# a Switcher... (story after the switch!)



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 3, 2002)

http://www.joeuser.com/Articles/MoreMacflames.html

I have to agree with the Error Messages, they Do SUCK! ... i have learnt that SMB Connections cause a certain error, for which i have to restart the finder to reconnect... As for File Transfer, yea i have had the same problem there too! 

Apple should put discriptions in there! ...or a button for "MORE INFO"

Neyo


----------



## edX (Dec 3, 2002)

i thought he was making a prety good case for being picked on by mac zealots until he said:


> Its a Windows world. Get used to it.


at which point i stopped reading. 

it may be a windows world, but that is no reason to "get used to it". i join the flamers and say this guy is a loser. an idiot coding god loser. 
oh, and apparently a rich idiot coding god loser


----------



## btoneill (Dec 3, 2002)

And windows error messages are so informative too  That has to be one of the stupidiest complaints from a windows user, that an OS has bad error messages, windows is known for cryptic error messages, where the only chance you have of figuring it out is going to technet to do a search. If you've ever had to admin exchange, you'll know _exactly_ what I'm talking about.

Some people aren't happy unless they are unhappy and complaining. The same user probably would post the same article, but replace OS X with XP if he switched the other direction. Let whiners whine, the key is to know when it's just a whiner. I never pay any attention to any article that only blasts something. There are good things in any OS, if you leave them out, you're just taking out a grudge in your article, and everyone will see that, except for other people who have a grudge and will pipe in with "yeah, me too". 

Guess it goes back to the old saying our parents (atleast mine) used to always say "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all"

Brian


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 3, 2002)

but error 5204 means F**K all 2 me! Its GUESS work based upon the process you was conducting when it appeared... i am sorry, Windows may have some poor english in the messages, but at least it gives some idea. 5204 or 15 or wat'ev means NOTHING to the average user.


----------



## btoneill (Dec 3, 2002)

You have no idea how many error messages I run into on a regular basis i windows that is just a number. Hell, half the time they are hex numbers.

Brian


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 3, 2002)

Yea, i understand what you're saying, but thats your job, i am talking regualr users, who maybe don't have that much Computer knowledge. the simple end user. Y'know?! This is one of less than a handful of complaints with X, i am no hater! 

Meyo


----------



## fryke (Dec 4, 2002)

Anyone remember Error 11 in System 7.5 (up until 7.6.1 I believe)? It was a ... memory error, I believe. Happened only on PowerPC hardware. Happened often. Took your whole machine down. With all the work, too. 

Neyo: I have many callers a day when I do network support for the ISP I'm working for who say things like: "Outlook has an error of 0008X..." Those are quite 'normal' users. Can't Outlook just say that it hasn't found the 'Outgoing Mailserver (SMTP)' and that 'you can verify your outgoing mailserver _here_'? It would save the customers money and our support people's nerves...

On the front, they (MS) do all these nice little wizards that - for some users - are helpful. But as soon as the first setup is done, it's cryptic messages again. I think all operating systems are trying nowadays to cover the technical level of the system with informative error messages. Some aren't covered yet. Apple does a better job here, I think.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 4, 2002)

well, my beef is only with Finder Errors really, i cannot think of any cryptic messages outside the Finder! ..which is a good thing! 

I see what you're saying about Outlook, although i personnally cannot think of any instance on windows i have found cryptic messages like that. But i can vouch for the fact many of the written ones could be in better english, sometimes you need to re-read them a few times.

NeYo

Edit... i suppose the BSOD's on XP are cryptic, but besides that, hmmm... i have found a lot more with the finder... Namely File Transfer via SMB, and (i can't remember the others!) ...in future, i am going to ask you guys what they mean! 

(the only way, like i mentioned to get around the most frequent one, seems to be kill and reload the Finder, whiich inadvertently kinda "refreshes" the finder, and allows me to reconnect to my Windows Shares!


