# Apple - Part II



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

You can read the original "Apple sucks" thread here: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=8969&highlight=George+Lien
____________________________________________________

As I've mentioned before, I have been a Mac user for over a decade.  Recently bought a used Beige G3 Power Macintosh so I can upgrade to a G4/500 desktop machine.

The following is what I have invested in the past decade:

PowerBook 140 (sold - first year in college)
Centris Forgot-what-speed (sold - first year in college)
Power Macintosh 7200/75 (sold - forth year in college)
Power Macintosh 8500/120 (sold - forth year in college)
Power Macintosh 8600/200 (Family Computer in Taiwan)
PowerBook 2400/180
Power Macintosh 8600/300
333Hz Strawberry iMac (sold in 2001)
PowerBook G4/500
Power Macintosh G3/233

Perhaps it is not Apple that suck, but it's Mac OS X.
A year after OS X came out, the OS is still slow when compared to OS 9.  "Everything is CPU intensive in OS X" but Apple is still playing around with only 1GHz G4 while AMD and Intel are passing 2GHz?

Don't get me wrong.  I love OS X's user interface.  I love iMovie, iPhoto as well as iTune.  I love my PowerBook G4 along with all of  my Power Macintoshes as well as my PowerBook 2400.

But come on!  OS X is too slow!

As a long time Mac user and a PC user who builds his own PCs--no, I'm not talking about Wintel PCs--more like Windows 2000 and AMD chips, I'll have none of this!

Originally, I planned to buy a new Mac one generation after G4 reaches 1GHz, so in theory should be the next generation G4 desktops.  But now I doubt I will make my purchase.

Not until Apple does something to OS X.

For crying out loud, I own two copies of the slowest OS, one Taiwan localized (10.0.3) and one International English (10.1)!

And yes, Windows is kicking our aZZ--Microsoft's Windows 2000 is killing OS X's aZZ!!

Wake up Apple! before you lose another faithful like me!


----------



## googolplex (Apr 26, 2002)

I wouldn't say it is killing us. Its the other way around. Sometimes I don't understand these speed rants. It can be faster, but really what are you using it for that is SO SLOW? Sometimes things are sluggish, but I don't see it as the huge issue others seem to. And it can only go up from here.


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

I don't know if this should be marked as troll or redundant 

MAC IS DIEENG OMG JUMP SHIP N BY A SUNY VAEO WITH THE GOOD WINDOW NT XP 2000 BE4 IT 2 LATE!


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

Try switching between the two OS.  OS 9 runs a lot faster than OS X.


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

OS 9 also crashes more than OS X, does that mean it's better?

You like 9? Use it, be happy. Don't like it? Live with OS X (which is a growing OS, unlike windows which the only thing that grows is the amount of viruses and security patches) or go buy a good ol Windows machine and STFU 

Join my secret underground organization called Troll Busters!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 26, 2002)

.





> Wake up Apple! before you lose another faithful like me!



You call yourself "faithful"? Please. You are about as faithful to Apple as UBL is to Islam. Apple really doesn't need your faith anyway. They are a company, not a religion.

You're complaining because Apple's LATEST OS won't run on your Mac that's 4 years old. Get a grip, and buy a new machine. 

Think your argument is valid?

Go buy a PC from 1998 - let's say a PII-350. Try running WinXP on that machine, and then we'll talk.

Apple can't be expected to deliver next gen software features on 3 generation old hardware. If I were Apple, I would have made the Beige G3's unsupported, and started OS X's minimum requirements at the B&WG3's, and the 2nd generation iMacs. There comes a point in the hardware/software development where an evolution is required. That evolution will dictate their either the 1) the hardware will be more advanced than the software, or 2) the software will be more advanced than the hardware. OS 9 has been around (in various versions) for 18 years. OS X significantly shorter (NeXT, BSD don't count because core technologies like Quartz, Aqua, Carobn were not part of those OS's). Right now, OS X is more advanced than *most* of the hardware. This is what happens when there is a revolution with the software.

With that explained, others have said it well - if you don't like OS X (or don't have the $$$ to buy a machine capable of running if fast) - THEN DON'T USE IT. OS 9 works OK, so long as you save every 2 minutes and don't mind restarting a couple of times a day.


----------



## fryke (Apr 26, 2002)

Have to agree with others. You're not an Apple faithful. Or as much as G.W. Bush is a faithful Christian.

I've recently erased my Classic partition and haven't regretted it yet. Mac OS X is the future of the Macintosh, they say, I say it's the present.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

I didn't want OS X to run on G3 or Mac pre-G3.  I'm happy to have it run just on G4 machines.  But it is slow--people--face the fact!  I do respect the perspective on the slow-but-with-less-crashes.  Still, even if you don't compare with OS 9, Mac OS X is way too slow when compared to Windows 2000.

