Is osX ready for Primetime?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by fourthtunz, Feb 12, 2003.

  1. fourthtunz macrumors 6502a

    fourthtunz

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Maine
    #1
    Yeah, I've been complaining that Apple should hold onto OS9 booting computers for a bit longer for this reason.
    I like OSX but for real work OS9 is more solid. Have you seen the postings on Imovie 3? I just installed it and thought before I captured this 2 hour project that I'm working on that I would check here and Macintouch to see what issues there might be.
    Well it appears that there are too many problems with Imovie:(
    What are your experiences? What do you use OSx for?
    Please don't flame me, I love OSX, I just can't seem to get any work done with it, so I have to stay in 9, how about you,thanks
    daniel
     
  2. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #2
    Depends on what you're doing

    If you use Quark then OS9 is still your pony

    If you use Indesign OSX is your pony

    If you do Audio you might be able to go OSX only.


    In short yes OSX is ready for Primetime...but with reservations for some.
     
  3. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    I don't think iMovie 3 performance has anything to do w/OS X.

    I use OS X for everything I do, including FCP, After Effects, and Photoshop.


    Lethal
     
  4. fourthtunz thread starter macrumors 6502a

    fourthtunz

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Maine
    #4
    Re: Depends on what you're doing

    I do audio and video. I use Protools for audio, which last week or so became ready for OSX, some of my pci cards and apps will never be osX ready but I'll run them on my os9 Partition.
    I use Imovie and final cut on OS9 and X, Have not found either to be stable on X. I had the dual 867 which was a very nice machine, and still use my dual boot 733, just waiting to see what is next hardware wise and osx wise.
    So people are able to use indesign on X to make their living?
    I was starting to think apple wasn't thinking about the pro market again:confused:
    daniel
     
  5. fourthtunz thread starter macrumors 6502a

    fourthtunz

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Maine
    #5
    Hey lethal, have you gotten FCP to behave in OSX?
    Would you mind telling me which version of X,quicktime and fcp you are running? Also what about IDVD, have you gotten that to be solid? I do mostly audio but have a whole bunch of video coming. I sold my dual 867 with the superdrive because the drive was so slow and the apps inX were so nuttty.
    I'm on the fence about the new Mac cause it won't boot OS9 and I haven't had luck with the OSX apps. I saw an pc HP with a DVd burner for $999 last nite, which made me grimace. Hey I still can't do windoz but for the $$ I think apple could make their stuff more solid and let us have OS9 until X is really ready.daniel
     
  6. bryanc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Location:
    Fredericton, NB Canada
    #6
    I'm a scientist. I use OS X for everything...
    molecular modeling, sequence analysis, seminar presentations, teaching, writing, finding papers, data archiving, lab notes, everything.

    The only thing that prevents OS X being
    the best operating system for everyone is lack of applications. If the applications you need are available, OS X is probably your best option (with the possible exception of Linux for some circumstances).

    After twenty years of suffering with Windows, I'm finally free, and loving it.

    I do have some concern that the evil empire has enough political and economic power that it can and will squash Apple if it starts to become more than token competition.

    Having to go back to Windows after using OS X would be enough to make me want to quit using computers completely.

    Cheers
     
  7. dricci macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    #7
    My feelings exactly. Windows XP is an improvement from previous DOS-based versions, but underneath the fisher price UI is the same old deep, dark disasters like integrated browser, activex, and the registry.

    Linux is nice, however on the UI side developers just don't innovate. They say "let's do a very poor ripoff of the Aqua widgets and stick them on the same crappy UI mistakes we have which we copied from Windows."

    For me, there's really no other choice but Apple and OS X at this point.

    As for apps and problems under X, iMovie 3.0.1 runs great, as well as the other apps I use (Photoshop, etc.). When you properly maintain your system (install system and driver updates frequently, repair permissions and run disk first aid regularly) like I do, you tend to run into very few problems (unless the application or driver you're trying to use is very poorly coded). But on the general system and iApp level, OS X is fantastic when understood and taken care of (like any other tool, be it digital or in real life).
     
  8. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #8
    I was an "early adopter" of X. I began with the Public Beta, and have never looked back. For the first year or so I had to boot into OS 9 daily, but for about 6 months I haven't seen 9. I liked 9, but going back now, it looks and feels like a tinker-toy.

    Do I think OS X is "primetime"?No. Not because of the software though. I think when Apple takes its next step (no pun intended) with hardware, they will start to scream about OS X to the public.

    Regards,
    Gus

    P.S. I really don't see a dearth of Apps for OS X. Just check shareware titles. I have dozens of them that are better than most PC equivalents.
     
