Stupid article!!!!

Ensign Paris

macrumors 68000
Nov 4, 2001
1,781
0
Europe
yeah

I have been using OSX since it came out, and I know that its abit slower and that it would be easy to go back to OS9 but I now find it hard to use OS9 due to the lack of no true multiprocessing. OSX Rocks, I bet he is just a PC USER.
 

agreenster

macrumors 68000
Dec 6, 2001
1,892
2
Walt Disney Animation Studios
I dont know

He has some pretty good points. I still use OS 9.2 on a regular basis (not in Classic mode, but boot-up), and since I dont have a multiprocessor system (400G4), OSX doesnt add any functionality to my already existing OS.

OSX is cool, but OS 9.2 works.

I feel the flames a-comin'.
(remember, I love Apple too......)
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
OS X

I was hesitant to make to switch to OS X but once I did, I cant go back. Once there was a few apps out like Office (I got it a bit early hehe) I made the formal switch. I move all my files into my useres dirctory and set up my doc with all my OS X apps and some classic ones that are essential to me. Now I hate booting back into 9. Ture its a little faster but now that I have used X for a while.. I can navigate better and can get things done fairly fast. When boot into 9, I feel lost almost. I dont like using classic mode (it dosnt allways boot for me) And it dosent work for some apps like Roxio Toast 5.0. So I sill have to boot into 9 for it work or if I want to use my old USB CD-RW as a second drive.. I need to be in 9. A few more months and a few more Apps... I can say good by to classic. I would love to wipe my dirve and to a clean install of OS X... with no 9 at all. I just need a few more apps to get ported over:

Borland JBuilder (final)
Macromedia Dreamweaver and Flash
Roxio Toast
Adobe PhotoShop
Drivers and a font end for my Agfa 1212u scanner
Drivers for my iSweetNet mouse
Drivers for my Que dirve USB CD-R
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
Re: I dont know

Originally posted by agreenster
He has some pretty good points. I still use OS 9.2 on a regular basis (not in Classic mode, but boot-up), and since I dont have a multiprocessor system (400G4), OSX doesnt add any functionality to my already existing OS.

OSX is cool, but OS 9.2 works.

I feel the flames a-comin'.
(remember, I love Apple too......)
I guess it depends on your Mac too. I have a friend with a Pismo Power book that cant get work done in OS X. He loves it but X just runs too dam slow on his powerbook. Running X with classic mode... is even worse. He is stuck in a lease with Apple and its is all ready starting to fall appart. (DVD drive stoped working among other things) He stopped paying for the insurance just before it started to break. Poor smuck.

As for your preffrence for 9? Hey...its still a Mac OS so you dont need any flaming. Your still a MacHead like the rest of us :)
 

macfreek57

macrumors 6502
Jan 1, 2002
378
0
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
what ensign meant was multi-thread processing

you can switch between apps while one is taking a long time to do something

i think x is awesome but it's not ready for real, serious professional use

they lost to many features we came to take for granted in 9 and earlier when they built 10. when they restore most of these, 10 will be a kickass system
 
T

tug

Guest
osx

I have a pismo powerbook, and os x works great. I planned on using it for a week to check it out and I will not go back. OS X has great _added_ features, especially for a powerbook. The 3 second wakeup time, automatic location detection, the protected memory, the muti-talking - are all things that are a giant step ahead for mobile computing.
 

al256

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2001
850
227
Pismos run OS X just fine. Classic sometimes runs faster than OS X but that is rare. My Pismo runs OS X 24/7. I run VPC 5 on it, leave classic on all the time and even use AOL. My screen cracked on it so I can't take it to school anymore, but I made it into a desktop and it works great. The computers that would have the hardest time running OS X is the orginal iMac 233 and the wallstreet. I have an iMac 233 which doesn't run 10.1 that well but 10.0.4 seemed to be bettter with it, don't ask me why. Evildead what was your friend trying to do with his Pismo? Maybe some extra ram could boost the performence.
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,897
0
Metairie, LA
I run X almost all the time now on my TiBook when I'm home playing around or whatever. The only time I use 9 these days is for work, when I need my apps completely at my disposal. If I didn't mind the idea of emulating OS 9 with X and losing quality of performance, then I'd never go back to 9...
 

Microsoft_Windows_Hater

macrumors member
Oct 4, 2001
50
0
My Experience...

I must say that it is a bit slow on my machine but I have found nothing wrong with OS X at all. My iBook would have no hope at running VP 5 aswell but it serves all my purposes. There are only little quibbles like the fact that the windows on some programs dont save positions or that OS X does need alot of grunt but otherwise I don't care. Its better than windows and that is what I am comparing it to. I don't know what the person who wrote the article has against it but I certainly don't have anything against it.
 

MaxRool

macrumors member
I have been using OSX since beta on my G4 400 and have grown accustomed to the interface. I must admit that before 10.1 it was a real struggle and I often reverted to 9.1 for its speed and well known look and feel.
Most of us choose a computer because of what it can do to help us in work and even play.
I have three computers that I mainly use, and each satisfies different needs based on what applications it will run.

A homemade dual 1Ghz PIII running linux which serves as a firewall, webserver, mailserver, database server, dhcp server etc.

