My first Mac experience

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by jesped8, Mar 9, 2005.

  1. jesped8 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    #1
    Until today my only first hand experience with Mac was browsing through my friend's PowerBook on the odd occasion. Today, however, I had my first shot at using a Mac for a longer period, writing on the library's PowerMacs (OS 9.2) for about two hours.

    The first computer I tried crash when I tried to access the Internet, and I had to turn it off and restart it. The second time I actually got on to the Internet, but when trying to access a page it crashed again. The third time the computer crashed (all within five minutes or so) I decided to take another one. I figured it was probably just that one there was trouble with, but the only other one that was turned on was, it turned out, left because it had crashed. Third time's a charm, and the third computer I took worked for about 10 minutes. Then it, too, crashed. I restarted it (by the way, it sounds like a vacuum cleaner when it starts, everyone in the library looked at me angry for making all that noise), and it worked for about 15 minutes until it crashed again.

    Within a couple of months' time I'm thinking of replacing my four years old Dell Inspiron (Windows 2000) that I bought used a year ago. It has served me well, and apart from a few problems waking up after the lid has been closed, probably a loose wire somewhere, it has never let me down in any way. I'm considering getting an iBook when Tiger comes out, but after seeing how "well" the PowerMacs worked, I'm not that enthusiastic about Apple's capabilities. In fact, I was downright dissapointed with Apple.

    Comments, anyone?
     
  2. coleg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    #2
    I've never used OS 9.x but maybe go out and try a system with OS 10.x.

    I wonder why the computers kept crashing. That's kind of funny.

    I've been using an Apple since last August and haven't had any problems. Boop.
     
  3. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #3
    OS 9.2 is ancient now. It can hardly be used to evaluate a modern Mac. You need to try something with OSX, preferably 10.3. Using 9.2 is like a Mac user trying a machine with Win 98 that has never been reinstalled since it was first bought (like 7 years ago) and using that to decide that Win XP is pretty poor.

    Do you have an Apple store near you? If so go and play with the machines there. The staff will probably be more than happy to let you just play with the computers for as long as you like (and they are internet connected iirc).
     
  4. JzzTrump22 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    You can't say your dissapointed in Apple because the library has ancient machines running an ancient OS. You need to get down to an Apple store and try out the real bad boys first hand. Believe me, you will want to walk out of the store with one that day.
     
  5. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5
    Do you honestly believe that hundreds of thousands if not millions of professional users can't get a days work done without the Mac constantly crashing?

    An old machine in a public library is nothing like a brand-new powerbook.

    Go get a decent demo of a modern machine.
     
  6. SteveC macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    #6
    LOL This is hilarious.

    Think about this.

    Using your experience with a stone age Mac (and that's exactly what OS 9 is) is like driving a 1950 Mercedes and using that as the basis of whether or not you should buy their 2005 model. (Hmm, was Mercedes around in 1950? lol. You get the point either way.) Seriously though... I hope you realize that.

    Seeing it any other way is simply naive. I understand that you probably aren't aware of the big differences between 9 and 10 like Mac owners are, so I forgive you. ;)

    Here's the deal though: OS 9 is to OS X what Atari is to a modern gaming system. In ALL SERIOUSNESS, that's how much of a different there is between OS 9 and OS X. OS 9 used to crash on me on a regular basis. Today, my OS X *never* crashes. Literally.

    OS 9 is old-fashioned computing. OS X is a dream to enjoy every day.
     
  7. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    IMO anything pre OS X sucked just as much as Windows did at the time.

    OS X, especially in its current version 10.3 - Panther - is a million miles away from 9.2.

    You CANNOT judge the mac platform on an ancient OS. Find a system running 10.3 and give it another chance.
     
  8. flyfish29 macrumors 68020

    flyfish29

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    New HAMpshire
    #8
    Not only for the reasons stated above, but being public machines with probably not the correct security software on them to prevent people from moving and deleting files that should not be touched they are definately not going to be a good OS9 machine. They probably were not even upgraded correctly either.

    Get yourself an OSX to try- mine has not crashed in 9 months and that was the ONLY crash I have had since I bought it 19 months ago- one required restart in 19 months is pretty good if you ask me. Oh yeah, I keep it running 24/7 most of the time and use it throughout the entire day for grad school not to mention my wife using it for work in the evenings and weekends.

    My old OS9 machine that I didn't tweak much, etc. still crashed all the time- I can't imagine trying to keep a library computer lab up and running these days.
     
  9. jesped8 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    #9
    Well, first of all the OS 9.2 is not ancient. It came out in 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9), and since the system I'm using on my Dell laptop is two years older I think it's fair to make the comparison. And if you're trying to tell me that a two-and-a-half years old Mac system is hopelessly outdated, why would that make me wanna change to Mac, even if Tiger is as good as it's supposed to be? How do I know it won't be hopelessly outdated after two-and-a-half years too? I don't wanna have to change my computer after only a few years. I'm a student, I want something that lasts at least four years or so. Frankly, it doesn't make sence.

