# Why would someone not upgrade?



## jdog (May 17, 2001)

Just wondering what reasons would keep someone from using OSX?


----------



## tie (May 18, 2001)

It's slow.  Very slow.


----------



## TommyWillB (May 20, 2001)

Besides not having all of the applications I want (or even the few I need), the main stumbling block is the lack of support fo my existing hardware. 

For me this is mostly my Epson 900N network printer.

WE NEED DRIVERS!  ... not in July... and certainly not in September.   NOW!


----------



## RacerX (May 20, 2001)

I would say that the same thing that stopped most current Mac OS X users from using Mac OS X Server when it came out two years ago (where was this site two years ago?), only to a much lesser degree. I can't believe that the "Server" in the name was the reason so many didn't get it when it came out, and the price tag ($499.00) wasn't that bad compared to what Steve was charging for OPENSTEP User and Developer Tools ($799.00 and $4999.00 respectively). It is basicly the applications barrier. The new OS wouldn't use any of the users current investment in software and a suitable version or replace of that software doesn't exist. As Apple came close to releasing Rhapsody they realized that there wasn't enough native apps, and the Blue Box environment was not going to cut it with the old ones. Mac OS X Server is more Mac-like in form and function than Mac OS X is, but thanks to Carbon, some of the old important apps are starting to appear on Mac OS X. 

Honestly, and I truly hate to say this, when Microsoft releases Office 2001 for Mac OS X, there is going to be a flood of new users. It is just the way things are.


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 20, 2001)

One of my friends got office 2001, and he had office 98.
I seriously CANNOT see why anyone would shell out so much money for an office suite when it is not really needed!  Most (if not all) can be accomplished by the 98 version  that he already had.

Human nature never ceases to amaze me.

Admiral


----------



## PoweMACuser (May 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by jdog _
> *Just wondering what reasons would keep someone from using OSX? *



Why upgrade to OS X? I just installed it for have an overview of X. now I have deleted OS X.

If the software want to used the full new tech in X, it must be rewritten in Ojective-C. Ojective-C is not portable to other platform. Although Apple said that it will save 90% work, big developer won't just develope its software for X. they also develope theirs for other platform. Also, if I am right, the main software developer will always use carbon to develope their software.

all carbonized software also can run under 9.x. I don't think adobe, microsoft, corel, and ... will used cocoa tech to develope their software although they all stated that they will develope the software for X.


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 21, 2001)

I think that once faster machines, and a faster OS X ship, people will use cocoa more than carbon because they can simply get more juice out of it.    I think big companies like Adobe will be going to cocoa soon due to the fact that anyone who uses their programs does have newer machine (if they want to upgrade) and thus there will be no prob.  ANd most people will already have OS X by the time adobe rolls out with Photoshop 7 or any pther product they cocoaize.

Personally I stil have OS X on mine even though I dont use it that often.  I use it to code for my assignments and play around with programming more than anyting.



Admiral


----------



## Myke (May 22, 2001)

Why would anyone not move over to OSX?

1) Not enough native apps
2) Can't make it connect to the Internet (Oh yes, I have tried just about everything!)
3) I still love the Apple Menu and the dock isn't a substitute (I've already had a long disco about this on the site - I'm not convinced by the 'you don't need it' argument - actually, I do).
4) It won't access any of my peripherals, printer, CD-RW, scanner or external hard disk.

Isn't that enough reasons? 

It's very depressing, I had such high hopes and now I might be forced to buy a PC, when support for OS 9 finally dies.

Are there more who think like me out there?

I'm running a beige G3 with 196 M of memory and a processor upgraded to 450 Mhz


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 22, 2001)

Well, overlooking the bad grammar (Isn't those enought reasons should be aren't those enough reasons, agreement of nouns), You have *some* valid points.

1) Native apps --> which will be rectified eventually.  Even the original mac did not have enough native apps and I am sure that Apple II users also said the same thing then

2) Lack of drivers.  Yes that is true, but OS X is a brand spankin' new OS on the PPC platform, *only* 2 months old.  Support will come sooner rather than later because OS X is the future.

3) INternet, I have been able to connect with my 56k modem.  How do you try to get online?  With the Public Beta I had probs which were fixed when I used specific server name addresses, but now I dont need em any more.  As a matter of fact OS X doesnt even ask for em.

