What was everyone's least favorite Mac OS?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by bosrs1, Jun 27, 2006.

?

What was your least favorite Mac OS?

  1. System 1-4

    5 vote(s)
    4.7%
  2. System 5

    1 vote(s)
    0.9%
  3. System 6.0.x

    1 vote(s)
    0.9%
  4. System 7-7.1

    4 vote(s)
    3.7%
  5. System 7.5

    11 vote(s)
    10.3%
  6. System 7.6

    7 vote(s)
    6.5%
  7. System 8

    11 vote(s)
    10.3%
  8. Mac OS 9

    17 vote(s)
    15.9%
  9. Rhapsody

    6 vote(s)
    5.6%
  10. Mac OS X Server 1.x

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. Mac OS X Public Beta

    9 vote(s)
    8.4%
  12. Mac OS 10.0 Cheetah

    20 vote(s)
    18.7%
  13. Mac OS 10.1 Puma

    6 vote(s)
    5.6%
  14. Mac OS 10.2 Jaguar

    4 vote(s)
    3.7%
  15. Mac OS 10.3 Panther

    2 vote(s)
    1.9%
  16. Mac OS 10.4 Tiger

    3 vote(s)
    2.8%
  1. bosrs1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #1
    What was the one version or patch of OSX that just made you go, "WTF are you thinking Cupertino." Don't be bashful, we all have at least one that just makes us shake our head and run to buy the next upgrade or download the next patch.

    For me it was without a doubt 7.5. I ended up disliking it so much I got rid of my Quadra 660AV and bought a Gateway running Windoze 95. The OS just crashed like there was no tomorrow and got more fustrating then I could bear.
     
  2. bosrs1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. ahunter3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    #3
    MacOS 8.0 was as bad as MacOS 8.6 was good. Which makes it very difficult to vote because you've aggregated all MacOS 8 into one category.

    MacOS 8.0 had an incredibly sludgy Finder, horribly unresponsive, and was crashy and buggy. MacOS 8.1 fixed it well enough that I was willing to use 8, but for the duration of 8.0 I said "to heck with this" and downgraded to 7.6.

    Dishonorable mention also goes to umm damn...was it 6.0.4 or 6.0.6 that was such an abomination? I seem to recall that 6.0.7 was not particularly pleasant to work in either. Sorry, it's been awhile. I do recall sticking with 6.0.3 and then 6.0.5 to avoid some buggy releases before going to 6.0.8.

    System 7.0 was a dog and a buggy dog at that. They fixed it with 7.0.1 and did so soon enough that I've forgotten what-all was so badly wrong with 7.0, but something was.

    There was an ancient System release that was bad to the bone... one of the decimal-point variants on System 3, perhaps? I don't remember much about it except that everyone just said "don't do it" and so we didn't.

    Cheetah (OS X 10.0) was pretty awful. Almost unusable. Mostly just nowhere ready for prime time. As with 8.0, sludgy and sluggish and crash-prone. (Yes it did. I met and exchanged salutes with Colonel Panic on a regular basis whenever I bothered to boot X).

    MacOS 9.1 and 9.2 were a mixed bag: not too bad on the later model Macs that could boot them but nothing earlier, but pretty buggy and bloated for Macs that could boot 9.0.4 instead. Didn't like ADB/Serial-era Macs. By that time most of Apple's attention was on making 9 work for OS X's Classic environment, sometimes at the expense of its usability as a native-booting OS.
     
  4. iSee macrumors 68040

    iSee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    #4
    10.0 and 10.1 were both beta software masquerading as real OS's.

    I voted for 10.1 because there are even fewer excuses for a second release, but you can make a case for 10.0 because it set the trend.
     
  5. imacintel macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
  6. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    7.5.1 was a piece of **** that I hated having to support.
     
  7. Yuvi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    #7
    I remember seeing the public beta for OS X and really wondering what Apple was thinking with the UI - the Apple was in the middle of the menu bar for starters. They changed the UI to more closely mirror OS 9 for 10.0 because of the amount of negative feedback. Although, the position of the Apple is the only thing I can remember being wtf.