----------



## fryke (Dec 4, 2002)

Yes that's a strange one... Then again, MS doesn't seem to especially _like_ other systems accessing their shares... Samba has come a long way and still can't do everything. Apple's own implementation has been done with contact to Microsoft, but although it's much better (and easily integrated) it's still a bit buggy. Guess we'll see an update in 10.3 next year.


----------



## kendall (Dec 4, 2002)

I get cryptic error message codes in OS X a lot more than XP.  They can be frustrating but you can easily go to http://www.apple.com/support and find out exactly what the error code means.


----------



## Snowball (Dec 5, 2002)

I mean, the Finder is basically the most important application in OS X. Yet, Apple used Carbon, not Cocoa, they ruined the spatial system we had before with a poorly-done cross between the Windows and Mac style, and they had the chance to make better error messages (they are reknowned for great interface) but they didn't. Maybe you didn't know that they patched the toolbar interface into the Finder as a copy of the Cocoa version (that's why there are inconsistencies between Cocoa app toolbars and the Finders). Also, if I remember right, the Finder used to display the desktop background for no real reason, so if you wanted to use SNAX (a pretty decent cocoa finder replacement) and keep a desktop bg it was impossible (but this is fixed with 10.2 fortunately). Oh yeah, and that 1 second delay for the Get Info box on files/folders? Why such a delay? Even on this dual 1GHz i'm using right now, there is a delay.

I couldn't figure out why I disliked the OS X Finder so much until I read some articles about it recently. Try arstechnica's OS X 10.0 and 10.1 reviews as well as that more recent article (hrm. have to find the URL) to read up on it. I really hope OS 10.5's _cocoa_ Finder interface will be better...

Anyone agree? I wish Apple would either go back to the spatial 9 Finder completely, or develop a completely new Finder with a better, more logical interface.
__________________
And on a related note, why is Aqua so messed up (i guess the word is single-task based)? For example, if you do a slow motion minimize of a window in IE, you can't click a menu or another window in IE until the window is finished minimizing. Or if you hit Cmd-Q and a drawer opens to ask you to save changes, you can't just hit Esc and the doc will instantly go. You have to wait for the drawer to finish opening, then the button Esc will correspond to Cancel, and then the drawer will go back up...too much time is wasted for power users.


----------



## fryke (Dec 5, 2002)

I agree that Apple should replace the Finder with a better Cocoa version. I don't believe they're going to write a new one based on OS 9 _without_ the benefits that derived from OpenStep, though (not from Windows...).

The delay in the get info box stems from 'getting info'. The Finder can't (and SHOULDN'T) keep a database of every possible folder information at all times. So it has to compute the size, for example.

The 'messed up' Aqua stems from the fact that not all and everything is multithreaded. And in some cases it would make things worse. Creating threads for each and every bit of the UI would use too much memory in the end.

And although I see reasons and room for improvements that'll certainly be in 10.3 already, I really do hope that Apple takes its time to take what they've got (Newton technology, OS 9 technology, OS X technology) and create _the_ Aqua experience.

On the way, they can give the users a choice to turn off all transparency effects. Let _us_ decide what's good and what's not. At least to some extent...


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> On the way, they can give the users a choice to turn off all transparency effects. Let _us_ decide what's good and what's not. At least to some extent... *



*amen* my poor iBook really doens't like all those effects too much! , maybe a DP 1GHz does, but my baby G3 500MHz?!


----------



## fryke (Dec 5, 2002)

that's more about the graphics chip, though... i actually think an iBook with a 700 or 800 MHz processor and a really potent ATi 9xxx Mobility chip would be a very decent mobile machine.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *that's more about the graphics chip, though... i actually think an iBook with a 700 or 800 MHz processor and a really potent ATi 9xxx Mobility chip would be a very decent mobile machine. *


That is not trying to get to the roots of the problem, that is trying to cure the symptoms. There should be a option to disable some of the iCandy.

Windows XP also is slower than Win 2000, but you can turn of some of the stuff.

For the guy this thread is  about:
I see it this way: Just like he said he posted some things about the Mac that he didn't like. Some people (like me) tend to overreact a little when they have a problem with their OS, so maybe he wrote a bit harsh.
Some of us Mac users hadn't anything better to do than flame him and write emails insulting him, cause hey, he kinda insulted their deity.