4) Apple menu...oh the apple menu.  For you it might be important, but I do stress this point.  IT   IS   A  PREFERENCE.  Sorry for the caps, just wanted to make it clear.  Even when I used a mac plus with OS 6.0.8 I never used the Apple Menu for anything more than acessing the chooser, the control panels and the one app that I cannot remember the name of.  As a matter of fact, the machine that I use now has aliases on the apple menu of every single app on this machine, but I do not use it.  I dont like it.  You and a few others like it, other dislike it, I dont really care for it.  The fact remains that this is a preference, and there are other places to discuss this.  I must have missed your thread, if you want to make another one we can have a discussion about it.

The idea tha you *have to be forced* to buy a PC when OS9 isnt supported any more is preposterous.  It just is, sorry.  IT means that you are no willing to change over, to learn something new.  I guess that you will be enjoying your new PC with windows 3.11 rather than windows XP.


Admiral


----------



## erdunbar (May 22, 2001)

*Why would I not upgrade?/What is a barrier to upgrading?*
#1 GUI is sloppy for a commercial grade product (see my other thread with a poll)
#2 GUI is too graphiced (fonts too big, fonts not customizable, pictures too large)
#3 GUI is too slow, even on a half-decent PPC (G3/450 192 MB RAM, 16 MB video card)
#4 the dock: it tries to fuse the Apple menu, launcher, application switcher and command-tab all into one -- unsuccessfully
#4.5 no application menu/switcher, no control strip provided by Apple (yet)

#5 lack of customizable Apple menu -- My current menu: chooser & control panel are at top (so the entire new "Apple menu" is in two items in my old one), calculator, note pad (A MUST FOR ME IN APPLE MENU), recent applications and my "Hidden" applications (apps not used often enough to warrant a space on my desktop, but still important enough that I don't want to bother using command-F). However, when I didn't have 1152*870 screen size I didn't have enough desktop space and had a lot more items in the Apple menu (which will have to happen again in OS X since everything in OS X is oversized, especially fonts).

#5.5 the dock is too small -- there's no way to take 15 apps, put them in the dock for launching (like the Apple menu) AND not get confused as to which one is open.
#6 anti-aliasing of fonts under size 18 is really difficult on the eyes, especially when combined with the funny striped background (need to have the option to turn off anti-aliasing under size 18, as in OS 8/9).
#7 multiple-users are a pain in the behind for a single-user computer (& the obsession with security is a pain... I want NO passwords on my computer!!!... I'm computer savvy enough to know when I have a telnet or FTP server running... plus, I don't like to have PWDs when I run an FTP server anyway).

#8, 9, 10, 11, 12: response times are AWEFUL!!!

*When will/would I upgrade?*
#1 When the GUI works for me
#2 When there's software I *need* &/or want that will not run on OS 9, and it's not time to buy a new computer

(if it were time to replace & #1 were not met I would have to consider Windoze if it still had a more refined GUI than OS X)

*What is not a barrier to upgrading?*
#1 RAM -- got enough, cheap to add new
#2 software -- Classic is OK for emulation, and I've always been an early adopter of new software
#3 stability
#4 native software -- it'll appear

*Why would I want to upgrade?*
#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 STABILITY -- it is rock-solid stable... the only non-menu restart was with command-control-power BY ACCIDENT when I was trying to quit a programme (I assumed Windoze three-finger salute but remembered right after I heard the bong that it was command-option-escape (with a sinking feeling of being stupid))

#9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 MULTITASKING -- again, rock-solid stable

#16 access to *nix apps with a recompile

I really, really want to be able to access 1-16 but do not have need for a scientific *nix app for which I can't get a similar one under OS 9/Virtual PC Windoze 98.

Eric.


----------



## erdunbar (May 22, 2001)

One last reason for not upgrading to OS X: Kensington hasn't made available MouseWorks for OS X for download  My TurboMouse 4 button ADB is critical to me being able to carry out every-day tasks (since I have my buttons programmed to do a wide variety of tasks... command-click in internet explorer and the finder to scroll a window's contents like the hand in graphics programs). Not to mention that Apple's mouse OS X control panel doesn't provide a good speed multiplier!!!


----------



## jdog (May 22, 2001)

> If the software want to used the full new tech in X, it must be rewritten in Ojective-C. Ojective-C is not portable to other platform. Although Apple said that it will save 90% work, big developer won't just develope its software for X. they also develope theirs for other platform. Also, if I am right, the main software developer will always use carbon to develope their software.