    I also seem to remember some aspect of 7.6 being absolutely horrible for 68k machines that made me downgrade to 7.5.5, at least until 7.6.1, which I don't remember as being better than 7.5.5. I can't remember what that was, though.

    Also, 7.5.3 was absolutely horrible. I think that was the most crash-prone OS I've ever used.
     
  8. dextertangocci macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #8
    I said Rhapsody, although I didn't even know Apple released an OS by that name, so it obviously wasn't popular:p
     
  9. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    Well Rhapsody was early OS X Server, so that's not quite fair to say.
    It had limited appeal to limited people because of the nature of the beast.

    RacerX would be upset to hear you say it. :)

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2544921&postcount=32
     
  10. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #10
    More along the lines of perplexed...

    How is something that you no nothing about your least favorite? Generally if I have no experience with something I would disregard it in such a poll.

    Basically this would be like me saying that QNX is my least favorite operating system because I haven't spent any time using it. I could always come up with a least favorite based on first hand experience that would be worse than a system I had zero experience with.


    :rolleyes:

    I guess if we had a poll on our least favorite people you'd pick someone you don't know. :eek:
     
  11. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #11
    OSX Public beta was cool, cuz public betas are always cool. 10.0 was awful because it wasn't developed enough for full-time computing use.
     
  12. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #12
    For my least favorite person, I'd pick whichever Apple programmer is to blame for the tremendous UI lag I just had, causing Safari to stutter and me to click on "Rhapsody," immediately after I said in the "favorite OS" thread that I really liked the early NS/OS derivatives.

    "You are a man of tremendous passions, Kalisphoenix."

    *beats the kernel_task out of 10.4.7 or whatever is causing everything to run like @#$%*
     
  13. maxrobertson macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Location:
    Jakarta
    #13
    Cheetah

    Cheetah was necessary, but it sucked because it was no longer beta, but had beta performance. Jaguar would be the oldest OS X version I would ever use :).
     
  14. JackSYi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
  15. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #15
    Totally 7.5 or 7.6 (I said 7.6). Sure, 7.6 added some of the features that eventually made 8 as spiffy as it was, but those later versions of System 7 were horribly unstable and indicitive of the crushing stagnation going on in the OS division at that time at Apple. They also had miserable network tools compared even to 8.0, but since they were at the leading edge of the Internet boom that was all the more painful.

    8 was such a huge relief when it came out that I couldn't bear to use 7 as soon as I'd even SEEN it. Then again, running a BeOS version on my old 6500 showed me what Copland COULD have been if Apple had gotten its but in gear--like OSX, but running on a fraction of the hardware.

    I'm not complaining about where we ended up, though--even the earliest versions of 10.0 were amazingly stable for me (yeah, the beta was pretty flakey, but it was a beta, and least we got to try it!). The BeOS might have had more potential in some ways, but having a *nix kernel has a lot to be said for it in terms of interoperability, and we did quite well with backward compatability between Carbon and Classic.
     
  16. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #16
    System 7.5.x on PowerPC was my personal nightmare. I considered going to another platform, especially with my Wallstreet PowerBook but the original system software was almost as bad.

    10.0 was about like BeOS without the good parts. It worked but there wasn't an application that would really run on it. 10.0.4 was where it finally looked like a viable operating system but it took until 10.1.5 to actually be useful for me.
     
  17. caccamolle macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    #17
    .. the system 7.xxx was a disaster. But certainly the first OS X was also problematic, sort of ahead of its time.
     
  18. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #18
    What makes you think that a newer version of the BeOS done by Apple would have been any better than what we got with Mac OS X?

    I've run Mac OS X Server 1.2 (Rhapsody 5.6) on a PowerBook 3400c/200 (which is slower than the slowest 6500... the 6500/225) and the only reason I am not still running it on that system today is the 800x600 display (Rhapsody really needs a minimum of 1024x768). The first version of Mac OS X was released in 2001 while the last updates to the BeOS were made in 1998.

