Mac OS 9 and Powerbooks

[john123]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac


As for multitasking, nice save there, chief. It is absolutely correct that when a program is doing absolutely nothing, multitasking isn't going on. However, instant messenger programs, email programs, and iTunes all do things when you're not actively using them. Listening to iTunes, typing a post, and downloading software is multitasking too.

In fact, if it weren't for the way iTunes for OS 9 was programmed to overcome OS 9's multitasking difficulties, it wouldn't even work. Have you actually listened to an MP3 or even a MIDI in QuickTime Player on OS 9 as you started a program? It stops playing until the program's opened. Another thing I despise about 9 is when an application locks up, you can't switch out of it. You're stuck until it's done. It's wasted time.

As for how your 9 rarely crashes, could you quantify that? Once a week? Month? Year?

I spend an entire post attacking your criticisms and conclude with a pithy comment about your stupidity, and you accuse me of not being able to attack your criticisms? Did you even read my post? It is curious that you mention this issue first, and the actual discussion later. This entire thing is an afterthought for me, and it's truly sad you've attached this much importance to it.

Listening to iTunes, downloading software, and typing a post is all very, very doable in OS 9, and is going to be faster than doing those same things in OS X. The CPU load involved in two of your three tasks (the downloading and the typing of the post) is truly minimal.

My OS 9 crashes about 1/5 to 1/10 as often as component apps annoyingly crash in OS X. That's quantification.

As for being locked into an app in OS 9, there's a force quit option there, too...just like in OS X. Oh wait, you'd have to actually know what you're talking about to know about that...

Incidentally, genius (that's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell), I responded to every element in your post and only quoted your conclusion -- mostly because that pithy summary cast incredible light onto your myopia and anger at the world. That much has already been demonstrated. Seriously, if a relative of yours were in a car accident, I bet you'd try to blame that on OS 9, too.

You need to get a grip, dude. A grip, and an education...so many needs, so little time...

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by john123


As for being locked into an app in OS 9, there's a force quit option there, too...just like in OS X. Oh wait, you'd have to actually know what you're talking about to know about that...

I know full well about the force quit option. However, that locks up the entire computer by itself much of the time. And it requires a restart to clear out the memory and make it stable (at least according to the dialogs). And, it requires you to make a judgment call about whether or not the app is locked up or just taking awhile to do something. In Mac OS X, you can just switch programs, and if that program stays locked up, you're free to force quit it (from the dock, no less.)

I also hope you know about the massively improved force quit dialog in X.

John, be honest with me. Have you even *used* Mac OS X, or do you just read about it in MacAddict?

Your wildly hyprocritical personal attacks and your obsession with my emotional state are rather interesting, John (or should that be "Professor"?). But unfortunately very off-topic. But the battle of wits is joined. And while you claim a high IQ, I'm just going to assume you thought your raw score was your percentile, because that's the only explanation for what you've shown in this forum.

(If you don't get that, ask your mom to explain that to you.)

 

[john123]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac


I know full well about the force quit option. However, that locks up the entire computer by itself much of the time. And it requires a restart to clear out the memory and make it stable (at least according to the dialogs). And, it requires you to make a judgment call about whether or not the app is locked up or just taking awhile to do something. In Mac OS X, you can just switch programs, and if that program stays locked up, you're free to force quit it (from the dock, no less.)

I also hope you know about the massively improved force quit dialog in X.

John, be honest with me. Have you even *used* Mac OS X, or do you just read about it in MacAddict?

Your wildly hyprocritical personal attacks and your obsession with my emotional state are rather interesting, John (or should that be "Professor"?). But unfortunately very off-topic. But the battle of wits is joined. And while you claim a high IQ, I'm just going to assume you thought your raw score was your percentile, because that's the only explanation for what you've shown in this forum.

(If you don't get that, ask your mom to explain that to you.)

You know, our difference of opinion regarding the OS aside, I bet we'd get along great if we went out as drinking buddies...

Okay, let me depersonalize this a bit. I've used OS X quite a bit more now that I have my TiPB 1Ghz. The ATI Radeon Mobility 9000 with 64MB of RAM makes all the difference in my opinion. Compares to my old 667 DVI PB, the increase in speed under 10.2.x is much greater than that over 9.2.x, and the most compelling explanation for that is the GPU.