Do Windows developers still write applications that are compatible with Win 3.1?  NO.  It took more than 2 months for people who used 3.1 to migrate to 95, I suspect the same will happen with OSX.  

I also agree that when a native version of MS Office comes out, a LOT of people will make the transition.  I like using Word for my school work, the rest of the Office apps are useless to me (except maybe Excel, once and a while).  I mean, Apple hasn't even released a non-beta, full-featured word processor yet.  

Lke it or not (sorry OS9 lovers), given a little time, OSX will reveal itself as THE OS for Macs.  OS9 will fade, much like Win 3.1 has.


----------



## erdunbar (May 23, 2001)

> _Originally posted by jdog _
> *
> Lke it or not (sorry OS9 lovers), given a little time, OSX will reveal itself as THE OS for Macs.  OS9 will fade, much like Win 3.1 has.
> *



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that most objectors to OS X are not objecting because they want to stay with OS 9. It's because [in my case definitely], as it stands, it's a beta product with the typical problems of a beta, and has a rough interface. Had it been released as a late development stage beta (as it is) [some] people wouldn't be quite as irritated with OS X's quirks.

Yesterday I discovered a wonderful little application that adds the application switcher menu again in all its glory. Now someone needs to add the application switcher in its OS 9 compact form and behaviour (well, it would be a nice feature if it remembered its position between screen size changes (top right corner for me)). It's source has been made available under the GNU General Public License.

http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=10410
http://homepage.mac.com/vercruesse/cocoa/asm/
http://asm.vercruesse.de/

ASM 1.1.1
ASM (an acronym for Application Switcher Menu) is a small utility that adds a system-wide menu to the right side of the menu bar. This menu lists all of your open applications, so you can easily switch between them.

BTW There is still the problem with menu response times. Clicking on an OSX menu has a noticeable lag time (with Mac OS or System 1/2/3/4/6/7/8/9 simple menus appeared INSTANTLY on any computer... with OSX there's a distinct lag (enough that it doesn't APPEAR to be instantaneous) on a computer that's 100s of times faster than a Mac 128).

In all the fighting/arguing between OS X fans and people who like OS 8/9 features (I won't call them fans because it could simply be that features which provided productivity enhancements that are crucial to everyday operations were forgotten/eliminated/have yet to be added), it might be worth remembering that there are a *lot* of good, productivity enhancing features that are person specific.

The application switcher is a good person-specific example. Ever since Apple added it I've lived and died by it. When I encounter a computer without it I find it rather frustrating (and most people I know *do not* use the switcher much to my chagrin).

It sits inconspicuously at the top-right of my screen waiting for me to use it to either (a) switch, or (b) (even more important) accept a document for me and open it in the app chosen. The dock does do that but (a) it has redundant [unopened] icons, (b) LARGE icons (if they're small they're hard to launch... and zooming is another problem by itself), (d) sits at the bottom of the screen and can't be moved, and (e) you can accidentally open another app by clicking in the wrong place.

The dock may work for you, but, in its current incarnation, it does not for me!!! The concept is too limiting for my work habits.

Apple made another screwup in the beta which it promptly fixed: the menubar clock is in the best place it can be, in the menu bar where it is *always* visible (except for classic but you could probably fix that by playing with classic's control panels) (for those of you who didn't play with DP4 or OS X Public Beta... the clock became a dock-based application which meant that (a) it was not always in the same place (as the dock grew or shrank), and (b) if you hid the dock you wouldn't know what time it was, or (c) it would float on the screen wasting real-estate).

BTW one comment to the "take a time to learn the new OS" crowd: we all have different ways of working (& yes, there is a learning curve which needs to be followed). It's best to provide options and allow people to choose those which make them *feel* most comfortable (more important than anything... I can do something on Windoze AS efficiently and quickly as on Mac OS 8/9 but I feel more at home on my Mac). As a budding educator I've come to the realisation that what may be the most efficient method is certainly not always the most effective. People have different styles of learning. Similarly, they have different styles of working. When I write an essay, I can use a computer *very* efficiently to whip up 500 words in half an hour: efficient? Yes! Can someone with pen-and-paper and my typing speed come close to me in efficiency. With difficulty since they have to transfer the writing to computer *and* write the essay. But, what is effective for some (word processing) may not be for others who prefer to write on paper first, and word process (is this the first documented use of word process as a verb  later.