Then, the post he made that has been linked above is the result of these flames.

So, we Mac users will turn him into a true Mac hater in some time.

Outlook error messages:
As far as I know, Outlook tells you in the errormessage that it couldn't find the server AND gives away the error code. Maybe this is not the case for an old version of Outlook, but hey, an old version of Mac OS always gave me unsuspected error number 2 or 3. Wow. (How stupid is that? "Unsuspected error" What are they trying to tell me? Never heard of something like "Suspected error")


----------



## edX (Dec 5, 2002)

> So, we Mac users will turn him into a true Mac hater in some time.


guys like this deserve a windows world. let him go back. the mac community will have lost nothing. 

but i'm guessing that the rest of his family, who could care less about error codes and such, would flame him for it.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *guys like this deserve a windows world. let him go back. the mac community will have lost nothing. *


I'm not so sure about that.


----------



## cellfish (Dec 6, 2002)

All I'm wondering is why Mac users even try to insult a person who finds drawbacks to his Mac and considers returning to the PC. What's the point?

I will be the first to say that there are a ton of drawbacks to having a Mac, most of which are related to performance. The poor library of games, the slow browsers, the high requirement of RAM... these aren't advantages to using a Mac.

I am simply hoping that most Mac users are like me and choose the platform not because it is faster or snappier but because it is essentially better. Maybe most people won't feel this way, but whenever I use a PC, I have no choice but to browse around a couple of tech sites to find out if Microsoft admitted to yet another security flaw, or whether a new virus had come out, or whether a recent MS release caused wider-scale problems (like SP1 caused disastrous problems to Outlook). With a Mac, I know everything is slower. I know the hardware is very expensive, I know that bMac (store) downtown is selling the ATI Radeon 7000 as the most recent video card for Mac when the PC is up to 9700 Pro. I know that I am essentially paying more for less performance-wise. What I AM getting though is a platform where dragging icons to a Trash can actually deletes a program from the system, I get an operating system where security flaws are few and far between, an operating system that just feels smooth, feels like it was directly made for my hardware and not just something that runs with my hardware.

My point is, don't insult the PC users considering a return to that platform. They'll get their speed and performance since that's what they value the most. Whoever treasures a computer that just works will remain with Mac or move TO Mac.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 6, 2002)

I really don't think people should _switch_ unless they discover the platform on their own. I've tried many platforms and to date I have never felt any need to go to the users of those platforms and tell them how bad I thought it was. What would be the point? If you like Windows, use Windows. If you like Macs, use Macs. If you like DOS, use DOS.

Switching and then ranting is the worse thing I've heard of. I don't tell my Windows clients what I think of their systems when fixing them. They don't need to hear my rant. They want to use Windows so that is what I help them use. When they ask what I use at home I tell them, but beyond that I don't push any platform. People get use to things one way and think it should be that way every where, and switching to another platform and then ranting that the new platform is not as good as the old one just shows that they really shouldn't have switch to begin with.

Most of all, if someone is not happy with the platform they have switch to, move on or move back. Throwing a tantrum is anything but productive for anyone. Honestly the life story of a switcher should be a single line. They switched and liked it, they switched and didn't like it and move to another platform, or they switched and didn't like it and move back to their original platform. It is just pointless ranting to the people who are just happy users of the platform (unless you are trying to share your misery with others via public spectacle). 

I don't understand people chasing _greener grass_ and then ranting when it is just _green_ when they get to the other side. Find what works for you, and stick to it. Other than Windows, there isnt any other platform people are being forced to use, so quitely find your place in the computing world and sit down.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> I don't understand people chasing greener grass and then ranting when it is just green when they get to the other side. Find what works for you, and stick to it. Other than Windows, there isnt any other platform people are being forced to use, so quitely find your place in the computing world and sit down. *


So why are we here in this forum?
I think it is okay when someone states his experiences with the new platform. That is all he did. He didn't come to a Mac place to rub peoples noses, he did it on his own Website.