But my everyday experience is much like the following: I have Word and Excel always open, 2 or 3 different e-mail clients (sadly I can't consolidate these), a web browser (IE in OS 9 and Chimera in OS X) always running a Java applet, and other apps that are not as consistent (e.g., Photoshop, stats software, GraphicConverter, VPC, and so on).

And with that typical use, comparing pure speed from my old DVI PB in OS 9 to my Ghz PB in OS X, the old one wins. Now to me, that's frustrating. True multitasking support and protected memory are nice, sure...but why must we face such a speed premium? Am I to believe that it's required?

The answer really does rest with the GUI. You say I can turn these things off via the Terminal. OK. How? Is there a book with command-line instructions? Can I make my fonts for my icons on the desktop look OS 9-y? Can I make those OS X toolbars disappear for good (they always seem to come back)? What about the Dock -- any way to erradicate it?

Perhaps my dislike for OS X comes from my solely casual use of it. But I don't see anything on Apple's page advertising ways to dumb down the OS. So, Phil, can you enlighten me?

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Ah, heck. I'm sorry it got personal.

OS X is slower than 9, but it's worth it to me. I don't really know what the entire cause of the slowdown is, but UNIX in any case is a rather complex and hefty OS, and that overhead's gonna be there either way. The UI elements might make this worse, though.

I don't really know the terminal commands, but macosxhints.com probably has a great deal of them in their database. They have a *lot* of speed tips, too. Failing that, there's probably some third-party software that adjusts things. System Preferences allows you to turn off font smoothing for 12 point and lower fonts, which may help. That's under the General pane. (Incidentally, you can also set it to "Medium", which is "recommended for LCD displays", if it isn't set as such already.)

My desktop is always covered with windows anyway, so in X, I just go to the desktop folder in the Finder instead. Speaking of the Finder, Column View is really cool.

Which toolbars do you mean? Finder toolbars can be turned off with the button in the upper right hand corner. They come back, but if you open a window, click that button, and immediately close the window without doing anything else, it should save that setting. However, that puts you in "OS 9 Mode", which disables column view and other features. The toolbar's just one of those things that's different but will probably end up worth it.

As for the dock, it can be killed, but I suggest making the dock smaller by dragging on the divider if you want, moving it to the side of the screen if you want, putting only your everyday applications in the Dock, and using LaunchBar for everything else. LaunchBar (www.obdev.at) allows you to launch any application from the keyboard. You just hit command-spacebar (or any other combination of your choosing) and type in an abbreviation for the app you want. You don't have to set the abbreviations, either. If you go to the website, I'm sure they can explain it better than I can.

Every day, I just click every app in the Dock from left to right and let them load. If I don't use an app daily, I use LaunchBar to fire it up when I need it.

As an added bonus, you can quit any app from the Dock-no need to switch to it. Holding down option force quits, but the Finder automatically switches to force quit if it detects that the app locks up. Even when that happens, though, there's still a chance the app is just busy and will be responsive later. This is why preemptive multitasking is so cool.

If you right-click the divider in the Dock, you can set minimization to "scale effect", which is faster than "genie effect".

Processor-burdening graphical effects aside, the Mac OS X UI, for me at least, is massively superior if you try and go along with it. It takes awhile to readjust, but you really might find it to be worth it. Especially when you have a whole gigahertz to play with

 

[john123]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Ah, heck. I'm sorry it got personal.

OS X is slower than 9, but it's worth it to me. I don't really know what the entire cause of the slowdown is, but UNIX in any case is a rather complex and hefty OS, and that overhead's gonna be there either way. The UI elements might make this worse, though.

I don't really know the terminal commands, but macosxhints.com probably has a great deal of them in their database. They have a *lot* of speed tips, too. Failing that, there's probably some third-party software that adjusts things. System Preferences allows you to turn off font smoothing for 12 point and lower fonts, which may help. That's under the General pane. (Incidentally, you can also set it to "Medium", which is "recommended for LCD displays", if it isn't set as such already.)

My desktop is always covered with windows anyway, so in X, I just go to the desktop folder in the Finder instead. Speaking of the Finder, Column View is really cool.

