

I spend an entire post attacking your criticisms and conclude with a pithy comment about your stupidity, and you accuse me of not being able to attack your criticisms? Did you even read my post? It is curious that you mention this issue first, and the actual discussion later. This entire thing is an afterthought for me, and it's truly sad you've attached this much importance to it.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 16, 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by john123

Why not just make it optional and please everyone? You'd think it's something that any competent programmer could really do within a week's time. Heck, a team of programmers working for a week could do it without a question at all. What would be the cost on that -- $100,000, max? Just think...if 30 people like myself were moved to buy the 17" PowerBook for that reason alone (and I hardly think that's a stretch), the project would have paid for itself.

No, not really. Apple doesn't make $3000 in *profit* on a PowerBook. It actually costs them a good deal of that to actually build the PowerBook. And they still have to pay for R&D costs. If they make a 30% margin on the PowerBooks (I think that's close to the number I read for Apple's total profit margin) they would make about $900 per 'Book--requiring roughly 110 people to each buy a 17 inch PowerBook.

No matter what Apple does, they can't "please everyone". And it's not their strategic plan to please you. They could have simply released Mac OS X as a CLI on an Athlon. That would be faster, no?

john123

Jan 16, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

As for multitasking, nice save there, chief. It is absolutely correct that when a program is doing absolutely nothing, multitasking isn't going on. However, instant messenger programs, email programs, and iTunes all do things when you're not actively using them. Listening to iTunes, typing a post, and downloading software is multitasking too.

In fact, if it weren't for the way iTunes for OS 9 was programmed to overcome OS 9's multitasking difficulties, it wouldn't even work. Have you actually listened to an MP3 or even a MIDI in QuickTime Player on OS 9 as you started a program? It stops playing until the program's opened. Another thing I despise about 9 is when an application locks up, you can't switch out of it. You're stuck until it's done. It's wasted time.

As for how your 9 rarely crashes, could you quantify that? Once a week? Month? Year?

I spend an entire post attacking your criticisms and conclude with a pithy comment about your stupidity, and you accuse me of not being able to attack your criticisms? Did you even read my post? It is curious that you mention this issue first, and the actual discussion later. This entire thing is an afterthought for me, and it's truly sad you've attached this much importance to it.

Listening to iTunes, downloading software, and typing a post is all very, very doable in OS 9, and is going to be faster than doing those same things in OS X. The CPU load involved in two of your three tasks (the downloading and the typing of the post) is truly minimal.

My OS 9 crashes about 1/5 to 1/10 as often as component apps annoyingly crash in OS X. That's quantification.

As for being locked into an app in OS 9, there's a force quit option there, too...just like in OS X. Oh wait, you'd have to actually know what you're talking about to know about that...

Incidentally, genius (that's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell), I responded to every element in your post and only quoted your conclusion -- mostly because that pithy summary cast incredible light onto your myopia and anger at the world. That much has already been demonstrated. Seriously, if a relative of yours were in a car accident, I bet you'd try to blame that on OS 9, too.

You need to get a grip, dude. A grip, and an education...so many needs, so little time...

Phil Of Mac

Jan 16, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by john123

As for being locked into an app in OS 9, there's a force quit option there, too...just like in OS X. Oh wait, you'd have to actually know what you're talking about to know about that...

I know full well about the force quit option. However, that locks up the entire computer by itself much of the time. And it requires a restart to clear out the memory and make it stable (at least according to the dialogs). And, it requires you to make a judgment call about whether or not the app is locked up or just taking awhile to do something. In Mac OS X, you can just switch programs, and if that program stays locked up, you're free to force quit it (from the dock, no less.)

I also hope you know about the massively improved force quit dialog in X.

John, be honest with me. Have you even *used* Mac OS X, or do you just read about it in MacAddict?

Your wildly hyprocritical personal attacks and your obsession with my emotional state are rather interesting, John (or should that be "Professor"?). But unfortunately very off-topic. But the battle of wits is joined. And while you claim a high IQ, I'm just going to assume you thought your raw score was your percentile, because that's the only explanation for what you've shown in this forum.

(If you don't get that, ask your mom to explain that to you.)

john123

Jan 16, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

I know full well about the force quit option. However, that locks up the entire computer by itself much of the time. And it requires a restart to clear out the memory and make it stable (at least according to the dialogs). And, it requires you to make a judgment call about whether or not the app is locked up or just taking awhile to do something. In Mac OS X, you can just switch programs, and if that program stays locked up, you're free to force quit it (from the dock, no less.)