L8r, Rico.


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 23, 2001)

Yes it IS different because windows 3.1 sucked when compared to windows 95, 

the problem with OS X vs OS 9 is that people are more familiar with OS 9 that is why they are staying with it, or want to make OS X more like, because they are familiar with it and they dont want something new.


----------



## jdog (May 23, 2001)

> _Originally posted by AdmiralAK _
> *Yes it IS different because windows 3.1 sucked when compared to windows 95. *



To me, there is no comparison to OS9 vs OSX.  I do not like to use OS9, its ugly and feels like a toy OS to me.  While I do agree with erdunbar, it was probably released prematurily, I am used to the linux world were EVERYTHING (at least GUI related) is a beta product.  At least we can count on Apple (and only Apple) to continue to provide us with updates to the OS, unlike the Linux world (were you are relying on thousands of people to update the varous elements of your desktop).

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
jdog


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 23, 2001)

LOL....
I tried linux...did not like it much.
I can use it but I dont like it   Of course I like linux more than I like windows 




Admiral


----------



## PoweMACuser (May 24, 2001)

*I don't like the statement that os9 = win3.1 and os x =win95* 
osx is only used the UNIX kernel, all other GUI is from os9. win3.1 is based on Commandline DOS and just add very few graphics. win3.1 is 16bit and os 9 is 32bit

os 9 = win95 is better. and os x = winME. The best graphics with the worse kernel. UNIX kernel is very bad. I only like the Preemtive and Memory protected tech. I don't like UNIX kernel. It is very confusing.

*UNIX kernel is for HUGE NETWORK OS, NOT CUSTOMER OS* 

UNIX kernel makes MAC lag up to 20 years. Every Mac use have to learn UNIX, which is from the 20-year-before knowledge. To me, my knowledge of Mac in OS 9 can't lag after 5 years and I know nothing about UNIX kernel except the commandline is similar with DOS. Only the commandline is known. 

*DON'T ARGUE WITH THOSE WHO ARE FROM UNIX FOR OS X IS BASED ON UNIX AND WANT TO TRANSIT TO IT.* 

I feel tired now to quarrel whether OS X is good. I will pay attention to it whether it can gain the rate of win95 after 1 year.


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 24, 2001)

I would feel *much* better if we did not compare mac to win .. butif we had to make a comparison, a  more valid comparision is this

Windows XP = a bad immitation of Mac OS X  LOL


Admiral


----------



## Myke (May 26, 2001)

Imagine you have a screen full of open apps. In my case that might be Word, Protools, Outlook Express, Picture viewer, etc., etc.. Now you want to open another one.

Under OS 9 one click on the Apple Menu takes you straight to your new application. Can that be done in OSX? I think not. Or at least only by cluttering your desk with aliases.

So why would I want to do away with this convenience? It may be a 'preference' to Admiral AK - but  to me it  is a straightforward and efficient way of working.

No doubt there are many ways in which OSX is more logical than OS9. But it isn't more user-friendly. There's more to ergonomics than logic!

Oh and I forgot to mention another reason for not changing OS. I haven't the time - or the patience - to become a Unix geek and frankly don't see why I should have to.

My computer is a tool, not an end in itself.

PS Sorry about the grammar Admiral - nice to know someone still cares about these things!


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 26, 2001)

He he 
Well the Apple Menu is an preference of both you and me Myke.
Personally I spend most of my time in OS 9, and the reason is the lack of native apps.

You might be wondering my the apple menu is a preference.  Well,  Apple designd the Apple Menu to be able to accept aliases (or the real things) so the Apple menu can be an applocation launcher (like you have done), it can be a movie, picture, document, internet and/or network launcher.  It is up to the user.   I don't think that this was the intent of apple when it made it (to have it as a "start menu"), but throughout the years that's what it has become.

Personally I have my favorite applications assigned to the F-keys. so that I can press F1, F2, F3, F4  etc and without even moving my mouse I can launch my favorite app.  This is the way I do it, which is different from your way, which is OK, and very normal (I would be very afraid if everyone did everything the exact same way I do it).