  9. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9

    I'm running 10.1.5 w/FCP 3.0.2 and QT 5. I've never had anything but minor stability issues w/ FCP. Maybe once or twice a week FCP will crash the first time I try and open it. After that it's rock solid. Hell, I'm not complaining 'cause if it feels like crashing then by all means do it only at start up so I don't lose any work. :D As soon as I get a long enough break between projects I'm going to upgrade to 10.2 and FCP 3.0.4 (or whatever the latest updates are by the time I upgrade). iDVD has never given me any problems either (I haven't upgrade to iDVD 3 yet though). Maybe it helps that my PM is a dedicated workstation? Only proggies that didn't come installed are FCP, AE, and PS. For non-editing computing tasks I use my PC.

    If you want a really nightmare trying doing video editing and DVD authoring on that $999 HP. ;)


    Lethal
     
  10. fourthtunz thread starter macrumors 6502a

    fourthtunz

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Maine
    #10
    You may want to hold off upgrading to Jaguar, I suspect that may have been the problem. I had 2 workstations a quicksilver 733 for protools and a dual 867 for video and dvd. I never got the dual to be solid in fcp or idvd. It was a brand new system with brand new apple apps, so I can't see how it could be a maintainance issue. For the last 7 years or so I've gotten used to leaving the Mac on all the time and using it as an appliance, and Os9 would not crash during a 14 hour day, so I guess I'm spoiled;)
    I'm staying os 9 for now but will see what 10.1.5 does for me.
    I always tell my clients windoz may work for the internet but not real work:D
    daniel
     
  11. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    The original transition to Jag seemed to be rough for FCP, but with the latest QT, Jag, and FCP updates things look much better. I'm happy w/ 10.1.5 but the latest update for FCP was Jag only (I don't know if that means it just fixed Jag related issues or if Apple is no longer updating FCP 10.1.5 users). In any case it will be 2 months or so before I done w/my current project. So nothing is changing anytime soon.


    Lethal
     
  12. Les Kern macrumors 68040

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #12
    I think it is, with a caveat.
    I use Jag 10.2.3 and have YET to have any problems with any apps, and refering to problems mentioned above, Quark in Classic works perfectly. The caveat? It's nice to have a fast machine becasue I'm spoiled by the speed of 9.2.2 on an 867 Tower... which I am forced to use at work. At home? OSX all the way. (Okay, I DO boot to 9 to play Ghost Recon, but games don't count for cr*p)
     
  13. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    #13
    I have a client with 3 edit suites all running the latest OS X and FCP updates on dual 867 PMs with 1GB memory. Before the upgrade to Jaguar they were running OS X 10.1.5 and FCP 3.0.2. In both cases, everything was rock solid. Maybe one FCP crash every 1-2 weeks. They don't use iDVD so I don't know about that.

    Last weekend I updated one audio suite to ProTools on OS X. From what I have heard, so far so good.
     
  14. kettle macrumors 65816

    kettle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Location:
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)
    #14
    I agree, that's the badger we're waiting for. Also, if the next step is 64bit then maybe this would be the best time (if at all) to release a version of OSX for Intel chips. Microsoft would be at it's weakest and will be struggling to remain compatible with every pc set up under the sun.
     
  15. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #15
    quark?

    how about its use with g3 processors?

    primetime will happen later this year or next year...i hope
     
  16. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #16
    X isn't ready for prime time yet, it's still a public beta. It never crashes, it's got awesome features, it's got the terminal, multi-threading, gorgeous UI, protective memory, iApps, Safari, plug and play paradise, and a few more flaws that make it suck. Sigh, it will prorbably be beta for some time, I'm not sure why Apple released this crappy beta to the public, let alone charging a few hundered dollars to get to 10.2 thru all the upgrades.



    the art of sarcasim
     
  17. FelixDerKater macrumors 68000

    FelixDerKater

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    #17
    The OS itself is ready for primetime. Some apps, such as Quark Express, etc. aren't. That isn't the fault of the OS, but developers working on old, cluttered code and having to do a load of rewriting. The hardware is slowly catching up with the OS.
     
  18. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #18
    primetime is when all these elements come together and that is at least six months to a year away

    if you listen to the industry, it is obvious

    if you listen to steve jobs, then os x 10.1 was primetime and it must have been INSANELY GREAT:p :rolleyes: :D
     
  19. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #19
    I think it completely depends on how you use OSX. I am an end user that doesn't use it for my income. I do some photo and video editing. I produce CDs and DVDs and I play with the internet and some games. All and all I do a lot of work on it but not in the since that I make my living on it.