    I highly doubt that a 2001 BeOS would have had the same fractional requirements that the 1998 version had. But my 1998 version of what would later become Mac OS X (Rhapsody 5.1) runs great on an IBM ThinkPad 760ED (Pentium at 133 MHz with 80 MB of memory)... which is also significantly slower than your 6500.

    Comparing the system requirements of the BeOS on Intel with those of NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP on Intel... the BeOS requirements (specially in the area of graphics cards) were quite high. I ran NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody on many systems that fell below the minimum requirements for running the BeOS.

    Plus NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody ran on a wide range of laptops (and in the case of Rhapsody, PowerBooks too) where as the BeOS was unsupported for laptop use. And another illustration of the higher system requirements of the BeOS shows in the fact that you can't run the BeOS in VirtualPC where as NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody could be run in even very early versions (I used all three in VirtualPC 3.0).

    Further, Copland was killed off by the applications barrier to entry.

    As originally designed, Copland was to be a fresh start... but developers told Apple that they would not rewrite their existing apps for a new operating system (specially one which had no users). This set Apple into years of development on creating an application environment for Copland that would allow developers to use most of what they already had in their existing System 7 compatible apps.

    Even after spending all that time on that environment for Copland, Apple still required another 5 years to get it fully functional when applied to Mac OS X as Carbon.

    Even if Apple had gone with the BeOS, the same steps would have had to have been made... the development time for Carbon (or what ever they would have called it) would have been about the same too.

    Both Carbon and Classic were pre-existing Apple technologies... Carbon was the application environment from Copland and Classic was based on the Macintosh Application Environment (MAE) for Unix systems. Both of these would have most likely been applied to the BeOS had Apple taken that rout.

    This leaves us with comparing the native application and development environments of the BeOS with that of NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. Not only was the environment in NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP more mature, is was highly sought after in the industry (Sun had invested many years and tons of resources on moving Solaris to this application and development environment).

    Additionally, what NeXT offered that Be couldn't was immediate revenue.

    NeXT became Apple Enterprise and continued to sell OPENSTEP, OpenStep Enterprise, Enterprise Objects and (most importantly at the time) WebObjects. The price that Apple paid for NeXT wasn't just for the foundations of a future operating system and Jobs... it was for existing product lines including a product that would let Apple cash in on the growing popularity of the web.

    :rolleyes:

    Still, I'd be interested in hearing why you think the BeOS had more potential in some ways.

    Had Apple not bought NeXT, Sun would have taken the shared technology and run with it. If NeXT would have gotten any weaker (though once relieved of supporting an operating system I doubt they would have had too many problems until the bursting of the .com bubble) Sun would have bought them for sure.

    When Apple didn't buy Be, they sued Microsoft for anticompetitive practices (Microsoft threaten OEMs who had considered preinstalling the BeOS on their systems) and then looked to the embedded software market. When they were bought by Palm, Palm didn't seem to put any of that potential to any good use.
     
  19. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
  20. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #20
    Question: Have 7% of the people who voted in this poll even USED Rhapsody, let alone enough to call it their least favorite MacOS? Ignoring that anomaly, the humps around 7.x and 10.0/10.1 are telling, though.

    I never said that the BeOS would have made a better OSX than what we have now--in fact, I don't think it would have. I was merely saying that the BeOS was pretty impressive on limited resources (albeit with no compatibility with anything) than Copland had managed to be with consideralby more backing behind it (but also considerably more requirements in terms of backward compatibility).

    Worth noting, though, that even if Apple benefited from the development on backward-compatible technologies during the Copland project, if the core had been worthwhile I don't see why they would've scrapped it in favor of buying NeXT--there was obviously something fundamentally wrong with the project as it stood.

    My point with the BeOS's potential was that it was sort of a "fresh start" OS. Had a lot of neat stuff with metadata built into the BeFS, and freedom from legacy technologies let the do some stuff with potential. I had a friend with a BeBox who was quite fond of the OS at the time, and it had some nice ideas.