In OS X apple has provided the dock to launch and monito apps.   Yes I do believe that the dock has some basic flaws like for example it tries to do too much.  I use the dock as a quicklaunch for my most common items, and for my second most common I have put the aliases in my favorites folder. (which is under the apple menu I think).

I think a computer is a big hunk of clay that you have to mold.  Most users just use it as a hunk of clay, others make it into a vase, or a cup, or a bowl or a whatever.  It depends on one's needs and experties, and of course preferences 

It's good to have options so everyone can be pleased (well almost everyone, there will always exist oddballs out there LOL )



Admiral


----------



## erdunbar (May 26, 2001)

> _Originally posted by AdmiralAK _
> *He he
> Personally I have my favorite applications assigned to the F-keys. so that I can press F1, F2, F3, F4  etc and without even moving my mouse I can launch my favorite app.  This is the way I do it, which is different from your way, which is OK, and very normal (I would be very afraid if everyone did everything the exact same way I do it).
> 
> ...



In a recent article that was linked to off one of these messages (can't remember where or who), the #1 complaint Apple had on OS X was its slow response time. Guess what #2 was? The dock! It seems people aren't in love with it as much as I was led to believe (much to my relief). The concept is good, but amusingly enough, when I'm in OS X I've already done as much as possible to OS 9 it by adding the ASM 1.1.1 and to have the dock in the upper, right side of the screen. It's made me quite a bit happier and makes OS X more liveable (though, the slow response times are still holding me back from switching... going from OS X to OS 9.0.4 feels like going from a 68040 to a G4 to me). Though, there is still one dock behaviour that drives me NUTS. Whenever I move a file over an app icon in the dock to open it, the dock zooms to accomodate the new icon, rather than highlight the app icon <grumble>.

Now that needs to be turned off. Once you have it customized, it should be a static item there to make your work space more efficient. Dynamic customization is handy when you're setting things up, but is a pain when you're WORKING!!!

As for all those features you mentioned, I use *all* for different purposes. All 15 F-keys launch programmes, URLs and folders (both network and local) that I use all the time or, are VERY important to me. My Apple Menu items are for control panels, less oftenly used apps, or apps with names I tend to forget so I can't use OS 8's find (I despise Sherlock I & II because it's so damn slow and has a clunky interface).

Amusingly, GraphicConverter is the fifth-most frequently used application on my computer (after #1 Outlook Express, #2 Explorer, #3 BBEdit Lite, #4 iCab/Netscape), yet I don't have an F-key assigned, and I don't have an Apple menu item for it because all I do is drop files on the desktop icon. Similarly, I don't have an icon to Explorer or Outlook Express *anywhere* on my desktop or in my Apple Menu items, but I *always* use the F-keys to launch them.

What Apple did with the dock is ditch *all* of these time-saving, highly convenient, HIGHLY PERSONALISED items (another person using my computer tends to have to use command-F to find apps because I have my computer personalized to MY desires (that's why I'm a Mac user and not a Windozer)). In the dock we've got an inept app switcher, a confused app launcher, and a screen real-estate waster!!!

Whatever possessed Apple to change things too much is beyond my understanding. But, if they don't fix it they're going to have troubles convincing people to switch to OS X rather than to Windoze whatever.

Anyway, Apple will eventually figure it out (or else they'll become yet another clone manufacturer 

L8r, Eric.


----------



## Myke (May 27, 2001)

I agree entirely with what erdunbar is saying ...and I'd just like to add that the dock is not a suitable place to put shortcuts to your apps because a) if you have a lot of them you'll crowd it and b) my experience with OSX beta is that they don't stay there.

You can add them in as you work of course ...but then it's back to square one when you re-boot.

Whilst I hate the look of the Windows 'start' bar, there's speed and logic to it. You can even customise it to be drop down instead of pop up.

Sorry, but it is MUCH more convenient than the set-up in OSX. Whatever were Apple thinking of?

It's a good point erdunbar makes too, about customising. I really dislike this 'play by our rules or not at all' approach that Apple is adopting. It is what has put me off Windows. 

The glory of the Mac OS up to now is that it has been customisable, that it is tolerant of doing things in different ways. It doesn't force the user to accept one set of operational 'rules', so it can be adapted to suit work styles and personal taste - up to a point, anyway.

When I see the 'illegal operation' error box in Windows that sums up for me most of why I don't like it. Now in OSX, Apple is going down the same road. Is this more to do with sociology than technology? Is the computer industry in the hands of suited control freaks?

