Mac OS Concensus

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by irmongoose, Feb 3, 2002.

?

You...

  1. use, and will use, OS 9 forever

    1 vote(s)
    1.5%
  2. want to get OS X but you can't get it

    3 vote(s)
    4.5%
  3. want to get OS X and you will get it

    9 vote(s)
    13.6%
  4. use OS X already

    53 vote(s)
    80.3%
  1. irmongoose macrumors 68030

    irmongoose

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Sometimes Tokyo, sometimes California
    #1
    I just saw all of the OS X desktops in the other thread and was just drooling all over... i dont know what I'll do when I actually get my new iMac with OS X...

    well to get to the point... who owns what Mac OS??

    I use 9 of course



    irmongoose
     
  2. michealk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #2
    I run OS X exclusively (well, except for Classic now and then, but *very* rarely). I never boot into OS 9 proper anymore.

    With the 10.1 update, OS X became a viable, fast, useful operating system - and since then I haven't looked back. I love the stability and flexibility of the OS. I'm a bit of a Unix geek, so hopping into the Terminal now and then, then popping back into a fully functional and (mostly) elegant GUI is great. My Linux box has been powered down for months.

    iPhoto rocks. Finally a digital camera app that actually works well, and does what it's supposed to.

    Sure, I miss Photoshop (although I can run it under Classic). But when in need of a quick edit, I usually run the Gimp (thanks Fink! http://fink.sourceforge.net ).

    I've just started getting my hands dirty with Java and Objective C in Project Builder, and I'm already liking the development environment a great deal. Now all I'd like to see is a good website dev. tool on OS X...
     
  3. resm macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Location:
    Singapore
    #3
    my system

    well...I use 9.2.2 and I am happy with it.
    since my hobby is digital photography my only act of graphic design on my desktop is planting a new pic on my screen that reminds me of better times then WORK.
    BUT I am also one of this species whoes heart beat is increasing every day by waiting for my new iMac . Then OS X and my new baby may inspire me to become a bit more creative. BUT I WILL STILL KEEP MY MATTERHORN !


    :)
     
  4. Stike macrumors 65816

    Stike

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Germany
    #4
    I love using OS X even on my iMacDV400 its not fast, sometimes colorwheeling, but its very convenient. The overall style is great, its simple and effective to use. OS 9 is only started for games like Diablo and UT.
    Starcraft is already ported and runs great.
    All in all, I dont miss 9.
     
  5. maclamb macrumors 6502

    maclamb

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Location:
    Northern California
    #5
    I got "mac'd" at Apple in '92 and used it as primary OS until I found it unstable (7, 8) vs NT and Win2k.
    I left the platform in 98 - hoping to return whern NeXT step was ported to the mac (worked at NeXT also...)

    Came back last year on OSX 10.04 (ugh)
    Now on 10.1.2 and LOVE it - took some getting used to but love it and it's UNIX - wqas considering turning my PC into a linux bix - but why bother?
    Have an UltraSparc if needed - Now enjoy getting programs "not ported to the mac" (Oracle stuff, for instance) to run on OSX for conference demo's etc...

    I push 9it in allmy classes and got my employer to get me a Mac 867 G4 instead of a compaq - was told it was non-standard and would have to support it myslef.
    Yawn, no prob!
     
  6. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #6
    OS X vs OS 9

    at work we use 9 only.....it's too crucial to have everything at our complete disposal at any given time.....while X runs Classic, it's sometimes too slow for production work....

    at home I have 2 partitions, each with it's own (X & 9)......for regular use I'm on X constantly....startup is X.....but when I need to do some more involved work I go back to 9 since it carries everything still....

    as soon as X can run applications like ATM Deluxe, Quark, Pagesucker (oops I mean Pagemaker!).....we'll switch over to X at work..... ;)
     
  7. spuncan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Location:
    Detroit
    #7
    Buy me a new iMac please

    Well Im unfortunatly stuck with a g3 233 destop w/ 192 ram that runs X, but very slowly. I ran it for a month until my harddrive mysteriously died. So we got a new HD and run 9.1 cuz 9.2 is buggy on our computer. But I'm interested in audio so X or not doesn't matter. Just shear speed. So unless I got a DP X wouldn't really help.
     