    I still think I'm gonna get the iBook when Tiger comes out (it's the cheapest 12" screen laptop I've seen), but I'm definitely not convinced that Mac is so much better than Windows that all you Mac fans usually claim. I'm running Windows XP on my desktop, and it runs almost perfectly, so in terms of stability I can't see how OS X can improve on that.
     
  10. Daedalus macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    #10
    The difference between OS 9 and OS X is huge, much like the difference between Windows95 and Windows2000 was huge. The changes in the Mac were even bigger than
    Windows, but that'll give you an idea of the scope. OS X isn't just an improvement on 9.2, it's an entire rebuild from the ground up, essentially an entirely new operating system.

    Now, maybe a Mac is what you need, or maybe XP is better for you. There's no shame in buying either one. But at least look at OS X before you make that decision. Just like a laptop running WindowsME wouldn't be an accurate representation of modern Windows pcs running XP, a Mac running 9.2 isn't an accurate representation of modern Macs running OS X.

    Whether XP is better or OS X is better doesn't really matter. Everyone will have their opinions. Just compare the latest Windows OS to the latest Mac OS. Then make your choice, and be happy no matter what you choose.
     
  11. flyfish29 macrumors 68020

    flyfish29

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    New HAMpshire
    #11
    That web page says this:Mac OS 9.2, was introduced in 2002, but only to improve the functioning of the Classic environment in the new OSX.

    OS9 was introduced in 99 so it is almost 6 years old and had some stability issues for sure even on the best tuned mac. In addition to just running OS9, those are library computers that are public use computers...I have not used a computer in public- school, library, store- that is not screwed up in many ways due to users moving things, deleting things not to mentioin people who usually maintain these systems don't know how to properly upgrade things, etc. I have had three macs...an old Performa running OS7-8, a purple iMac running 8-9.2 and a flatscreen iMac running OSX panther. My first Mac was in 94 and it lasted about 4-5 years running quite well and did everything I wanted. I upgraded and the iMac lasted 4-5 years and was great as well. I got my latest iMac a year and a half ago and it has been awesome.

    I am glad to see that you are still going forward and I think you will not be disappointed. BUt make sure the Mac is for you. Tell us specifically what you want to do with it exactly, what you think you might want to do with it in the next four+ years and you will get an honest answer if a Mac is best for you or not. (minus a few yahoos that just say Mac is best for everyone- which is not true if you ask me.)

    Good luck
     
  12. jsalzer macrumors 6502a

    jsalzer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #12
    Ancientism

    Hey, I'll be honest, I loved OS9! Did it crash? Sure. No more than Windows, though.

    I think the key is that it's a public computer with no user restrictions on moving files, adding programs, etc. Not to mention that they likely have a Windows Only person maintaining the Wintels and leaving the Macs to fend for themselves.

    Keep in mind a few things when people here say 9.2 is Ancient:

    9 was introduced much earlier (2000 or before). 9.2 is really a patch to make OS9 work in OSX as an OS within an OS (we call it Classic mode).

    9.2 was an End of Life for the old code base. (No patches, no updates, no nothing.)

    Now, imagine any version of Windows and how it would behave after 3 years of having NO UPDATES! I have WinXP at work, and I have to install patches every week. Think if I told my machine not to install any of the updates for the next 3 years, it'd still work with current software and current internet protocols? Nope. So, yes, OS 9.2 is ancient. Three years without an update is unheard of. But, "no longer supported" means "no longer supported." It was a good 16 years with MacOS Classic. Hopefully, it'll be a good 16 years with OSX!
     
  13. angelneo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    afk
    #13
    The transition between OS 9 and OS X is complete system overhaul. In the PC terms, it would be like win XP and Longhorn if Microsoft are still sticking to their original plan. OS 9 is like an evolved OS from since the original Macintosh first started out, then they realized that the original OS is not viable anymore. They threw out the whole old OS and rebuilt a entire new one. That's why the current OS X is another new experience compared to OS 9. Anyway, I am glad that you are trying out new stuff
     
  14. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #14
    Yes, OS 9 is old. But it didn't crash every ten minutes. The systems you used were probably all configured/abused in the same poor way. My 1999 PowerBook ran OS 9 before upgrading to OS X a year or so ago, and it didn't crash - I'm sure it must have, probably, but I have no memory of it doing so, so it had to be a rare occurrence. It was kept up to date and maintained, it was used for "real" work and browsing, email, etc. It wasn't pushed too hard, but it was reliable. Now, on OS X, the exact same hardware works vastly better.

    It's your call to go OS X or Win XP. But - assuming you're not just trolling - it's not a fair comparison to say OS 9 on library computers, likely maintained by someone unaware of Mac maintenance, had instabilities that indicate that new systems running OS X are unstable. They aren't.
     
  15. Cybernanga macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Location:
    Essex, United Kingdom
    #15
    I think that the point thhat everybody is trying to make is that you can't compare system 9 to OSX.

    The Mac Operating Systems before OSX were prone to crashing IF they were not looked after. It's perfectly possible to have a stable Mac running pre-OSX OS'es. I have one right next to me, it hasn't crashed in over a year. Howver, it did take me a while to get it running that way. The main problem with the old OS'es is System Extensions, especially third party ones. They also have problems with Control Panel conflicts, and damaged font's can also cause trouble.

