the emperor has no clothes - OS X is not useable

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by favedave, Apr 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    #1
    How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    I have always been an Apple champion, but not any more. Apple really blew it by making the Mac more Windows-like. Blech. A real step backwards.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #2
    I can t understand your point of view. jaguar is so "snappy", the ease of use is xtremly good. Everything is so nice, and best of all everything is based on open source, as well darwin, as the base operating system, freebsd.
    It has many advatages, for instance newbies @ computers or technical challenged people learn it really fast.
    The file system is the best ever made as it is fully unix compatible and there is no alternative for better right management fs on the world at the moment.


    by the way welcome on the boards.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    right now, im borrowing my uncle's pismo (5oomhz) and usually im on a slot loading iMac (400mhz) and on both, jaguar is very snappy. are you sure you're not running another version of os x? if you're not using jaguar, get it. it's worth it.
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    How can you say this? OS X is in no way a "step back", or a "terrible idea", it is much more stable than 9, and is advancing well.
    I have never had to use the CLI to "tweak" the OS, what r u talking about?
    You sound like an old man stuck in his ways, get over it! OS X is here to stay and is a GREAT OS! :p
    What is "confusing" about the file system to you?

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

    LOVE IT!...
     

    Attached Files:

  5. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #5
    Actually file transfers and multitasking are both faster on OSX than on OS9 (even on my beige G3 233MHz). Either your system is messed up or you're mistaking interface latency (snappiness) for actual speed. It's probably a combination of both, since almost the entire Mac community + all of the reviewers + a bunch of the PC community disagrees with you. When I go back to OS9 it feels like being trapped in a cage, I try to do multiple things at once and it laaaaags. In addition, Rendezvous, IPv6, the Dock, and many many other technologies help (or will help in the future) productivity without increasing speed.

    Troll -1 (unless your system is messed up, which seems likely)
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #6
    Yeah dude, your computer is wack. Get some more ram. that single 128 MB stick isn't going to cut it anymore. My 500 ibook is kicking better than it ever did. OS X is getting more switchers... it got me.

    Deal with it.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    chewbaccapits

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Torrance, Californizzel
    #7
    Re: the emperor has no clothes - OS X is not useable

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



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

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    #8
    It all depends on what you use it for... Make no mistakes, I think 9 was a GREAT operating system, cooperative multitasking and all; it kills even modern windoze... However, it requires a degree of knowledge to troubleshoot extensions, etc... It is also the SNAPPIEST OS I've ever used - and I agree with you to this extent! But, multitasking in X makes all the difference in the world! Try running Fetch, GoLive, Photoshop, IE, burn a CD in the background using Toast, downloading smut from newsgroups (ok, maybe you don't do that), etc... I have a Blueberry G3 - and, belive it or not, it really rocks!

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

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    #9
    My apologies to everyone for a second consecutive post...

    I think that the hardware hasn't come up to X yet... I believe most of you will agree... X is really sort of ahead of it's time! Hopefully in the next couple of years we'll see the hardware match the software efficiently... Also consider that 9 was in development since 1984!!! Apple has done a fantastic job, and continues to do so (aside from hardware - I think that will be changing soon)...
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    chewbaccapits

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Torrance, Californizzel
    #10
    I never had a computer to my name till I was 26 (29 now) and during that time in high school and college I had to use others peoples' computers(which sucked horribly). During that time, I used, both, windows and Macs...Everytime I had an important project to accomplish, Macs were there for me. As far as windows is concerned, well, just look at the fact that I don't capitalize the "w" when I describe it to let you know what I feel about that OShat.
    So, I just love it when people have a WAY better computers than mine and try complain that its "useless". Your computer is, what, 3 times faster and more powerful than mine, yet, you consider it unfunctional... While, I can declare that OSX isn't free of viable criticism, it sure isn't a "terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity". I think your post is, and I'm quoting you here, a great example of "annoying extra level of crap".
     
  11. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    #11
    some of you miss my point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    #12
    Try using an opaque theme and ShadowKiller ... aqua flies. You fell like using 9 again although it looks odd. The biggest problem for me is file organization:

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

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

    not to mention permissions ...
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    Re: some of you miss my point

    You can't use ANY of these???