Which toolbars do you mean? Finder toolbars can be turned off with the button in the upper right hand corner. They come back, but if you open a window, click that button, and immediately close the window without doing anything else, it should save that setting. However, that puts you in "OS 9 Mode", which disables column view and other features. The toolbar's just one of those things that's different but will probably end up worth it.

As for the dock, it can be killed, but I suggest making the dock smaller by dragging on the divider if you want, moving it to the side of the screen if you want, putting only your everyday applications in the Dock, and using LaunchBar for everything else. LaunchBar (www.obdev.at) allows you to launch any application from the keyboard. You just hit command-spacebar (or any other combination of your choosing) and type in an abbreviation for the app you want. You don't have to set the abbreviations, either. If you go to the website, I'm sure they can explain it better than I can.

Every day, I just click every app in the Dock from left to right and let them load. If I don't use an app daily, I use LaunchBar to fire it up when I need it.

As an added bonus, you can quit any app from the Dock-no need to switch to it. Holding down option force quits, but the Finder automatically switches to force quit if it detects that the app locks up. Even when that happens, though, there's still a chance the app is just busy and will be responsive later. This is why preemptive multitasking is so cool.

If you right-click the divider in the Dock, you can set minimization to "scale effect", which is faster than "genie effect".

Processor-burdening graphical effects aside, the Mac OS X UI, for me at least, is massively superior if you try and go along with it. It takes awhile to readjust, but you really might find it to be worth it. Especially when you have a whole gigahertz to play with

Verbal sparring is fun! Otherwise this forum gets really boring.

I've tried using the General Pane when it comes to font smoothing. I don't find much difference when it comes to the settings though, and I do find that setting the smoothing size at higher than 8 makes for a WORSE visual experience. Mac OS 9 fonts look better than Mac OS X unsmoothed fonts for whatever reason. Basically, I think what frustrates me about OS X smoothed fonts on my Mac is that the color of them isn't black...it's like multicolored. I can see the subpixels coming together to try to form black, but it's not perfect. Kind of like when you put a drop of water on a screen and get the prism effect, you know? I dunno...if you have an older iMac, maybe you don't. I bet it's a lot better on a CRT. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or am I on crack?

On the Finder toolbars: yep, I've tried that. But if you, say, download a new program from versiontracker and it mounts a disk image...they're back! I'd really love for them to disappear altogether...there are a lot of pixels being used there!

Maybe you're right about column view. It's probably one of those things that just requires getting used to. I really got used to opening a series of windows in 9, but I can see the advantge of doing it using column view.

I don't mind killing OS 9. All I really care about in that transition are three things -- and one of them is NOT app compatibility. Quark can go you-know-what themselves:
(1) Speed
(2) Finding a way not to hog real estate if it isn't necessary
(3) Not straining my eyes, which the prismatic smoothed fonts do

 

[Phil Of Mac]

I thought the point of turning off smoothed fonts was to make it fast but ugly

Well, I don't have an LCD, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it on that. The LCD's I've seen running OS X looked fine to me though. I dunno.

The toolbars are actually kinda cool, if you put the search feature in there and just put in only the features you like. It makes the window taller, but if you go single-window in Column view, that saves a lot of space, so you profit

Speed is really a big thing for Apple, and they are optimizing things, hence the fast cat monikers (Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther). Hardware's getting faster too.

But System 7 was slower than 6. Features for speed is the traditional OS tradeoff, really, and it always has been. Mac OS X only more so.

 

[Les Kern]

Re: Re: Re: Education, OS9, and the economy

Originally posted by macomposer
I guess I am supposed to just reach into my butt and pull out hard drives and RAM. The only guy I ever saw do that was Data on Star Trek.

Warriors do not pull things out of their butts. Steal them.

-Lt. Cdr. Worf

Seriously, it STILL amazes me how we have the incredible disparity in educational funding. I'm blessed, for now anyway. While just 10 miles away a different school was almost crying for joy that I donated 125 "various condition"LCIII's and 6100 PowerMacs to them. How sad and en-necessary.

http://mchs.net
http://www.mchs.net/technology/tech.html

 

[MacBandit]

People with dual proccessor macs will see a huge performance benefit running OSX period.