----------



## Snowball (Dec 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> * The delay in the get info box stems from 'getting info'. The Finder can't (and SHOULDN'T) keep a database of every possible folder information at all times. So it has to compute the size, for example. *


*
Yes, I agree it would be ridiculous for the Finder to calculate a database of all the folder information. But I think the delay is caused more by bad programming than the Finder actually taking that long. For example in OS 9 or 10.1 (don't remember 10.0) that window came up very quickly, basically instantly. Think about it, what exactly is that window getting in 10.2? Less information than before; you have to click on the triangles to see the extra items, but it still takes almost a second on this dual 1Ghz I'm using.




			The 'messed up' Aqua stems from the fact that not all and everything is multithreaded. And in some cases it would make things worse. Creating threads for each and every bit of the UI would use too much memory in the end.
		
Click to expand...

 Could you elaborate further? (Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I'm really interested in what you mean.) The only way Apple could implement something like what I quoted above about the drawer is by creating more threads? I thought it would be possible to just stop the animation once Esc was pushed. 
There are some really nice parts of Aqua though, like holding down Cmd and resizing Cocoa app windows in the background. That can be really useful.




			On the way, they can give the users a choice to turn off all transparency effects. Let _us_ decide what's good and what's not. At least to some extent...
		
Click to expand...

*
* Exactly! * Options are _always_ good, and it's really a shame that Apple doesn't give us more control. For example: letting us turn off font smoothing (the main reason my parents won't use X), turning off transparency to reduce processor usage (you have to use themes), and not relying on the drop shadow as a window border instead of a real 9 or Windows-style border. Sure, it looks good, but try running Let 1K Windows Bloom in both X and 9 and the difference between benchmarks gets depressing. Window spawning is maybe the most frequent event the interface engine does, and the speed, frankly, stinks. An option for a normal opaque border would be SO great! (http://www.vgg.com/rob/WindowsBloomUsers.html) (By the way, on this Dual 1Ghz model I'm using, I get 32 secs in OS X for 1K Bloom and 11 in Classic (I didn't boot in real OS 9)).

Unfortunately, I don't hold a lot hope for Apple either in terms of interface customization because there have already been 3 OS X releases, and each of them have not had significant changes to the problems of the original interface. Quartz Extreme really didn't do much other than take some load off the CPU. It didn't do much to make the interface faster.

It's strange that Apple is so slow with interface improvements because they already had a lot of features built-in. (For example, the Dock hidden features that _should_ have been in 10.1 but were only activate-able by TinkerTool.) I just find it kind of sad that priorities have changed so much at Apple. More and more I get this feeling that I am being pressured into upgrading my old PowerBook because Apple doesn't let me turn things off when it would be trivial for them to program in - or already exist, but be disabled. Third-party solutions are really not adequate (themes like Rhapsodized, ShadowKiller, etc) because the rest of the interface engine is simply too processor intensive. 

(By the way, did you guys notice that the Cocoa toolbar system is a direct ripoff of IE5's toolbar system? Maybe MS ripped it from NextStep though, I don't know.) 

And I just remembered another interface slowness test...Try opening lots of windows in IE or similar, and hitting Cmd-H. On this dual 1Ghz I'm using now it's acceptable speed, but on my powerbook with 10 windows open it literally goes SBOD for about 15 seconds, 1.5 secs to close each window


Anyway, sorry if this sounds like an anti-Apple rant, it's not supposed to be against Apple but rather against the missed chance they had to make OS X's interface amazing. It's good, yes, but there are some real flaws with it that  should have been addressed by now, the Finder being one of many.