Well, about the viruses and security...
If Mac OS owned 90% of the computer market, most viruses in world would have been written for it.  How can one be sure that there are no holes in OS X.  They found problems with Linux after the OpenSource claim the OS to be the safest and the most robust, didn't they?

Let's face it guys, Macs suck at the current state.
Only when we first admit to our short comings can we improve ourselves and progress.

Like I was back in the late 90s, I still only want Macs to get better!

BTW, thanks for flaming to your kind.


----------



## phatsharpie (Apr 26, 2002)

I have to admit that I never used OS 9 until last night, when I was reformating my iBook for its buyer (I am planning to upgrade to a PBG4). I bought the iBook to play with OS X, to see if I want it to be my default OS. The ONLY reason I bought a Mac was for OS X - and I know plenty of people who do so. It's pretty much the only weapon Apple has to woo the technically elite. When I used OS 9 last night, I was impressed by its speed - really impressed. I had no idea the G3 processor was so powerful! However, in one hour, I crashed 3 times!!! Maybe IE is just a bad browser (I wouldn't be surprised), but if browsing the web can crash an OS 3 times in a hour, it's not the OS for me. I did a full system restore, I installed nothing new, it's a clean system, and it was UNSTABLE!

Sure, OS X is slower than OS 9, but I actually get more done! I just keep running processing in the background. I open new browser tabs in Mozilla while other ones are still loading. Try that is OS 9 - I guarantee you'll hang or crash.

OS X is still evolving. If you don't want to be on the cutting edge - don't. Apple still supports OS 9. Stick with it if you want, but I am sticking with OS X.

-B


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

BTW, I'm not a Mac faithful?  How many Macintoshes do you have?  Apple is a company, but Mac is a cult.  We who use Mac OS believe that computing should be fun and creative.  So far the thread only reflects how users only use what's thrown at them by the computer companies--just like people use Windows XP because Microsoft says so--I guess Mac users now use OS X because Apple says so.

<Signs> Anyway, I bought my PowerBook G4/500 because I wanted to run OS X.  So far this  6-month-experiment of using it as my only OS has been disappointing.

But--the good news is--the poll will probably make me eat my words.

Cheers!

I love my Macs.  Just waiting for OS X to become more responsive.

BTW, read this: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,51926,00.html
I'm NOT the only one out there.


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

> But it is slow--people--face the fact!



The GUI may be a little sluggish, but that'll be improved in upcomming releases. The underlying core is plenty fast.



> Still, even if you don't compare with OS 9, Mac OS X is way too slow when compared to Windows 2000.


Then why are you here? Go buy a machine with Windows 2000 and be happy.



> If Mac OS owned 90% of the computer market, most viruses in world would have been written for it.


But there's no illegally embeded software for the viruses to latch on to, so spreading would be much difficult. Any virus using top quality Microsoft proprietary standards can figure out a way to latch on to outlook's address book.



> How can one be sure that there are no holes in OS X.


Well, it's open source, so that'll target the main ones. And it's based on the same FreeBSD that runs high-end servers, so that takes out a lot, too.



> They found problems with Linux after the OpenSource claim the OS to be the safest and the most robust, didn't they?


As far as I know, Linus Torvalds nor The Open Group never said Linux was the safest. I'd say OpenBSD is probably the safest of them all, with FreeBSD being a close second. It, and just about every other opensource unix is safer than any version of Windows out there today.



> Let's face it guys, Macs suck at the current state.


Well, if that's how you feel. None of mine do, and none of the ones I've seen suck. So maybe you're looking at one that nobody outside of Apple has ever seen?



> Only when we first admit to our short comings can we improve ourselves and progress.



There are many short comings in OS X, and that's what the feedback page is for. We have a problem or idea, we go there and report it, and if it's popular enough (or humanly possible), it'll get in the next release.



> BTW, thanks for flaming to your kind.


Sorry, redundant trolls aren't my kind.


----------



## rliebsch (Apr 26, 2002)

Really, Funny, my PowerBook (G3 Pizmo 256MB RAM), 

Runs OS X running smoothly, Explorer, a few network and application monitoring apps, NMap, MacSniffer, Ymessenger, AIM, iTunes, and Terminal...

but wait, theres more....

At the very same time, it runs XDarwin with WinowMaker with 
12 virutal desktops, 5 rdesktops, 12 eterms, dillo, amaya, tcpdump, nmapfe, ethereal, 4 Wmaker Dock Apps, 2 Xchats, 
and a Pico.

All together. At the same time. Functioning. Smoothly.
Now, this week I had to load MS Office so I could work on my 
documentation and spreadsheets. Now it is pokey sometimes, but honestly, I blame office.

So, for the record G3 Pismo running OSX, XDarwin and WindowMaker. Beautiful.