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by john123
I think what frustrates me about OS X smoothed fonts on my Mac is that the color of them isn't black...it's like multicolored. I can see the subpixels coming together to try to form black, but it's not perfect.

That is what anti-aliasing does. It cannot make the fonts truly rounder that your resolution allows you. It basically adds some pseudo-shades to the sides of your fonts to make it look rounder or straighter. Ok it is a bit of a pain on small fonts especially when you have a LCD with not a very high pixel density and a not so good pixel clarity (a not entirely digital interface can produce that). I have experienced (at work) OSX on a PMac dual 867 with 2 Eizo LCD 771 (19.5" 1600*1200) and changed them to 2 formacs gallery 2010. Well they both have a rather good pixel density (but they cannot compare with a good laptop), but the pixel clarity is way superior on the formac, and this greatly attenuates that prismatic effect you were talking about. Even then, I thought I wasn't going to be able to work with it (being used to the ugly but 'straight' fonts on a PeeCee). But now it pains me to look at unsmoothed fonts.
I am not saying that you will feel the same, but it is worth your trying.

NicoMan

 

[john123]

Originally posted by NicoMan

That is what anti-aliasing does. It cannot make the fonts truly rounder that your resolution allows you. It basically adds some pseudo-shades to the sides of your fonts to make it look rounder or straighter. Ok it is a bit of a pain on small fonts especially when you have a LCD with not a very high pixel density and a not so good pixel clarity (a not entirely digital interface can produce that). I have experienced (at work) OSX on a PMac dual 867 with 2 Eizo LCD 771 (19.5" 1600*1200) and changed them to 2 formacs gallery 2010. Well they both have a rather good pixel density (but they cannot compare with a good laptop), but the pixel clarity is way superior on the formac, and this greatly attenuates that prismatic effect you were talking about. Even then, I thought I wasn't going to be able to work with it (being used to the ugly but 'straight' fonts on a PeeCee). But now it pains me to look at unsmoothed fonts.
I am not saying that you will feel the same, but it is worth your trying.

NicoMan

What's the pixel density on the Formacs? Well over 100?

What you are saying makes sense. If, for example, my PowerBook supported 1600x1200, then OS X would look a lot better. I'd keep my fonts the exact same size as they are right now, but the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity...yes?

If I am understanding you right, then it's a reason for me NOT to want the 17" PB, as it's got a lower pixel density than my current 15". It's also another reason for me not to want a 15" AlPB as it's been rumored to have a 1280x800 resolution (thereby cutting some pixels off the vertical).

Nico, am I understanding you right?

Also, does anyone know a way to change the main system fond that's used in the menu bar? Or to change the font used for desktop icons from the white-with-shadow to a plain OS 9-y black?

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by john123


What's the pixel density on the Formacs? Well over 100?

What you are saying makes sense. If, for example, my PowerBook supported 1600x1200, then OS X would look a lot better. I'd keep my fonts the exact same size as they are right now, but the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity...yes?

If I am understanding you right, then it's a reason for me NOT to want the 17" PB, as it's got a lower pixel density than my current 15". It's also another reason for me not to want a 15" AlPB as it's been rumored to have a 1280x800 resolution (thereby cutting some pixels off the vertical).

Nico, am I understanding you right?

Also, does anyone know a way to change the main system fond that's used in the menu bar? Or to change the font used for desktop icons from the white-with-shadow to a plain OS 9-y black?

I don't think the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity, but they wouldn't be obvious to you because much smaller (we are talking higher pixel density but same size in terms of dots for the font, right ?). The system still wants to smooth the fonts, no matter the pixel density of your screen.
But apart from that, I would agree with what you just said about reasons to buy or not to buy those new PowerBooks, even though as far as I am concerned I have a TiBook Rev B (1152*768, the worst density of them all I think) and it still looks fine to me. I guess I got used to it (btw, I never used OS9 more than 2-3 boots in OS9 on my TiBook to install stuff than needed me to... even though I didn't like it, but that's another story; by the same token I might have got used to it).