    That said, I have no particular reason to believe it would've made any better of an OSX than NEXTSTEP did, and we wouldn't have all the cool *nix background or Cocoa, either.

    I do wish that Palm hadn't shelved it, though--it really was a nice, solid little OS to dump on older machines (PPC or Intel) to give them basic network/media functionality. I'd certainly have bought a copy, even if it was just for the heck of it.
     
  21. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #21
    I was interested in what potential you thought it had... which you did answer with:
    "My point with the BeOS's potential was that it was sort of a "fresh start" OS. Had a lot of neat stuff with metadata built into the BeFS, and freedom from legacy technologies let the do some stuff with potential."

    The work on the core had been disrupted by management at Apple worrying about developers. Had they left the Copland team alone to finish the foundations and then worried about the backwards compatibility later, it could have most likely finished with a nice OS.

    But we should recall that at the time all this was happening Apple was having serious problems at the upper levels of the company. And those people had no qualms with projecting their issues down to the lower levels.

    In the end Apple killed the motivation of their engineers on the Copland project... and when new management came in, they rightly saw that with those people burned out by bad management that they needed to start looking outside of Apple for a core operating system to start out with. And by starting out with a good foundation, they could then start addressing the worries of both customers and developers.

    Going with NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP was actually questionable in one major way... the Unix licensing issue. NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP and Apple's A/UX had all run about $800 for a single user license because they were based on Unix. And Apple had considered using the SunOS as a foundation too, which like A/UX was based on System V.

    Fortunately BSD was made free in 1994. NEXTSTEP/OPESNTEP was based on 4.3BSD and when Apple started work on Rhapsody they started using 4.4BSD-Encumbered (the non-free version)... but did start to use elements from OpenBSD and NetBSD.

    Apple decided that the best way to cut the cost of the new OS was to replace the 4.4BSD-Encumbered with 4.4BSD-Lite and then use elements from the BSD community to make up for the elements that were missing. This was the start of Darwin... Rhapsody would use 4.4BSD-Encumbered until it was discontinued by Apple in the summer of 2001. Apple focused on one distribution from the BSD community for Darwin and that was FreeBSD.

    Apple most likely would have had a harder time had they taken the Mac environment of A/UX and put it on top of the SunOS because it would have still been System V rather than BSD. Though that could have been solved when Sun bought out their System V license... the question would have been what would Sun have charged Apple for the SunOS?

    Elements of Copland (that became Carbon) would still have likely made it's way into an A/UX-SunOS operating system to take advantage of the structure (which wasn't there in A/UX, System 7.0.1 was as flakey in A/UX as it was by itself). And had Sun included elements from Solaris, Apple would have still been faced with the Adobe licensing fee issue as Solaris was using Display Postscript too.

    Further, Sun may not have been totally supportive of Apple in this case because Sun would have been pushing OpenStep Solaris as a desktop solution at the same time.


    :rolleyes:

    Well, the possible scenarios at that time are almost endless... but still very interesting. When you know all the players and what they were doing and planning at the time it makes it fun to think about what could have happened.

    It also makes one appreciate what did happen as most of this stuff was not known by the players involved in making the choices back then.
     
  22. SuperSnake2012 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    NY
    #22
    OS 8, the OS that forced me to be a Windows user for nearly a decade. So many nightmares using that operating system on the original iMacs :eek:
     
  23. chairguru22 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    PA
    #23
    i wonder what other cat names will come after leopard... lion? ocelot? house cat?

    EDIT: a little googling and i discovered that lynx and cougar are already trademarked.
     
  24. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #24
    Its just a complete theory on my part, but I guess thata vasy majority of the people on the poll are too young to Mac's to even experience an early OSX so they can see other people's results.

    I would imagine less than 20% of our voters/posters have even used OS9
     
  25. MacRumoron macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    #25
    i've only used 10.2-10.4

    out of those 3, 10.2 is my least favorite :)
     

Share This Page