The Macintosh Is Dead

[Lt Major Burns]

what gets me is that all my experiences of <OS9 were not very fun. like if you applied a particularly large filter in photoshop, the whole computer would die, taking down anything you had open in quark and illustrator with it, in a way the was so abrupt that steve would say, 'boom'.

for all of the nostalgia, co-operative multitasking was the worst thing, and as a result, i feel no nostalgia toward os9 at all. may it rest in peace.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

what gets me is that all my experiences of <OS9 were not very fun. like if you applied a particularly large filter in photoshop, the whole computer would die, taking down anything you had open in quark and illustrator with it, in a way the was so abrupt that steve would say, 'boom'.

for all of the nostalgia, co-operative multitasking was the worst thing, and as a result, i feel no nostalgia toward os9 at all. may it rest in peace.

I think you're missing the point. Of course OS X is technologically superior to OS 9. Nobody's saying otherwise. Obviously, I use OS X. I could've bought a used G4 tower and used OS 9, but I didn't. OS X my platform of choice. Time marches on, and it's the best OS available.

However, I still think the Classic Mac OS was better for its time, and in the ways that matter most to me: style, consistency, usability. The technological side of things is big enough to make me use OS X instead — like you, I'd hate to give up preemptive multitasking — but it's a damn shame I need to make that compromise. Apple had something important in the classic Mac OS, and they lost it. Worse yet, they don't seem to care. That's the point.

Lots of people these days know more about gravity than Isaac Newton. That doesn't make them smarter than he was. Different times call for different standards.

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Captain Code

I think the non-standardized form factors are good for Apple and Macs. When you see a Mac you instantly know it's a Mac. When you see some other computer you most likely don't know what it is unless you see the logo.

EXACTLY!!!!!! Thats wat makes the Mac different. You know its one from far away, because it looks so different compared to diff. computers. Eg., there is a shop in Vienna called "Made by You". They have pots, plates and everything. Then you can buy them and colour them. They have an iMac G4 at the reception and everyone is like: "Look, thats a Mac!"

[Damrod]

I might be mistaking, but were points like "constant short term hardware upgrades" a long time argument for Macs? I mean, if Apple would update it's hardware line every three or four months, I guess people would feel kinda "betrayed", as it is almost always like "Darn, I just bought a new machine, and for the same buck I could have had a better revised machine". I think the update cycle is ok IMO.

The comments here that OS X is not a convinient OS to use is something I can no understand. I personally find it well designed and have next to no problems finidng features, functions etc.

Regarding the article: the guy's an idiot.

[fryke]

I personally _really_ wished Apple would update more often. Upgrading the hardware with "baby steps" every month or every second month would make the step much smaller than if you buy late in the one-year cycle just to see the hardware _seriously_ updated a week or two later. My point is: When *I* am ready to buy a new MacBook, Mac Pro or whatever, I want Apple to sell me the thing with the greatest components available at that given time.
Then again knowing a little more about Apple and its cycles helps avoiding to buy shortly before new models are introduced. At least most of the time.

[Ferdinand]

But then how would it be possible to change in "baby steps" from the iMac G3 to G4, or from the G4 to the G5? First the G3 instead of the G4 display on top of the G4, then smaller, smaller, smaller and then the iMac G4? Then they make the "Hügel" at the bottom smaller, smaller and smaller till it's gone and start to put more stuff behind the screen as they make the Hügel smaller? I dont think that would work! If they wouldn't change the iMac IC2D now except for making the screen slimmer etc... then ok, but if they'll make a major update, as they did twice already with the iMacs, then it won't work. But I get your point Fryke!

[Rhisiart]

Just because your neighbour is a sinner, doesn't make you a saint. Ergo, just because Windows is so cumbersome, doesn't make the Mac OS the perfect alternative (albeit we are only then left with Linux).

I applaud Apple for continuing to create a relatively intuitive OS, compared with Microsoft's piss-poor creation. However, that doesn't mean that any criticism of the Apple's product development is unjustified or unnecessary. A few salvos from enlightened observers might help keep Apple on its toes.

However, on this occasion the author of the said article doesn’t seem to have any real substantial recommendations to make to address what he sees as Apple’s shortcomings. Just a hollow rant really.

[Lt Major Burns]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand

But then how would it be possible to change in "baby steps" from the iMac G3 to G4, or from the G4 to the G5? First the G3 instead of the G4 display on top of the G4, then smaller, smaller, smaller and then the iMac G4? Then they make the "Hügel" at the bottom smaller, smaller and smaller till it's gone and start to put more stuff behind the screen as they make the Hügel smaller? I dont think that would work! If they wouldn't change the iMac IC2D now except for making the screen slimmer etc... then ok, but if they'll make a major update, as they did twice already with the iMacs, then it won't work. But I get your point Fryke!

they could, for example, get rid of the 'chin', that unsightly huge chunk below the screen, and also, the bezels on iMacs are huge. they're not the lightest things, either. and i'd like to see them bring back convection cooling, iMacs get quite whiney after a bit.