Well, big assumptions and wild generalisations aside, what it comes down to is, that I don't see why Apple needed to create a more inflexible, less ergonomic GUI, and at a stroke undermine its advantage over Windows.

But it seems Mr Jobs isn't listening ....


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 27, 2001)

I personally want the F keys back so that I can assign apps to them


----------



## owl_luvr (Jun 5, 2001)

I've got pieces of OS X Beta still on my iMac DV SE/400 & when I try to delete them, an error message says 'OS X Beta cannot be put in the Trash' or some such thing. I just got finished formatting my hard drive because of this. If there's no way to remove the (now completely empty and inactive) System--->Library--->Core Services folders, I'm afraid I'm stuck.


----------



## jdog (Jun 5, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Myke _
> *
> Whilst I hate the look of the Windows 'start' bar, there's speed and logic to it. You can even customise it to be drop down instead of pop up.
> 
> ...



You can drag your Applications folder to the Dock, then click and hold (also command click or something) to open it up just like the Windows Start menu. 

I like the dock.  My linux setup was almost exactly the same.  I even had the Gnome panel floating in the center like the dock is.  A lot of Xfree86 window managers will bring up a menu of apps (that you can customize) when you right click on the desktop.  This makes it very conveinent as you can open apps no matter where the cursor is.  Apple should look into implementing someting of this nature into X.

-jdog


----------



## erdunbar (Jun 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by jdog _
> *
> 
> You can drag your Applications folder to the Dock, then click and hold (also command click or something) to open it up just like the Windows Start menu.
> ...



Ah, the joys of coming from Linux. As time passes more OS X users will be former Mac OS 9 users, and, unlike Linuxers we tend to be a more picky lot and demand a little more from our software's interface (considering OS X is an OS for which you have to pay and Linux is free, and its GUIs are at the whim of the developer entirely).

I'm starting to like OS X for the [slow, but stable] multitasking (too bloody slow vs. what OS 9 offered) and the ultra-stable OS (protected memory is definitely a nice feature), but the dock still hasn't grown on me. I'm desperately waiting for Apple to fix it and/or a third party to improve it. It's very unsatisfactory as an app launcher, and still sucks rocks as an app switcher (I've given it the better part of a month and have it customized as much as I can) (the behaviour to create a new window whenever I click on an app drives me insane because it reduces the smoothness of my work... I rarely, *if ever* create a new window if one isn't open. I switch to an app to OPEN a doc or do something else, not create one).

BTW the Start menu in Windows is far-far ahead of sticking a folder in the dock. It's FAST to respond (no delay before it pops up (EVEN ON A 486)), you don't have to do anything, it's already there, and it functions as a better app launcher than the dock's push-buttons!!!

BTW Unlike the Windoze task-bar, it is NOT possible to move the dock to another part of the screen. I say this knowing about pinning and orientation because  APPLE's default does not allow this. Unless you go out and look for the hacks you won't know about the ability to move the dock to another place on the screen (which makes it a lot more usable as an app switcher than having it down at the bottom of the screen where my cursor rarely comes).




Productivity wise I still berate OS X's GUI designers. It's still a joke GUI when compared to Mac OS 9, or even Windows (yuck), and, well, I guess vs. most Linux GUIs it's already better. I use far FAR fewer programmes in OS X than in 9 because multitasking is slow as molasses on a cold day in January (in the northern hemisphere... my apologies to any Aussies), it's tough to open apps (no F-keys [yet], desktop icons are difficult because to have recognisable icons you need 'em so big that you can only keep a few on the desktop, the Finder is slow so using icons in dock and/or desktop with drag-and-drop is *less* efficient than going through the hassle of the open dialogue, there's no Apple menu (what's this system crap in there... ALL of that should be a sub-menu), and virtual memory SUCKS (and that's on a G3/450 with 192 MB RAM).

Sorry 'bout that, I'm sure some people are tired of my rants. I sure am!

'nother rant: why didn't Apple disable the #@$LK)*( help key in OS X??? It's the worst key ever placed on a keyboard!!!