    The thing about OSX is that because it doesn't contain any code from the previous Systems, Apple were able to make a very reliable stable OS. The difference is absolutely amazing, and cannot be explained properly, you have to see it to believe.
     
  16. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Until today my only first hand experience with Windows was browsing through my friend's Dell Inspiron on the odd occasion. Today, however, I had my first shot at using a PC for a longer period, writing on the library's Gateways (Windows 98) for about two hours.

    The first computer I tried crash when I tried to access the Internet, and I had to turn it off and restart it. The second time I actually got on to the Internet, but when trying to access a page it crashed again. The third time the computer crashed (all within five minutes or so) I decided to take another one. I figured it was probably just that one there was trouble with, but the only other one that was turned on was, it turned out, left because it had crashed. Third time's a charm, and the third computer I took worked for about 10 minutes. Then it, too, crashed. I restarted it (by the way, it sounds like a vacuum cleaner when it starts, everyone in the library looked at me angry for making all that noise), and it worked for about 15 minutes until it crashed again.

    Within a couple of months' time I'm thinking of replacing my four years old Apple iBook (Mac OS X 10.2) that I bought used a year ago. It has served me well, and apart from a few problems waking up after the lid has been closed, probably a loose wire somewhere, it has never let me down in any way. I'm considering getting an Dell Inspiron 6000 when Longhorn comes out, but after seeing how "well" the Gateways worked, I'm not that enthusiastic about Windows' capabilities. In fact, I was downright dissapointed with Windows and Gateway and computers in general.

    Comments, anyone?




    • This is about what your post reads like to us. Slightly less ridiculous, actually..
     
  17. mac-er macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #17
    Why do I have the strange feeling of a troll lurking about?
     
  18. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    You didn't read the entire Wikipedia entry, did you? OS 9 appeared in 1998. Subsequent versions of the OS were bug fixes.

    Let's look at it in a way that hopefully you can understand.

    You're comparing a PC running Windows 2000, and it's subsequent Service Patches (which you're effectively calling a NEW version of the OS) to a PC running (some modern flavor of) Linux. It doesn't match up at all. Completely different ball parks. Get it?

    Don't let OS 9 foul your taste for Apple and OS X until you've actually tasted it.

    On another note, whomever is the Mac support person for this library sux0rs.
     
  19. Lancetx macrumors 68000

    Lancetx

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #19
    A fair comparison would be to equate Mac OS9 to Windows 98, that's how ancient the technology is. Besides, OS9 has no relation at all to any version of OS X (which is Unix based, while OS9 and earlier were not), as OS X was a complete rewrite of the Mac OS. Either way, if you're actually honestly considering a Mac, you need to go to an Apple retail store and look at the current OS, not a 6 year old non maintained version in a library that has absolutely nothing in common at all with the current Mac OS.
     
  20. bosrs1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #20
    Three words...

    OS 9 Sucked.


    Use an OSX machine and you'll change your tune.
     
  21. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    Isn't one of those a number? Sorry, couldn't resist. me lame.
     
  22. bosrs1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #22
    :rolleyes:


    You are technically right, but then again I could have written the 9 out as nine.
     
  23. Candyfingered macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #23
    This one is wise. Seriously though OP I think you were just trying to get a rise out of us all. But if you weren't take everyone's advice and go try an OS X machine. 10.3 is a dream and years ahead of any other OS out there. And Tiger is shaping up to be awesome. And all versions of 10 fron 10.1 on are incredibly stable. You have to drop the machine and then kick it to get it to "crash". And even then it's likely only the program running will crash not the OS. I've NEVER crashed the OS on my Macs.
     
  24. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #24
    look, obviously you're going to be a little skeptical of a computer when you try three of them and they all "crash". However, crashing is completely different than an application becoming unstable. The library could be using poor RAM, and thus causing apps to fail. The computers could very well suck. But don't post something saying that you're disappointed with Apple. You know very well that computers get old, just as much as you know that OS9 and OSX are completely different.

    If you're not sure that a mac is going to be more stable, then you can do two things. You can either try a new machine running 10.3, or you can use windows. But for you to obviously not even listen to what everyone is trying to tell you, then you're just being ignorant and not wanting to give something new a try.

    Sorry if I sound like I'm being harsh, but seriously... we're all telling you the same thing, and you're defending Windows for no reason. You asked for advice, and our thoughts... so listen to them.
     
  25. jesped8 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    #25
    You sound like you're my mother trying to tell me you're very dissapointed with me. Frankly, it seems a little stupid.

    Secondly, the reason I'm defending Windows is that I've never had any problems with it. My family's first computer ran Windows 3.11, and it worked fine. Win 2000 has worked fine, and XP works with no problems. That would seem like a fair reason for defending it. I also think I made a point of saying that I'm still considering buying a Mac, and that I'm not a declared Windows person.

    Unless anyone else has something important to add to the discussion, I think this topic has been outdebated. Some of the comments were helpful and I thank you for those. And some were more of the Windows bashing I've noticed that some Mac fans really enjoy. I thank you for those as well.
     

Share This Page