jdawg4324 said:
well your lack of using os 9 is your prob. os 9 was a great os and in many ways better than os x. and its 1000000000x times better then windows
Ok, I only have a few gripes with OS X... The GUI, for example; I love the eye-candy, yes, but overall, the GUI is blatantly inconsistent, and on purpose. To engage in an "Aqua vs. Brushed Metal" argument would be a bit off-topic, IMHO, but still, I must point out that Apple is bringing yet another interface look ("dashboards", which are those translucent dialogs, not to be confused with Dashboard, which, by the way, introduces some "fun" and inconsistent widget skins, but since they are on a layer of its own, they don't pose a big problem).
I have some other gripes with both Mac OS and OS X, like the status bar in the Finder not displaying info on the *active* directory, or the inability to manually erase/safely erase files one by one without having to empty the trash, the fact the the "close" button is next to the other two as opposed to the OS 9's layout, which was smarter, the fact you can't easily uninstall applications unless you know what .plist files and Application Support stuff are, just to name a few. But don't forget, Tiger will be the 4th major OS X release... All new Macs (except maybe for the eMac) can't boot OS 9 anymore. I don't care how great it was.
I see it this way: Windows 3.1 was much more stable than Windows 95, but it was less powerful and much more cumbersome. As such, Microsoft sacrificed stability over some stupid multimedia functionality. Apple, OTOH, developed a new, rock solid OS almost from scratch, and adopted some UI stuff from NextSTEP, which some Mac traditionalists may never get used to, like the Dock or the Unix*ish multiple user environment... But you can't argue, however, that it wasn't worth it! What about Quartz Extreme? Exposé? And what about CoreImage? Spotlight...? (ok, now you're going to say that the Apple's Spotlight patent depicts a Mac OS 9 menu, or that Copland would kick a**, or something like that...).
You must understand that I wasn't bashing OS 9 (even though, anyway, from what I've read from everywhere around the Net is that OS X is much more stable than the classic Mac OS). I was just saying that OS 9 looks like it sucks when compared to Panther, in the same way I would say that Windows 95 sucks when compared with Windows 98SE (I'm using these two examples because those were the two Windows OSes, apart from 3.1, which I used the most. My PC box now has Windows 2000, but I barely touch it these days, and I hate XP with a passion even though I don't use it much frequently). The Windows Explorer from 98SE sucks big time because it is "integrated" with IE, while the Windows 95 Explorer was a paradigm of simplicity, the perfect Finder rip-off! However, 98SE was much more stable and useful than 95, so I didn't care much about Explorer anyway.
That being said, unless I got some serious issues by installing, say, 98SE (which wouldn't be very surprising
), I wouldn't think twice about getting the latest and "greatest" "big thing". But that's just me, I'm about to shell out 150 for Tiger because of that.
But one thing is skipping an OS iteration, or downgrading to the previous version. Porting a six-year-old, four-version-old, one-generation-old OS would be an absurdity
What software would run on it? Photoshop 7 (or 6, I'm not sure)? QuarkXPress 5 (or was it 4? I don't know either)? Microsoft Office 98???
Some people don't like the 4G iPod's clickwheel; Is Apple still producing 3G iPods to satisfy those red-LED-lovers? (hey, I have a 3G iPod and I love it
)
Progress is just like that. Sometimes something you like better than anybody else likes has to go away, for the sake of progress. Sad? Maybe.
Necessary? Absolutely
.