UGH. @#$)(* dock. I was just trying to switch to QuickTime to turn on the radio stream and couldn't find QuickTime player (open) without having to scan up and down and up and down over the icons (with all their triangles to add to the visual clutter). If the dock was supposed to *improve* work efficiency why did Apple make it so difficult to look at and determine what apps are open? (& the zooming effect is very annoying to deal with if you turn it on to see the icons... it's not a solution, it's part of the problem).

The short and long of it is: I HATE THE DOCK. I'm certainly not the only one (considering it's the second most complained about item to Apple after slow response times). I'm going to predict that Apple will have to re-introduce the app switcher menu, perhaps give people the *option* to use the dock as only an app switcher (plus, improve the colour scheme of the dock to make icons stand out rather than fade into the blue translucent background).

All those dock lovers out there, don't fear, I don't want it to go away, I simply want it to become more Mac-like rather than Linux/NeXT/Windoze-like (leave, the existing dock configuration as an option for those who like it, and give Mac OS 1-9 users the option to use their computers in the way most productive for them).

Eric.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 6, 2001)

"BTW the Start menu in Windows is far-far ahead of sticking a folder in the dock. It's FAST to respond (no delay before it pops up (EVEN ON A 486)), you don't have to do anything, it's already there, and it functions as a better app launcher than the dock's push-buttons!!!"

I see you haven't used Windows 2000 on a system slower than 400 MHz, the fade in and fade out makes OS X look quite fast. 

"BTW Unlike the Windoze task-bar, it is NOT possible to move the dock to another part of the screen. I say this knowing about pinning and orientation because APPLE's default does not allow this. Unless you go out and look for the hacks you won't know about the ability to move the dock to another place on the screen (which makes it a lot more usable as an app switcher than having it down at the bottom of the screen where my cursor rarely comes)."

From what I've heard, when all of the new functionality was added to the dock,  this was one part that Apple wasn't sure about. They went with a fix position to cut down on the number of "new" things that the user would have to learn. The fact of the matter is that most of the funtions that we have with the apple menu today were in fact hacks of the past that Apple made as part of the actual system in later versions. The original apple menu had far less to do than the current OS X version. And originally Rhapsody's apple menu was a fix (unchangable) feature that was hacked be some developers. Apple then added the AppleMenuOptions.app for the final release of Server 1.0 (and then lost it again some where between DP2 and DP3).

"All those dock lovers out there, don't fear, I don't want it to go away, I simply want it to become more Mac-like rather than Linux/NeXT/Windoze-like (leave, the existing dock configuration as an option for those who like it, and give Mac OS 1-9 users the option to use their computers in the way most productive for them). "

I miss the apple menu and app menu as much as the next person, and it doesn't help to work on MacOS Classic and Server 1.x systems all day and then jump back to Mac OS X. I do find your dock woes funny though. I woundn't have more than a couple apps stored in the dock at all time, the rest are aliases in my "apple folder" with is set up just like my apple menu on my other systems. I guess I'm not one of those people who needs to have EVERY app I own in the dock for display.

Remember, at this point, no one is making you use Mac OS X. Unless you use WebObjects, Create, TIFFany, and other OS X-only apps, you don't need to put yourself through all this pain and suffering. And even then, there are versions of most of those for Mac OS X Server 1.x anyway, which feels more Classic Mac-like. If you are going to continue, you should try the idea of folder setup like your apple menu in classic (you could even use the apple menu folder from OS 9's system folder if you like). Just a thought.


----------



## jdog (Jun 6, 2001)

erdunbar,  

In hoping to prevent you from an untimely heart-attack, I would suggest you not use OSX anymore.  

Seriously though,  I would guess the majority of those who are not happy with the dock are long-time Mac users whoare familiar with OS9 and < .  

I do resent your implication that those who use Linux/Windows do not demand a quality GUI.  And like it or not, those who use MacOS are at the "whim of the developer."  Where as with Linux, if you are not happy with your GUI, you can develop your own.  You have obviously not had any expierence with *nix running X windows.

Using MacOS9 is about as exciting as staring at a yaks' ass for 3 days.  What is more boring than that god-awfull gray GUI?  While Windows is not more exciting, OSX is a very visually pleasing environment in which to work.  

I do agree with you in regards to the app switching.  That is very confusing.  Also, does OSX let you "shade" windows like OS9?  (By shading I mean rolling up to just the title bar).  