  8. Matthé macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    #8
    ATM

    ATM deluxe will not be ported to X, they stopped developping it cause X has built in similar functions
    for now, suitcase is the other option
     
  9. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    Running 10.1.2...

    ...on my G3 233 desktop with 384MBs of RAM and a 30GB 7200rpm HD. It runs quite nicely, starts up iMovie in under half the time of an iMacDV 400 with 128MBs of RAM. (9-10 bounces compared to 26.) Starts up IE about as fast as my friend's G4 450 with 320MBs of RAM. Occasionally it'll go unuseable and color wheel for a while, but mostly it's fine.
     
  10. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
  11. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #11
    hm, i think the poll is a little messed i chose want to use x and will buy it soon but i have x. the real choice is want to run x but need to get a new computer (and no not happening anytime soon). i think most of us who arent running osx are doing so for one reason SPEED. some people like the catfish are ok with osx on an old machine but most are not. i cant even stand the speed of osx on a 867 g4 let alone my 333 g3. but like i said its all a matter of taste and i think we have all seen plenty of people around here who say they are happy with osx on their old machine. im waiting until my next computer (im thinking rev b g5 and yes i know that could be a long time off). until then i plan on using osx only occasionally for fun (whoever got me hooked on airburst i hate you... and love you). although i have to admit im thinking of spending a few hundred bucks to drop 512mb ram in my machine mostly just so i can run osx better (256mb just doesnt cut it anymore).
     
  12. grouse macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    london
    #12
    I may sound crazy but

    I have OS X on a partition, as others do. But whilst it is fast and stable (although I have had two horrendous unix text over the screen crashes) I'm sorry but I find the look too intrusive. 9 is smart, doesn't crash much anymore, and discrete. It has stylish clean icons, not these hideously outdated, photo-realistic, HUGE, icons. Aqua is smooth and crisp I grant you, but it looks over-produced. Even at it's smallest the dock is much more intrusive than the less-functional but useful control strip. The drop down menus, especially in Illustrator, take up most of the screen!

    I would love there to be an OS X, with an enhanced 9.2.2 look, and all the unix gubbins in the background making it mullti-task and stable.

    Maybe I need to give it more time, but at the moment, it's interface and structure slows me down and puts me right off, and I have to say, amongst many colleagues I am not alone.

    Still the new G4, bottom of the range I bought yesterday rocks!
     
  13. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #13
    grouse : i agree to a degree. osx can be a little "over the top" sometimes. but i think the biggest part of that is the "loss of monitor realestate" issue. we like our big icons (i prefer cartoonish to photorealistic and i notice form the screenshots thread most other users go for that look too) and transparencies and blue flashing buttons but everything is so much bigger we feel like our screens have shrunk. i think this is another indicator of "operating system of the future." monitors keepp getting bigger (no they wont continue there are limits but please keep reading) and resolutions keep increasing as well. i recently read about a new lcd monitor by ibm. the resolution was so high that there is detail that can be seen only under a magnifying glass. so those 128x128 icons might seem way to big (i dont think many use the 128x128 resoution right now) but in a few years when our resolutions have increased exponentially we will need 128x128 to have an icon a decent size on our screen. apple is looking way ahead with some of the things in osx and a lot of it we just arent ready for. our current hardware struggles to run the damn thing at acceptable speeds. but we will be glad apple included these features from the begining in a few years. so in the meantime do like everyone else, put the dock on the right so you mimic some of the feel of os9 and so the only realestate you lose is realestate you are used to having sacrificed.
     
  14. grouse macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    london
    #14
    lemon sir

    Good comments, but the dock is on the right now, and tiny and I usually put my illus palettes on the right and many times I'm going over to change a colour or select a layer and the bloody dock helpfully pops up and suddenly I've lauched IE 5.1 for no good reason.

    And if the screens are getting bigger, there is surely a limit to what the eye can take in comfortably without a lot of head turning. With my 21 inch CRT, on 1280 x 960, I can get a double page spread of a book in quark to view and sense the things down the sides in my periferal vision, any bigger, and iI'd probably be in trouble.