    I couldn't get OS9 to stay up for more then a few days without having a fatal error and having to restart. This was due to the crappy programs I was running I'm sure. Well now I'm running OSX and yes those crappy programs are still around but guess what they don't bring the system down anymore. The app closes I reopen it, simple as that.

    I have been using macs since 1993 and really no how to fine tune OS9 for speed and stability but never could I get it to work like OSX. It just can't be done. Yes if you have one app open and it is a professional app with good design and coding OS9 works great. Now if you want to have 10 of those apps open and don't want to take a chance of one of the crashing and losing your work in the other 9 of them get OSX.

    So from an end user non professional perspective OSX is by and far better than 9. It took me almost a year to get use to OSX and the different ways of doing things but I persevered. Why? Because OSX never ever crashed.
     
  20. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #20
    i am a home user/mac user so i agree os x is just fine what what i would use it for

    my wife makes her living with macs and os 9 is familiar with her, and all the peripherals she uses at work and at home function with os 9, not os x ...and those peripherals don't have os x drivers yet

    i still want two versions of os x...the eye candy version for home users like me and a streamlined version for music, video, and graphics professionals like my wife
     
  21. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #21
    I agree and I think that that is coming. I kind of think that we have the pro and consumer version all in one now. Think about it you have the eye candy (consumer) also you have all the BSD tools and compilers and all that sort of stuff (pro). I think that at some point they will separate the two and sell them separately.
     
  22. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #22
    I'm running FCP3, Jaguar on a 1GHz Powerbook.... No stability problems as yet....

    I don't even have a version of OS 9 on my machine anymore.... no classic nothing..... that's how much faith I have in OSX and it's hardcore abilities.....

    I'm finding it 100% more productive than OS9, the ability to test render in After Effects and still do the cutting in FCP simultaneously is such an unanswerable boon.... it's almost too cool!!

    But I agree with jef.... Apple should provide a stripped down, ultra high performance OS.... with none of the eye candy overload....!

    Wicked!
     
  23. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #23
    the eye candy eats up the ram which could be used for adobe and macromedia software...so streamline that part

    as for windows xp, beautifully designed from microsoft, is also a ram eater ( the beautiful design was borrowed from...uh...?)

    now, a basic home user needs 256 MB of RAM these days and the casual photoshop user and gamer needs a gig of RAM...come on, what is wrong with this picture?

    the ram manufacturers want to sell their sticks and it is obvious

    i remember when photoshop worked beautifully on much less ram and didn't have an os hogging it for transluscent bouncing icons and a micheal jackson neverland kind of vibe to it

    i think pros want something that works...that's all...and something that works fast without hogging ram

    and make both the home user os x and the pro user os x the exact same price

    many of the home users have more disposable money than the artists who try and make a living being computer artists...they are still artists, remember, and though not all starving, the home user usually have a better paying "practical" job because they are not an ARTIST

    -jefhatfield

    former ARTISTE now in a practical line(s) of work:p
     
  24. jayscheuerle macrumors 68020

    jayscheuerle

    #24
    Re: Depends on what you're doing

    I use Quark through Classic in OSX. There are some redraw problems, but there doesn't seem to be a performance hit. The reason for doing this is that I can keep Photoshop and Illustrator open (along with half a dozen other apps), not have to worry about insufficient memory errors and not have to worry about losing data to crashes.

    There are definite lags in switching back and forth between apps sometimes, but it's certainly faster than having to shut one down to open up the other. For my usage styles, the performance hit is made up for by the multi-tasking and stability.

    Another user consideration is "Are your programs ready for OSX Primetime?". Native apps are the way to go.

    OSX is decent enough. It doesn't have the maturity of OS9, but what does?
     
  25. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    I follow your logic jefhatfield but I think you are over estimating the problem. All apps have gotten bigger, more complex, and more resource hungry, not jus the OS.

    Programs like Photoshop have always benefited by throwing more RAM at it. And 512 is pretty much the currently max needed for games (anyone who says they need more just wants bragging rights, IMO).

    I routinely run PS, AE, and FCP at the same time w/o any problems or slow downs and I *only* have a gig of RAM. Granted I'm not throwing around huge image files in PS, but it's still open and being used for video GFX and what not (same w/AE).

    I don't know how accurate the OS X "process viewer" is but according to it my G4, sitting idle w/no apps open, is using ~6% of my RAM (sitting idle w/FCP, AE, and PS 'bout doubles it). I don't think that's a very big system hit. Personally I'd rather toss in another stick of RAM than use a stripped down, bare bones looking GUI. Just like I'd rather spend time and money to decorate my work environment instead of working in a mind numbing gray cubical or a room w/bare white walls.


    Lethal
     

Share This Page