I also hope you know about the massively improved force quit dialog in X.

John, be honest with me. Have you even *used* Mac OS X, or do you just read about it in MacAddict?

Your wildly hyprocritical personal attacks and your obsession with my emotional state are rather interesting, John (or should that be "Professor"?). But unfortunately very off-topic. But the battle of wits is joined. And while you claim a high IQ, I'm just going to assume you thought your raw score was your percentile, because that's the only explanation for what you've shown in this forum.

(If you don't get that, ask your mom to explain that to you.)

You know, our difference of opinion regarding the OS aside, I bet we'd get along great if we went out as drinking buddies... :)

Okay, let me depersonalize this a bit. I've used OS X quite a bit more now that I have my TiPB 1Ghz. The ATI Radeon Mobility 9000 with 64MB of RAM makes all the difference in my opinion. Compares to my old 667 DVI PB, the increase in speed under 10.2.x is much greater than that over 9.2.x, and the most compelling explanation for that is the GPU.

But my everyday experience is much like the following: I have Word and Excel always open, 2 or 3 different e-mail clients (sadly I can't consolidate these), a web browser (IE in OS 9 and Chimera in OS X) always running a Java applet, and other apps that are not as consistent (e.g., Photoshop, stats software, GraphicConverter, VPC, and so on).

And with that typical use, comparing pure speed from my old DVI PB in OS 9 to my Ghz PB in OS X, the old one wins. Now to me, that's frustrating. True multitasking support and protected memory are nice, sure...but why must we face such a speed premium? Am I to believe that it's required?

The answer really does rest with the GUI. You say I can turn these things off via the Terminal. OK. How? Is there a book with command-line instructions? Can I make my fonts for my icons on the desktop look OS 9-y? Can I make those OS X toolbars disappear for good (they always seem to come back)? What about the Dock -- any way to erradicate it?

Perhaps my dislike for OS X comes from my solely casual use of it. But I don't see anything on Apple's page advertising ways to dumb down the OS. So, Phil, can you enlighten me?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 16, 2003, 11:12 PM

Ah, heck. I'm sorry it got personal.

OS X is slower than 9, but it's worth it to me. I don't really know what the entire cause of the slowdown is, but UNIX in any case is a rather complex and hefty OS, and that overhead's gonna be there either way. The UI elements might make this worse, though.

I don't really know the terminal commands, but macosxhints.com probably has a great deal of them in their database. They have a *lot* of speed tips, too. Failing that, there's probably some third-party software that adjusts things. System Preferences allows you to turn off font smoothing for 12 point and lower fonts, which may help. That's under the General pane. (Incidentally, you can also set it to "Medium", which is "recommended for LCD displays", if it isn't set as such already.)

My desktop is always covered with windows anyway, so in X, I just go to the desktop folder in the Finder instead. Speaking of the Finder, Column View is really cool.

Which toolbars do you mean? Finder toolbars can be turned off with the button in the upper right hand corner. They come back, but if you open a window, click that button, and immediately close the window without doing anything else, it should save that setting. However, that puts you in "OS 9 Mode", which disables column view and other features. The toolbar's just one of those things that's different but will probably end up worth it.

As for the dock, it can be killed, but I suggest making the dock smaller by dragging on the divider if you want, moving it to the side of the screen if you want, putting only your everyday applications in the Dock, and using LaunchBar for everything else. LaunchBar (www.obdev.at) allows you to launch any application from the keyboard. You just hit command-spacebar (or any other combination of your choosing) and type in an abbreviation for the app you want. You don't have to set the abbreviations, either. If you go to the website, I'm sure they can explain it better than I can.

Every day, I just click every app in the Dock from left to right and let them load. If I don't use an app daily, I use LaunchBar to fire it up when I need it.

As an added bonus, you can quit any app from the Dock-no need to switch to it. Holding down option force quits, but the Finder automatically switches to force quit if it detects that the app locks up. Even when that happens, though, there's still a chance the app is just busy and will be responsive later. This is why preemptive multitasking is so cool.

If you right-click the divider in the Dock, you can set minimization to "scale effect", which is faster than "genie effect".

Processor-burdening graphical effects aside, the Mac OS X UI, for me at least, is massively superior if you try and go along with it. It takes awhile to readjust, but you really might find it to be worth it. Especially when you have a whole gigahertz to play with :)

john123

Jan 16, 2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Ah, heck. I'm sorry it got personal.