    But you're absolutely right, the real estate loss is huge, and apple must make the interface more customisable as a matter of urgency. I fear it is another case of "friendly", which without meaning to be patronising to comsumer users, isn't something that pro users really need or want, quite the reverse.

    Maybe we need OS X.pro?
     
  15. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #15
    grouse: i agree about screen size. there are definite limits. but my main part about the screens is that the resolutions are increasing as well. so you have yor 12inch lcd display but the resolution on it would be 3 or 4 times what it currently is so that those 128x128 icons are the size we are used to in os9 but just a higher resolution. in the mean time all we can do is shrink the damn dock and hope for the future sooner rather than later.

    here is a great discussion on the mac os x dock i really wish apple would read this http://interfacemafia.org/articles/200108/200108-ar0001.shtml
     
  16. michealk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #16
    With regards to the comments about OS X's look being "over the top", I agreed when I first saw it. I mean, really, who wants an OS with big blinky dialog buttons, translucency, all those huge photorealistic icons eating up real estate?

    But, like any OS, the user tailors it to their preferences. My dock is *very* small, and I like it that way. Contrary to popular belief and opinion, you can actually find stuff on the dock very quickly, even when the icons are quite small. Likewise, I've reduced the rather huge desktop icons to a more managable size (it's a simple slider in the View Options menu). Switching the CPU-intensive "Genie" effect to the much simpler "Scale" option really improved UI performance when minimizing and maximizing windows.

    The overall speed of the OS had me concerned at first as well. I was running it on a G4 cube and it was dog slow. A little poking around revealed that it was swapping to disk maniacally. Ah. Not enough RAM. I recommend at least 384 MB of RAM if you want to use OS X (and Classic) seriously. With today's RAM prices, that's not an expensive upgrade and the performance gains are well worth the money.

    Finally, make sure you're running the 10.1 update. It made a *huge* difference overall in the "feel" of the operating system. The UI is much snappier now, and all is well in OS X-land.
     
  17. Pepzhez macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #17
    Too many of my apps are still not ported to OSX (Logic Audio, Photoshop, not sure if Cleaner 5 works on OSX yet). I'm sure the speed issue will be resolved around 10.3 or maybe not until 10.5. So I'm waiting until then. Once that happens then OSX will be the ultimate.
     
  18. TazGuido macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Location:
    minneapolis
    #18
    why am i having trouble?

    why would i have so much trouble getting quicken 2002 to open up a new account? i am by the way a mac newbie!:( can someone please help?!
     
  19. MaxRool macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Location:
    Lives in Melbourne, works in Sydney
    #19
    Yeah, I agree

    OS9 in native mode is really fast and slick now.

    But OSX is addictive.

    And Java is much easier to deal with under OSX. And the hotspot JVM is much, much faster than the OS9 JVM.

    I was born and bread on the Mac GUI and used to laugh at my DOS friend who had to type at a CLI.

    Now I wouldn't give up my tcsh prompt for anything.
     
  20. irmongoose thread starter macrumors 68030

    irmongoose

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Sometimes Tokyo, sometimes California
    #20
    Man...

    Just think about it... soon there would be a generation which would never touch OS 9... all they would know would be OS X.... wow. and sad at the same time...



    irmongoose
     
  21. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #21
    Re: Man...

    it's those "little things" that make such a difference....
     
  22. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #22
    What's even sadder is that a lot of OS 9 users never used OS 8, and OS 7, and OS 6 (picture millions of colors fading to thousands of colors fading to 256 colors fading to 16 colors fading to 256 shades of gray fading to black and white)....... and OS 1!

    Oh, and The Apple ][, //e, Lisa, etc. etc. It's history and for that I love it. But for the advancement of operating systems? Give it a few years and we won't hardly look back.
     
  23. MacKenzie999 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    Boston
    #23
    Re: ATM

    No ATM Deluxe is a deciding factor for me on OSX (as is Photoshop...c'mon Adobe, you're p_ssing me off!)...

    Anyway, what functions does OSX have for fonts? Custom sets? ease of de/activation?

    Thanks
    -Mike
     
  24. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #24
    ah the memories of OS 1.0 ...

    and for those of you who just have to get your hands on the past...
     

Share This Page