----------



## habilis (Dec 7, 2002)

AMEN TO THAT Snowball. That's the kind of criticall thinking we need more of. Spread the truth. You see, I just bought the same dual 1GHz machine you have about 2 months ago and I've never been so depressed about a purchase in my life. It's a total disgrace that this OS ever left the ground.
The sad thing is that a lot of us are still in denial and don't want to be honest about how bad osx sucks. 
Looking around I see a lot more rants abou how bad osx is rather then how good it is. Amen to asking the fundemental questions like "duh, uh, shouldn't this new improved OS be improved??"
And don't be a fool and go look at any of those Macintosh magazines like Mac Addict or Macworld. Their very existence depends on Apple's further colonialization of the PC world so those mags are in total denial at best and blatently extorting you at worst, knowing that the better review they give, the more macs get sold, the more mac magazines get sold, the better SUV, stock options, and beachside Aromatherapy sessions they get.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 7, 2002)

> *by habilis*
> The sad thing is that a lot of us are still in denial and don't want to be honest about how bad osx sucks.



The truth is you are unhappy with your purchase and should look for something else. The fact that you spent your money and are now depressed about it only shows that you didn't take the time to find out what you were getting before putting your money on the table. You knew what would make you happy, you didn't make sure that what you bought would fulfill that, and now you seem to be the one in a true state of denial.

If you believe Mac OS X sucks, then find something better! Who is more in denial, someone who is happy with the system they are using or someone who is unhappy but doesnt go looking for something better? This is *exactly* what I was talking about. Why do you think less of other people who are happy with what they have (or are at least constructive in their criticism)? The fact that you are *so* unhappy and are continuing to be masochistic about this is more troubling than others not agreeing with your assessments.

As for me, I find what works and stick to it until I find something better. For me, Rhapsody was the operating system that did all that I wanted. Up to last summer my Rhapsody systems out numbered my Mac OS X systems 3 to 1. With the release of Mac OS X v10.2, another consultant and I took my PowerBook, put a spare hard drive I had into it and started testing installations (we did 4 that first day). I left the spare drive in to test it for a week after being surprised at how good it ran that first day. After 3 weeks, I reinstalled my original hard drive with Rhapsody on it, backed up all the information I needed off it and installed Mac OS X v10.2 on it.

If  I'm a fanatic about anything, it is Rhapsody. And for anything to replace Rhapsody on one of my systems is nothing less than amazing.

Also, working with a number of magazines and having met a few people who have worked at Mac Addict over the years, I can tell you that you are *very* off base with your portrayal of them. Most are very under paid and end up moving on quickly because they can't afford to keep working for next to nothing.



> *by Snowball*
> (By the way, did you guys notice that the Cocoa toolbar system is a direct ripoff of IE5's toolbar system? Maybe MS ripped it from NextStep though, I don't know.)



Actually IE5 was developed using the Aqua Interface Guidelines. Just because IE5 was released before the Public Beta, doesnt mean that Apple didnt already have those guidelines in place (going back to at least Mac OS X DP3 as I recall which predates IE5s development and release for the classic Mac OS). Im sure MS has had some good ideas that they came up with on their own... I just dont know of any.


----------



## fryke (Dec 7, 2002)

RacerX said: *"Im sure MS has had some good ideas that they came up with on their own... I just dont know of any."*

Good ideas Microsoft had...

*1. The Taskbar*
It was superior to the Mac's 'Application Switcher Menu', as you had an overview of what was already opened and what not. On the Mac, you'd head to the ASM and then realize you hadn't opened an app, so you had to go to the Finder (or your preferred launcher). It's of course not like there hadn't been some Dock or anything before, but still.

*2. Microsoft Word 5.1a*
It was - in my opinion - the first really usable word processing application. It had far more features than any other but was still no bloatware. It was just a professional version of what was around (MacWrite Pro et al.).

*3. Internet Explorer*
Before IE, there was Netscape. And only Netscape. Netscape was, like, the only application that was allowed to crash every five minutes. Because everyone wanted the 'net and there was no alternative. IE, whatever one  wants to think about it, kickstarted web development. - And with version 5.0 for Macintosh, there was the first really standards-compliant webbrowser on any platform. It may not be the best browser today, but as much as I credit Netscape for being a part of the 'internet revolution', I also have to name IE. If Microsoft had released source to IE at version 5, there would be no Mozilla project. Because however bad you think Microsoft's people code, Netscape's were worse.