OS X is slower than 9, but it's worth it to me. I don't really know what the entire cause of the slowdown is, but UNIX in any case is a rather complex and hefty OS, and that overhead's gonna be there either way. The UI elements might make this worse, though.

I don't really know the terminal commands, but macosxhints.com probably has a great deal of them in their database. They have a *lot* of speed tips, too. Failing that, there's probably some third-party software that adjusts things. System Preferences allows you to turn off font smoothing for 12 point and lower fonts, which may help. That's under the General pane. (Incidentally, you can also set it to "Medium", which is "recommended for LCD displays", if it isn't set as such already.)

My desktop is always covered with windows anyway, so in X, I just go to the desktop folder in the Finder instead. Speaking of the Finder, Column View is really cool.

Which toolbars do you mean? Finder toolbars can be turned off with the button in the upper right hand corner. They come back, but if you open a window, click that button, and immediately close the window without doing anything else, it should save that setting. However, that puts you in "OS 9 Mode", which disables column view and other features. The toolbar's just one of those things that's different but will probably end up worth it.

As for the dock, it can be killed, but I suggest making the dock smaller by dragging on the divider if you want, moving it to the side of the screen if you want, putting only your everyday applications in the Dock, and using LaunchBar for everything else. LaunchBar (www.obdev.at) allows you to launch any application from the keyboard. You just hit command-spacebar (or any other combination of your choosing) and type in an abbreviation for the app you want. You don't have to set the abbreviations, either. If you go to the website, I'm sure they can explain it better than I can.

Every day, I just click every app in the Dock from left to right and let them load. If I don't use an app daily, I use LaunchBar to fire it up when I need it.

As an added bonus, you can quit any app from the Dock-no need to switch to it. Holding down option force quits, but the Finder automatically switches to force quit if it detects that the app locks up. Even when that happens, though, there's still a chance the app is just busy and will be responsive later. This is why preemptive multitasking is so cool.

If you right-click the divider in the Dock, you can set minimization to "scale effect", which is faster than "genie effect".

Processor-burdening graphical effects aside, the Mac OS X UI, for me at least, is massively superior if you try and go along with it. It takes awhile to readjust, but you really might find it to be worth it. Especially when you have a whole gigahertz to play with :)

Verbal sparring is fun! Otherwise this forum gets really boring. :)

I've tried using the General Pane when it comes to font smoothing. I don't find much difference when it comes to the settings though, and I do find that setting the smoothing size at higher than 8 makes for a WORSE visual experience. Mac OS 9 fonts look better than Mac OS X unsmoothed fonts for whatever reason. Basically, I think what frustrates me about OS X smoothed fonts on my Mac is that the color of them isn't black...it's like multicolored. I can see the subpixels coming together to try to form black, but it's not perfect. Kind of like when you put a drop of water on a screen and get the prism effect, you know? I dunno...if you have an older iMac, maybe you don't. I bet it's a lot better on a CRT. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or am I on crack?

On the Finder toolbars: yep, I've tried that. But if you, say, download a new program from versiontracker and it mounts a disk image...they're back! I'd really love for them to disappear altogether...there are a lot of pixels being used there!

Maybe you're right about column view. It's probably one of those things that just requires getting used to. I really got used to opening a series of windows in 9, but I can see the advantge of doing it using column view.

I don't mind killing OS 9. All I really care about in that transition are three things -- and one of them is NOT app compatibility. Quark can go you-know-what themselves:
(1) Speed
(2) Finding a way not to hog real estate if it isn't necessary
(3) Not straining my eyes, which the prismatic smoothed fonts do

Phil Of Mac

Jan 16, 2003, 11:44 PM

I thought the point of turning off smoothed fonts was to make it fast but ugly :)

Well, I don't have an LCD, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it on that. The LCD's I've seen running OS X looked fine to me though. I dunno.

The toolbars are actually kinda cool, if you put the search feature in there and just put in only the features you like. It makes the window taller, but if you go single-window in Column view, that saves a lot of space, so you profit :)

Speed is really a big thing for Apple, and they are optimizing things, hence the fast cat monikers (Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther). Hardware's getting faster too.

But System 7 was slower than 6. Features for speed is the traditional OS tradeoff, really, and it always has been. Mac OS X only more so.

Les Kern

Jan 17, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by macomposer
I guess I am supposed to just reach into my butt and pull out hard drives and RAM. The only guy I ever saw do that was Data on Star Trek.

