OS 9 VS OS X VS Win 2K
Yes, Windows 2000 is more stable than Mac OS 9.. one of many reasons Apple moved to OS X. Let's get a few things straight here..
Virtual memory was indeed completely barbaric on OS 9.. Computers are supposed to be simple.. Try explaining to my mother that an application needs to have more memory devoted to it when the computer already has .5 GB RAM.. "What do you mean I have to allocate more memory to the program?".. that's just garbage to say that VM was fine on OS 9.. it wasn't. Hence my mother runs OS X, and because all she wants to do is surf the net, and email her friends, not run PhotoShop, it's fine even on the current version. For someone who isn't a computer geek, there are elements of OS X that are simpler than OS 9. My mom was the best test case.. she told me she doesn't want the old system back.
And I do not believe there is something "too advanced" as long as the interface is kept simple. And no, your icons don't have to bounce, and your windows don't have to Genie.. those are all things you can turn off. Don't like the Dock? You don't have to use it.. just set it to hide and put all your icons strewn all over your desktop or in drawers like you did before.. It really isn't so different in interface, it's mostly just the underpinning and the options that have changed.
I appreciate very much the fact that under OS X when unstable programs such as Internet Explorer puke, I don't also lose my html project, my instant message conversation, the email I had pending, the FTP download that was 1/2 done, and everything else I was working on.. Under OS 9, usually when one app goes, the whole system locks down.. under X, usually the bad application is ejected and everything else goes properly about its business like nothing happened. Hence, I find X to be amazingly more stable, and for what I do, more productive with less downtime and hassels, something businesses, tech geeks, and old ladies, can all appreciate.
Now for a flame about being resistant to change: There are those who are not happy at even the most positive of changes for any aspect of their life. Some people get to a point where they'd like to freeze time and nothing ever changes hence forth.. For them, they can stick with their ancient OS/2, OS 9, and Windows 3.1 .. but they shouldn't complain later that their old bag of an OS isn't supported by this or that upgraded version of their favorite application or the latest flashy game.
From the tone of the critics, it's easy to tell that many of them are just replaying gossip about it including the remarks of Mac OS Anything ignorant PC users, and have never actually given it a serious test run on their Mac. I have been running OS X since the 10.0.0 launch early this year. Sure there have been some quirks, and some apps haven't been the best, but many quirks have been worked out, many premature applications which were hastily Carbonized and not so stable have been upgraded and are now highly stable and in fact much better featurewise and layout wise that their OS 9 counterparts. My point for the nay-sayers is this: Give it a chance before you stick your foot in your mouth.
Granted, a 233 MHz G3 isn't going to be quite as happy on it, but do you still see PC users running 486s? No, there is a realistic point at which hardware has to be upgraded because software outmodes it. In this case, it's not an attractive game but it's the OS that demands more out of the computer, but at the same time, it gives more back to the user in terms of reliability and features as a reward.. and much of the processor intensive stuff that lower frequency users bemoan like Genie, all-font anti-aliasing etc can be switched off in the current release, or by OS 10.1 in September.
And finally, the one point that I never see brought up in these gossip sites is how great the future of Mac is BECAUSE of OS X.. People are too busy moaning that they don't have a native version of this or that Mac program yet (when the native versions are clearly on their way for every major app by early 2002 with many to release before that).. but they fail to see that there is a whole new world of Unix applications that is opening up to Mac.. and that means a large jump in availability of business and professional software, scientific apps, and even stuff coming over from the steadily growing Linux side of the PC world.. What it means is that the devisions between computers are lessening, and that's good for the Mac.. What used to be PC, Mac, Unix .. is now reduced to PC or Unix (whereas the Mac is running a version of Unix, and it's not difficult to speedily port apps over to the Darwin/Aqua flavor.).. The ease of the new development tools, the newfound stability of the OS, and the inherent *nix base of it all makes it more attractive for developers to develop on the Mac, and what's more, pretty much all existing Unix apps can be sucked right into Mac with very little development time. Apple did the right thing making Mac a member of the Unix family... they just bought their way into a much larger world of applications and programming talent, and it will pay off.. Be patient and don't base your do or die decision about the OS solely on the release date of an upgraded Adobe program.. it's coming, be patient !
Oh, and another nifty reason for developers to develop for Mac OS X.. porting from native OS X to Linux is certainly a lot easier than porting from Windows to Linux or Mac OS 9 to Linux, so the bonus works both ways, it's pretty symbiotic, and goes quite a ways towards making Windows less attractive as the sole development platform for some companies that previously had that posture.. They can get new customers on the Linux PC, the Unix workstations, and the OS X Mac all at the same time with not so much development effort. It saves them time, and money, and it helps to save the Mac!