Wow. Now that makes for an opinion thread, eh?


----------



## RacerX (Dec 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> Good ideas Microsoft had...
> 
> *1. The Taskbar*
> ...



I'm not so sure about the Taskbar, but as the only system of mine that has a copy of MS Word on has 5.1a (and it is still in use today, my wife is using it as I type this), I'll have to agree with you on that one. Also, for almost a year after Netscape came out I was still using Mosiac (actually xmosiac on a Sun) which seem to have become Internet Explorer, I'll agree that it too has some merritt (though the credit should go to NCSA and the guy who started Netscape who developed it to begin with before starting up Netscape). I stopped using IE on Mac OS X long ago because it seem to be very unstable (and I am a big support of Omni). My wife uses Netscape in her account and I use OmniWeb in mine, so I does see IE on Mac OS X that much any more.


----------



## jesustoast (Dec 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *RacerX said:
> ... If Microsoft had released source to IE at version 5, there would be no Mozilla project. Because however bad you think Microsoft's people code, Netscape's were worse.
> 
> Wow. Now that makes for an opinion thread, eh? *


* 

Mozilla would still exist because of Netscape's license.  Microsoft wouldn't have used a license like Netscape did to release their source code.

Let's say that both projects released their source code around that same time.  The quality of the code would have very little to do with starting a new open source project.  The majority of programmers would only contribute to a project with a free license.*


----------



## fryke (Dec 7, 2002)

No, I meant *IF* Microsoft had done that before Netscape could have done it... I was only talking 'if'. I know that Microsoft isn't exactly willing to give out their source code, and I guess that's why it didn't happen, anyway. I only wanted to say that if MS wasn't so tight about their IE source (_before_ Netscape unleashed Mozilla Source), they could have erased Netscape/Mozilla completely (99.9%).


----------



## Snowball (Dec 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *(and I am a big support[er] of Omni)*



I'm not surprised you support OmniGroup, RacerX (and welcome back to macosx.com by the way) ! As far as I know they are one of the few former Rhapsody developers that have "made it" with Mac OS X. (Actually I don't know that much about Rhapsody as I'd like to but I see from Omni's old stuff on their website that they used to develop for NS).

It works well for them that OS X has so many roots in what they already worked on, because they can have better,  more, and higher quality apps out sooner than the competition because the hard parts are already done! 

Out of curiosity, I know they wrote OmniWeb originally for Rhapsody, but what else did they write for Rhapsody that's on X right now?

P.S. Is the interface in Rhapsody so needlessly glitzy as it is in X right now? Or is there at least the option to turn effects off? I seem to recall that Rhapsody had a sort of OS 9 interface so I guess not...but it at least has to be faster than X's interface I imagine? Oh yeah, and with Rhapsody, there is a classic through Blue Box or Yellow Box or whatever Box . How does that run in terms of speed? Because if Rhapsody is as stable as X but has a faster interface, I could easily see myself switch back until I get a new PowerBook . Call me crazy, but when I boot Mac OS X it's a bittersweet moment: stability for huge speed loss and excessively cute interface. Or what about the way RAM disappears in OS X? You launch a program then quit it, and it doesn't seem to return all of the RAM it used. Geez, here I go again listing all of my gripes with X... sorry X lovers , just looking for options.
What was it about Jaguar that merited you installing it next to Rhapsody?

My problem is, I really want to like Jaguar. I was so hopeful when I installed it last summer that it would finally be usable on my Wallstreet. Well, I am sad to say it, but unfortunately, priorities at Apple are apparently the finances. They have had 3 revisions (more including betas) to make the interface run at a decent speed, but in it's current state it's frankly unusable on any computer speed like mine - I feel like I'm being forced to upgrade. Apple is screwed in a sense because they are losing the processor race too, and when applications like iPhoto suck up processor cycles like there's no tomorrow (try resizing  it's window), things get even worse. They have this privelege of controlling hardware and software, as very few companies do, but somehow they managed to screw up some very important parts of OS X. The stability is _great_ but when things like the interface are so slow or not well thought-out after 3 revisions I question my former die-hard Apple loyalty.