Warriors do not pull things out of their butts. Steal them.

-Lt. Cdr. Worf

Seriously, it STILL amazes me how we have the incredible disparity in educational funding. I'm blessed, for now anyway. While just 10 miles away a different school was almost crying for joy that I donated 125 "various condition"LCIII's and 6100 PowerMacs to them. How sad and en-necessary.

http://mchs.net
http://www.mchs.net/technology/tech.html

MacBandit

Jan 17, 2003, 01:02 AM

People with dual proccessor macs will see a huge performance benefit running OSX period.

NicoMan

Jan 17, 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by john123
I think what frustrates me about OS X smoothed fonts on my Mac is that the color of them isn't black...it's like multicolored. I can see the subpixels coming together to try to form black, but it's not perfect.
That is what anti-aliasing does. It cannot make the fonts truly rounder that your resolution allows you. It basically adds some pseudo-shades to the sides of your fonts to make it look rounder or straighter. Ok it is a bit of a pain on small fonts especially when you have a LCD with not a very high pixel density and a not so good pixel clarity (a not entirely digital interface can produce that). I have experienced (at work) OSX on a PMac dual 867 with 2 Eizo LCD 771 (19.5" 1600*1200) and changed them to 2 formacs gallery 2010. Well they both have a rather good pixel density (but they cannot compare with a good laptop), but the pixel clarity is way superior on the formac, and this greatly attenuates that prismatic effect you were talking about. Even then, I thought I wasn't going to be able to work with it (being used to the ugly but 'straight' fonts on a PeeCee). But now it pains me to look at unsmoothed fonts.
I am not saying that you will feel the same, but it is worth your trying.

NicoMan

john123

Jan 17, 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by NicoMan

That is what anti-aliasing does. It cannot make the fonts truly rounder that your resolution allows you. It basically adds some pseudo-shades to the sides of your fonts to make it look rounder or straighter. Ok it is a bit of a pain on small fonts especially when you have a LCD with not a very high pixel density and a not so good pixel clarity (a not entirely digital interface can produce that). I have experienced (at work) OSX on a PMac dual 867 with 2 Eizo LCD 771 (19.5" 1600*1200) and changed them to 2 formacs gallery 2010. Well they both have a rather good pixel density (but they cannot compare with a good laptop), but the pixel clarity is way superior on the formac, and this greatly attenuates that prismatic effect you were talking about. Even then, I thought I wasn't going to be able to work with it (being used to the ugly but 'straight' fonts on a PeeCee). But now it pains me to look at unsmoothed fonts.
I am not saying that you will feel the same, but it is worth your trying.

NicoMan

What's the pixel density on the Formacs? Well over 100?

What you are saying makes sense. If, for example, my PowerBook supported 1600x1200, then OS X would look a lot better. I'd keep my fonts the exact same size as they are right now, but the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity...yes?

If I am understanding you right, then it's a reason for me NOT to want the 17" PB, as it's got a lower pixel density than my current 15". It's also another reason for me not to want a 15" AlPB as it's been rumored to have a 1280x800 resolution (thereby cutting some pixels off the vertical).

Nico, am I understanding you right?

Also, does anyone know a way to change the main system fond that's used in the menu bar? Or to change the font used for desktop icons from the white-with-shadow to a plain OS 9-y black?

NicoMan

Jan 17, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by john123

What's the pixel density on the Formacs? Well over 100?

What you are saying makes sense. If, for example, my PowerBook supported 1600x1200, then OS X would look a lot better. I'd keep my fonts the exact same size as they are right now, but the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity...yes?

If I am understanding you right, then it's a reason for me NOT to want the 17" PB, as it's got a lower pixel density than my current 15". It's also another reason for me not to want a 15" AlPB as it's been rumored to have a 1280x800 resolution (thereby cutting some pixels off the vertical).

Nico, am I understanding you right?

Also, does anyone know a way to change the main system fond that's used in the menu bar? Or to change the font used for desktop icons from the white-with-shadow to a plain OS 9-y black?

I don't think the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity, but they wouldn't be obvious to you because much smaller (we are talking higher pixel density but same size in terms of dots for the font, right ?). The system still wants to smooth the fonts, no matter the pixel density of your screen.
But apart from that, I would agree with what you just said about reasons to buy or not to buy those new PowerBooks, even though as far as I am concerned I have a TiBook Rev B (1152*768, the worst density of them all I think) and it still looks fine to me. I guess I got used to it (btw, I never used OS9 more than 2-3 boots in OS9 on my TiBook to install stuff than needed me to... even though I didn't like it, but that's another story; by the same token I might have got used to it).