A HP e-Vectra (has a very small footprint) PIII 600 running windoze 2000 pro (btw, I consider this to be an excellent OS) because whilst a mac fan, I work in a windoze world and this unit provides simple connectivity to corporate networks and supports most applications I need.

A 400 Mhz G4 running OSX because it runs Apache, MySQL, PHP, Tomcat (yes I know Tomcat will run on 9.x, but java apps on 9.X are so slow!) the latest JDeveloper 9 from Oracle and BBedit (I wish I could find a text editor for win/linux that has a built in FTP client!) I can now develop webapps on my favourite machine with ease. I couldn't do as easily using 9.x.

Now if only Macromedia will release, at least a carbon version of UltraDev I will be happy :) Maybe Jan 7 will bring me good news.

Max Rool
 

dantec

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2001
605
0
California
It's just the register...

One of the trashiest rumor sites in existance!

I use X all the time. What I do on my indigo iBook is boot it up in the morning, and let it sleep during the day when i'm not using it all school... Works great!

My Quicksilver however makes OS X feel like OS 9 in speedwise comparison (almost!).

Oh and Toast Titanium is available for X.
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
Originally posted by al256
Pismos run OS X just fine. Classic sometimes runs faster than OS X but that is rare. My Pismo runs OS X 24/7. I run VPC 5 on it, leave classic on all the time and even use AOL. My screen cracked on it so I can't take it to school anymore, but I made it into a desktop and it works great. The computers that would have the hardest time running OS X is the orginal iMac 233 and the wallstreet. I have an iMac 233 which doesn't run 10.1 that well but 10.0.4 seemed to be bettter with it, don't ask me why. Evildead what was your friend trying to do with his Pismo? Maybe some extra ram could boost the performence.
He does a lot of work with Dreamweaver, Flash, PhotoShope, and Bryce.

He makes cartoons With Flash and he make CD covers for underground bands with Bryce as well as other projects. Lots of 3D rendering I guess. A like audio edditing and some low end video stuff. He also likes to play games like Quake and Unreal. I have never seen is Pismo working in X... and I would like to think that X works well on one. He has over 300 megs or RAM last time I checked. It could be a hardware proplem. He has had lots of strange things happen to him. I am allways trying to push him to OS X. I will let him know what you guys have been saying
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
Re: It's just the register...

Originally posted by dantec
One of the trashiest rumor sites in existance!

I use X all the time. What I do on my indigo iBook is boot it up in the morning, and let it sleep during the day when i'm not using it all school... Works great!

My Quicksilver however makes OS X feel like OS 9 in speedwise comparison (almost!).

Oh and Toast Titanium is available for X.
Toast is out for OS X??? when did that happen? I thought Roxio only had out preview verion 2. I will have to look into that.

-thanks
 

lfrey1

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2002
9
0
Hey, we can be honest, right?

well....

After 10 years of loving, using, and buying Macs exclusively....

To be totally honest...I think this article has alot of valid arguments.

One thing that we Macophiles are guilty of, is blind love. I think that OSX is one of the most promising and daring initiatives ever witnessed since the LISA, but I, too, was quite disappointed with the first, and, to a lessor extent, with the second release. It reminded me of the first PowerPC's, and how damn slow they were. It was the darkest days for Apple, as we remember.

This OS needs to be PERFECT. Anything else would not be Apple-like. I was initially quite disappointed with the speed, some of the missing features, and the fact that I can't get the thing to recognise my DSL router despite all of my encouragements to the contrary.

Can we learn to be more realistic? I'm not abandoning the platform, but it needs work, right?

I'm ready for the fire, folks.
 

Falleron

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 22, 2001
1,609
0
UK
Re: Hey, we can be honest, right?

I dont believe that if you put XP up against OSX there would be a terrific difference in responce! Lets remember we can either stick with OS9 with not many modern features OR have an OS that is the future? As for speed, I believe that there is still many areas of OSX that can be optimised to a greater extend which should speed things up.
 

dantec

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2001
605
0
California
OS X is new!!!

Mac OS has had 15 years to evolve... Windows 2000 & XP come from NT and only include face-lifts...(XP supposivly has speed increases, but I don't belive that)

OS 10 is brand new, and for what works it is pretty awesome so far... It doesn't run so well on my indigo ibook (takes about 3 minutes to start, while I look at the grey screen with the spinning CD of death), but if you have a Quicksilver OS X feels like 9. In terms of multi-threading is great... Not because your doing one thing... the whole computer has to stop... no! I've burned CD's in the backround while playing quake and dowloaded a file from interent! All at the same time. OS 9 would never be able to do anyhting like that, (i won't even mention windoze)!

 

j763

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2001
660
0
Champaign, IL, USA
the guy who wrote that article obviously has no understanding of the concepts of computing, operating systems or TIME, therefore is a pc user. it takes time to refine an OS and that's what apple's doing. give them time, you can't expect them to release a new os built from the ground up with all features avaliable and all of the programs converted across in under a year!!!!! i guess this reporter is just used to microsoft operating system upgrades and we all know what they're like - compare ME to 98 - woah, it's more colorful!!!!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.