This is why I am interested in Rhapsody, the last viable OS that the "old" Apple made when priorities were different.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 7, 2002)

Omni Group started out with NEXTSTEP. They made OmniWeb, OmniPDF (though I actually don't use it, I like PDFview better), OmniImage, and some other apps. They also have ported games over. Doom for NS/OS (the Rhapsody port was done by Eric Peyton), Quake II for Rhapsody (only worked for the PPC version of Rhapsody), and Quake III for Mac OS X DP 4 & PB (they stopped after Id took the porting back in house).

I have also supported (paid for shareware) Caffeine Software, maker's of TIFFany3 (for NS/OS/Rhapsody/Mac OS X), PixelNhance (Rhapsody/Mac OS X) and Curator (Mac OS X). Other long time developers include Stone Design (Andrew Stone helped me with many of my early questions) and Object Farm.

As for Rhapsody on my PowerBook, it was replaced with Jaguar completely. I have no need to run two operating systems on that computer (nor do I have the space).

The _Classic_ environment for Rhapsody was Blue Box (Yellow Box is now known as Cocoa). It was actually quite nice, with little or no speed loss that I could tell (I never had the classic OS running on that system any other way though). It was completely self contained, was running Mac OS 8.6 (and could not be upgraded beyond that) off a disk image. The default image was a little small (like 250 MB as I recall) so I replaced it with one that was 2 GB in size. It ran most everything that a normal Mac could (but games), but that didn't matter much to me as I had a ton of games that were native to Rhapsody.

Yes, generally the interface was faster. And yes, I completely believed that there was no way I would be able to run Mac OS X on my PowerBook G3/266 at any where near the speeds that I would need to be productive. My primary apps are Acrobat (full version), Photoshop, TextEdit, OmniWeb and AppleWorks. In Rhapsody I was running Acrobat 4, Photoshop 6 and AppleWorks 6 in Blue Box, and used Omniweb, TextEdit, PDFview, PixelNhance, Cutting Room, ToyViewer, ToyAlbum (like Curator and iPhoto) and HTMLedit in Yellow Box (which kept me out of Blue Box most of the time actually). As I said I was only testing the installation process for Jaguar so I would have experience before being asked to do it on someone else's system. I was surprised (to say the least) that it ran quite nicely. I installed Acrobat 5 and Photoshop 7 on the systems, and Quake II (I couldn't have lived with out at least one first-person-shooter on my system) with some other games that had been ported over from Rhapsody (my wife has her favorites too). And gave it a try for what was supposed to be a week. It wasn't long before I found that I was doing everything I could in Rhapsody and without any hardship. So after running the test installation continuously for 21 days (and no, I didn't notice any loss of memory) without shutting down or restarting, that was enough for me. 

Major plus for Mac OS X: Power Management. Though Apple made drivers to run Rhapsody on some PowerBooks, Rhapsody had no idea what power management was or that at times the system was running off the battery. Under Rhapsody I was able to keep it up and running off the battery for about 45 minutes, with Jaguar I have gone as long as 2 hours before I plugged it in (it was reading that it was down to about 35% battery power at that point). And with Rhapsody on my ThinkPad I have only gotten about 15 minutes off the battery before it shuts off (very old battery though).

Oh, and thank for the warm welcome back. 

(image is of the interface of one of my Rhapsody systems as it looks right now)


----------



## RacerX (Dec 8, 2002)

It should be noted that I don't use iPhoto, I use Curator ($19 for the full version). And like wise I don't use Sherlock 3, I use Watson ($29). I don't know if this or the fact that I have 512 MB of RAM in my system have anything to do with my perceived performance, but I was originally setting a side money to get a G4/500 upgrade for my Wallstreet. I can tell you that I have used that money for other things as I have no feeling of a need for more speed at this time.

Actually I sort of feel sorry for Sonnet, they lost out on like $500 I had set aside for the upgrade.


----------