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

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

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #14
    For perceived speed, Mac OS 9.x is much faster. The Finder is multi-threaded and there is the pico kernel, so response seems more than adequate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Location:
    Knoxville Tenneesse
    #15
    Sooooo, go back to OS 9

    Hey dave, if you hate OS X so much then go back to OS 9. Why do you use Jag at all? If its so bad?

    Just wondering.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    FattyMembrane

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    bat country
    #16
    Re: the emperor has no clothes - OS X is not useable

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

    this "osx sucks" topic seems to be popular now; about every month or so, there's an "osx is slower than a frozen turd" post or something similar. people just like to bitch. the interface is the only thing that is sometimes slower on my machine and osx does twice as much as os9. i find it really hard to believe that the speed difference is noticible if even existant on a dual gig with 1.5 gigs of ram.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    crazytom

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    IL
    #17
    From my limited knowledge of OS X, it operates best when left on (or put into sleep mode). It gives the OS some time to do 'housecleaning'. I've noticed that after OS updates, certain things do open slower (sometimes much slower) the first couple of times. Updating to 10.2.5, when I first opened Mail, the icon bounced about a dozen times...then it only bounced once opening it thereafter.

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

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

    My $.02.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #18
    I'm a Mac user from 1986, and I have to say OSX was TOUGH to go to. It took 3 hard tries, but the third time was a charm. I did notice, as anyone would, that opening apps and windows is painfully slow. But once open, it flies. I have it on an 867 SP 1.5ram at home, and 9.2.2 on an OS9 at work on the same machine. X is "better" in like models hands down. True, apps fly open in 9... absolutely everything else flies in X. As for productivity, for me, X has surpassed 9 after I became comfortable knowing just where everything "wants" to go. Oddly, Ghost Recon, my only "diversion" works better in 9 with an ATI 64mb card!!?? Bottom line, learn to deal with the latency and your X-perience will go better. How do I deal with the latency? Want "snappy" apps? I never quit an app, except Safari when it quits all by itself! Oh, and I never crash. So there.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #19
    Re: some of you miss my point

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Taft
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #20
    Re: Re: some of you miss my point

    But it DOES revolve around him. See, HIS productivity is important to him, not Mac evengelism. I say it's up to the Mac community to help HIM, not berate him. Saying he should buck-up and "take it" because it's good for the Mac community is ridiculous. If X doesn't fill his bill, and WE can't help him, then for now maybe 9 is the answer for him, and shame on us.
     
  21. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #21
    If you run a comparison of the two OS's on single processor computer, there is a good chance that a hoggy application WILL be faster under OS 9.x than OS X.

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

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

    ---

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

    ---

    But the transition from OS 9 to OS X is a pain, most everyone complained about it until they got used to it. And it does take awhile...
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22
    Re: Re: Re: some of you miss my point

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

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

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

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

    Taft
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #23
    I have a Dual 867 MDD with a Gig of RAM and a Radeon 9000. I think Its VERY VERY zippy. Everything, even App launching Is near Instant. Even a large app like Photoshop takes only 10 seconds to open. Menus are instant, and IMO X actually feels faster then 9. Another thing I lose In 9 is the second G4, as OS 9 isnt coded to handle Duals, and X is made for them. I can't say how much I love this thing.
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #24
    I'm gonna be blunt about this: The differences in speed you are reporting are not realistic. You either need to get your G4 repaired under warranty or stop exaggerating to make it seem like your whining has some basis in fact. It does not.

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

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

    You don't like change, fine. Don't upgrade, use OS 9 and live with the consequences. OS X is here to stay, and on the whole both Apple and their customers are benefitting enormously from it, not just "the geeks."
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #25
    this post again? double poster.

    anyway like i said before, whats your problem, if you dont use osx and are happy with os9 then USE IT, and be content. why are you complaining about osx if you already said you dont use. it. fine dont use it, who cares. why are you complaining about something you dont even USE? i dont get it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page