NicoMan

 

[john123]

Originally posted by NicoMan


I don't think the multicolored pixels would decrease in relative quantity, but they wouldn't be obvious to you because much smaller (we are talking higher pixel density but same size in terms of dots for the font, right ?). The system still wants to smooth the fonts, no matter the pixel density of your screen.
But apart from that, I would agree with what you just said about reasons to buy or not to buy those new PowerBooks, even though as far as I am concerned I have a TiBook Rev B (1152*768, the worst density of them all I think) and it still looks fine to me. I guess I got used to it (btw, I never used OS9 more than 2-3 boots in OS9 on my TiBook to install stuff than needed me to... even though I didn't like it, but that's another story; by the same token I might have got used to it).

NicoMan

Seems to me that a higher res display would help on the smoothing. If you kept all your onscreen fonts the same size in inches, then while 500 pixels might have formed a character on the old display, 1000 pixels form that character on the new one. But, a greater proportion of those pixels would be the true color, as you'd have less need for a those multicolored pixels. Relatively speaking, there'd be a greater black/multicolored ratio, resulting in much crisper smoothed fonts.

Does that make sense, or am I nuts?

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by john123


Seems to me that a higher res display would help on the smoothing. If you kept all your onscreen fonts the same size in inches, then while 500 pixels might have formed a character on the old display, 1000 pixels form that character on the new one. But, a greater proportion of those pixels would be the true color, as you'd have less need for a those multicolored pixels. Relatively speaking, there'd be a greater black/multicolored ratio, resulting in much crisper smoothed fonts.

Does that make sense, or am I nuts?

It does make perfect sense to me: there is less need for smoothing when you have a font displayed across many more dots (i.e. the same font in terms of inches on the display, but with a higher pixel density), because from the start your font will look much nicer, so the need for the system to smoothe your fonts is much lower. So that a greater proportion of those pixels would be true color (the system would need fewer pixels relatively for pseudo-shade to smoothe your fonts). So as far as I am concerned you are not nuts. But let me think about it and I'll confirm tomorrow when I'm sober (it's been a reallllly long night here, and I'm quite drunk...).

NicoMan

 

[john123]

Originally posted by NicoMan

It does make perfect sense to me: there is less need for smoothing when you have a font displayed across many more dots (i.e. the same font in terms of inches on the display, but with a higher pixel density), because from the start your font will look much nicer, so the need for the system to smoothe your fonts is much lower. So that a greater proportion of those pixels would be true color (the system would need fewer pixels relatively for pseudo-shade to smoothe your fonts). So as far as I am concerned you are not nuts. But let me think about it and I'll confirm tomorrow when I'm sober (it's been a reallllly long night here, and I'm quite drunk...).

NicoMan

You type really well for a drunk dude!

I think I will try to hook my PowerBook up to my Sony 21" CRT monitor at 1600x1200 some time and see how the smoothed fonts look on it. I'm suspecting that I will like the results much better -- and if so, one of my three big OS X concerns has the potential to be addressed in the future should Apple make the resolution on PowerBooks on par with the UXGA displays you see on other laptops.

Hint, hint, Apple....

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by john123


You type really well for a drunk dude!

I think I will try to hook my PowerBook up to my Sony 21" CRT monitor at 1600x1200 some time and see how the smoothed fonts look on it. I'm suspecting that I will like the results much better -- and if so, one of my three big OS X concerns has the potential to be addressed in the future should Apple make the resolution on PowerBooks on par with the UXGA displays you see on other laptops.

Hint, hint, Apple....

2 things might make the fonts-smoothing experience better: either you have a display with a very fine dot pitch, or you use bigger fonts (in number of dots). But then you will want to have a higher resolution screen so that those bigger fonts don't take too much real estate on your screen. So in the end, I feel that higher/better-quality screens is the answer, whichever way you want to look at it.

Now back to those Powerbooks: IF the 15" goes from a 15.2" 1280*854 to a 15"4 1280*800 (note that I have said IF), then you are right, with regards to our conversation about text-smoothing it will be a worse proposition. However, the difference will be minimal, and there are also other factors that will impact your computing experience, i.e. screen response time, brightness (which varies a lot across LCD screens) and contrast for example. So I don't think making a choice is as simple as calculating pixel width...

NicoMan