-jdog

BTW, Please don't take this as a flame, i am just partaking in healthy debate.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 6, 2001)

I know I got this fourth or fifth hand, but any one who has worked closely with X-Windows should get a laugh out of it. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...A mistake carried out to perfection. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Dissatisfaction guaranteed. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Don't get frustrated without it. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Even your dog won't like it. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Flaky and built to stay that way. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Flawed beyond belief. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Form follows malfunction. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Garbage at your fingertips. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Ignorance is our most important resource. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...It could be worse, but it'll take time. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...It could happen to you. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Japan's secret weapon. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Let it get in *your* way. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Live the nightmare. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...More than enough rope. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Never had it, never will. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...No hardware is safe. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Power tools for power fools. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Putting new limits on productivity. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Simplicity made complex. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...The cutting edge of obsolescence. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...The art of incompetence. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...The defacto substandard. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...The first fully modular software disaster. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...The joke that kills. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...The problem for your problem. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...There's got to be a better way. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...Warn your friends about it. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...You'd better sit down. 

                                                  X-Windows: ...You'll envy the dead.


----------



## jdog (Jun 6, 2001)

LOL 

-jdog


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 6, 2001)

HILARIOUS


----------



## endian (Jun 6, 2001)

> Seriously though, I would guess the majority of those who are not happy with the dock are long-time Mac users whoare familiar with OS9 and < .



I've used Macs for 10 years (since 6.0.8) and I *love* the dock. I find that people that don't like OSX are NOT (what I would consider) long time Mac users, and have only started using MacOS >8. OSX is much more like System 6 than it is like later versions. My first thought upon seeing Aqua screenshots was "White backgrounds! No window borders! It looks just like System 6! This is great!"


----------



## erdunbar (Jun 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by jdog _
> erdunbar,
> 
> In hoping to prevent you from an untimely heart-attack, I would suggest you not use OSX anymore.



Aaargh, too late. I didn't make it to the gym today and this is my punishment! Splat.



> Seriously though,  I would guess the majority of those who are not happy with the dock are long-time Mac users whoare familiar with OS9 and < .



And, to reiterate a point I've reiterated to death, that's the bulk of OS X's target audience.



> I do resent your implication that those who use Linux/Windows do not demand a quality GUI.  And like it or not, those who use MacOS are at the "whim of the developer."  Where as with Linux, if you are not happy with your GUI, you can develop your own.  You have obviously not had any expierence with *nix running X windows.



Valid point re: quality GUI, my apologies. I am *grateful* I have no experience running *nix X windows. I'm already frustrated enough with OS X's quirks. There's too much typing and funny behind the screens fiddling required. Whenever I've seen my friend using (& have used his machine) the various flavours of X-Windows all I could think of was a cheap Windoze knock-off that didn't quite succeed. When I accessed a mach shell in my undergrad I didn't mind fiddling with the various settings, but on my WORK computer. Ugh, having to type to get things done is repugnant.



> Using MacOS9 is about as exciting as staring at a yaks' ass for 3 days.  What is more boring than that god-awfull gray GUI?  While Windows is not more exciting, OSX is a very visually pleasing environment in which to work.



Agreed, OS X *looks* prettier, but for me it is functionally a less efficient workplace exactly because the graphics are too much. For example, I can't select text in any web browser (iCab or IE) without having to spend a lot of time looking to see where the text is. I haven't been able to determine a bright text selection colour instead of dull blue or grey. Too fancy, too graphics heavy (which distract from the tasks at hand). You seem to have come from *nix where customization rules even more than in Apple's pre-OS X era. Why is it that [it seems] *nixers are happy defending Apple's poor GUI choices to the death ? (just a shot at the *nix OS X defenders).



> I do agree with you in regards to the app switching.  That is very confusing.  Also, does OSX let you "shade" windows like OS9?  (By shading I mean rolling up to just the title bar).



Not as far as I can tell. Another interface failure Apple made with their funny window behaviour (of course, windows appearing over half, but not all of another apps windows is incredibly annoying and beta-like). I'd much rather the Windoze behaviour of hiding the app than sending it to the app switcher (dock piece of @#$!).



> -jdog
> 
> BTW, Please don't take this as a flame, i am just partaking in healthy debate.
> [/B]



Nope, no flame. My apologies if any of my stuff has ended up flaming. I've tried to avoid being personal (with the exception of the *nix shots  and will edit anything if it is out-of-place (& someone lets me know).

Eric


----------