NicoMan

john123

Jan 17, 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by NicoMan

I don't think the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity, but they wouldn't be obvious to you because much smaller (we are talking higher pixel density but same size in terms of dots for the font, right ?). The system still wants to smooth the fonts, no matter the pixel density of your screen.
But apart from that, I would agree with what you just said about reasons to buy or not to buy those new PowerBooks, even though as far as I am concerned I have a TiBook Rev B (1152*768, the worst density of them all I think) and it still looks fine to me. I guess I got used to it (btw, I never used OS9 more than 2-3 boots in OS9 on my TiBook to install stuff than needed me to... even though I didn't like it, but that's another story; by the same token I might have got used to it).

NicoMan

Seems to me that a higher res display would help on the smoothing. If you kept all your onscreen fonts the same size in inches, then while 500 pixels might have formed a character on the old display, 1000 pixels form that character on the new one. But, a greater proportion of those pixels would be the true color, as you'd have less need for a those multicolored pixels. Relatively speaking, there'd be a greater black/multicolored ratio, resulting in much crisper smoothed fonts.

Does that make sense, or am I nuts?

NicoMan

Jan 17, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by john123

Seems to me that a higher res display would help on the smoothing. If you kept all your onscreen fonts the same size in inches, then while 500 pixels might have formed a character on the old display, 1000 pixels form that character on the new one. But, a greater proportion of those pixels would be the true color, as you'd have less need for a those multicolored pixels. Relatively speaking, there'd be a greater black/multicolored ratio, resulting in much crisper smoothed fonts.

Does that make sense, or am I nuts?
It does make perfect sense to me: there is less need for smoothing when you have a font displayed across many more dots (i.e. the same font in terms of inches on the display, but with a higher pixel density), because from the start your font will look much nicer, so the need for the system to smoothe your fonts is much lower. So that a greater proportion of those pixels would be true color (the system would need fewer pixels relatively for pseudo-shade to smoothe your fonts). So as far as I am concerned you are not nuts. But let me think about it and I'll confirm tomorrow when I'm sober (it's been a reallllly long night here, and I'm quite drunk...).

NicoMan

john123

Jan 18, 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by NicoMan

It does make perfect sense to me: there is less need for smoothing when you have a font displayed across many more dots (i.e. the same font in terms of inches on the display, but with a higher pixel density), because from the start your font will look much nicer, so the need for the system to smoothe your fonts is much lower. So that a greater proportion of those pixels would be true color (the system would need fewer pixels relatively for pseudo-shade to smoothe your fonts). So as far as I am concerned you are not nuts. But let me think about it and I'll confirm tomorrow when I'm sober (it's been a reallllly long night here, and I'm quite drunk...).

NicoMan

You type really well for a drunk dude!

I think I will try to hook my PowerBook up to my Sony 21" CRT monitor at 1600x1200 some time and see how the smoothed fonts look on it. I'm suspecting that I will like the results much better -- and if so, one of my three big OS X concerns has the potential to be addressed in the future should Apple make the resolution on PowerBooks on par with the UXGA displays you see on other laptops.

Hint, hint, Apple....

NicoMan

Jan 20, 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by john123

You type really well for a drunk dude!

I think I will try to hook my PowerBook up to my Sony 21" CRT monitor at 1600x1200 some time and see how the smoothed fonts look on it. I'm suspecting that I will like the results much better -- and if so, one of my three big OS X concerns has the potential to be addressed in the future should Apple make the resolution on PowerBooks on par with the UXGA displays you see on other laptops.

Hint, hint, Apple....

2 things might make the fonts-smoothing experience better: either you have a display with a very fine dot pitch, or you use bigger fonts (in number of dots). But then you will want to have a higher resolution screen so that those bigger fonts don't take too much real estate on your screen. So in the end, I feel that higher/better-quality screens is the answer, whichever way you want to look at it.

Now back to those Powerbooks: IF the 15" goes from a 15.2" 1280*854 to a 15"4 1280*800 (note that I have said IF), then you are right, with regards to our conversation about text-smoothing it will be a worse proposition. However, the difference will be minimal, and there are also other factors that will impact your computing experience, i.e. screen response time, brightness (which varies a lot across LCD screens) and contrast for example. So I don't think making a choice is as simple as calculating pixel width...:)

NicoMan