My guess is you are doing it wrong.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

> I guess Mac users now use OS X because Apple says so.


Uh, no, actually I use OS X because I like it.  I like its stability, I like the command line, I like the GUI, I like the Dock, I like the fact that it's based on one of the best operating systems in the world (Unix) but it is still very user friendly, I like that one application crashing doesn't bring the whole darn system to its knees, I like....

I could go on, but I really don't see the point.  I am more than willing to work with a slow but stable OS.  I've worked on Windows for the past seven years.  Faster?  _I_ don't think so.  Buggier?  You bet.

The other thing I like about Apple/Unix/Open Source in general:  Someone says "Hey look! We found a security hole!"  and the general response is to patch it asap.

Microsoft's response?  "No, that's not really a security hole.  I mean, it's _possible_ that someone could run arbitrary code on your machine, but it's not likely.  Who ever clicks "Back" in Internet Explorer, anyway?  We're not going to fix it."



> We who use Mac OS believe that computing should be fun and creative.


Hmm.  I use it because it is fun and creative and _stable_.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

FYI,

these are the PCs I built running Windows 2000:

In year 2002

1)
AMD 1.33 GHz Athlon
256MB DDR RAM
15GB ATA 100 Hard Drive
32MB TNT Video card
ASUS K7V-266E Motherboard
D-Link 530 10/100 Ethernet card
Windows 2000 Professional

Total: less than $700

2)
AMD 1 GHz Athlon
256MB DDR RAM
15GB ATA 100 Hard Drive
32MB TNT Video card
ASUS K7V-266E Motherboard
D-Link 530 10/100 Ethernet card
Windows 2000 Professional

Total: less than $700


In year 2000

1)
AMD 600MHz Duron
128MB PC133 SDRAM
15GB ATA 100 Hard Drive
32MB TNT Video card
ASUS K7V Motherboard
D-Link 530 10/100 Ethernet card
Windows 2000 Professional

Total: less than $600

2)
AMD 600MHz Duron
128MB PC133 SDRAM
15GB ATA 100 Hard Drive
32MB TNT Video card
ASUS K7V Motherboard
D-Link 530 10/100 Ethernet card
Windows 2000 Professional

Total: less than $600

3)
Intel 450MHz Pentium II
128MB PC100 SDRAM
2x 30GB ATA 100 Hard Drive
8MB ATI Video card
Intel SE440BX Motherboard
D-Link 530 10/100 Ethernet card
Windows 2000 Server

Total: less than $900


----------



## rliebsch (Apr 26, 2002)

oh, well that settles it...

You think OSX is insecure?

Proof positive, you have not RTFM.
READ THE FRIGGIN MANUAL.

Security is the same as international, and personal security, 
it is discipline, it is reading, it is configuration.

It is really really really brainnumbingly easy to configure your computer so it is secure. And guess what, most of it is alreasdy done for you.

Course, when you install spyware, its yer own fault....

Go buy a windows box and whine.


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

And you're telling us this..because..?

Why are you here? Go have fun with Windows 2000 on all of your amazing machines instead of bothering us. I could really care less what you build or what you think of OS X. Your main intent with this post is to start a war, not offer positive feedback or ask for help.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

Now I know how PC people feel when talking to us Mac people.  We're blind.

BTW, I don't buy a Win Box.  I build one.  When was the last time you built a computer?


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

Hmm.  My x86 machine:
Intel Celeron 300A processor
320 MB PC133 RAM (I forget if it's SDRAM or not)
20 GB 7200 rpm Maxtor HD
Windows 2000 Professional
Supermicro PS680A motherboard (or something -- its been a while)
Plextor 8/4/32 CD-RW
Toshiba 54x CD-Rom

Total monetary cost:  I have no idea -- not all built at the same time.  The CPU, motherboard and RAM came to $600 alone.  The CD-RW was $100 or so, the HD was another $120, so at least $820.  That isn't including video card, modem, ethernet card, case, monitor, keyboard, mouse, CD-Rom.

Total cost in time:  Seven years of crashes, lost data, reinstallation of the operating system, BSODs immediately after reinstalling the operating system on a clean HD, more lost data (those two words really underplay the agony of losing four years of programming assignments).

If you are so excited about Windows, why are you even here?


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

Dude, wtf are you talking about? I could care less if you know how to plug parts into a motherboard and install Windows 2000.

"Us Mac People" ? Uh, you don't sound like any of the Mac people I know. You do sound like a few slashdot trolls, though.

I'm not blind, I am aware of all of my options, that's why I use a Mac.

Hurry now, the troll train is about to depart! Don't be late!


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *Now I know how PC people feel when talking to us Mac people.  We're blind.
> 
> BTW, I don't buy a Win Box.  I build one.  When was the last time you built a computer? *


I've never done anything else.  Don't you even dare consider me a "mindless Windows/Mac user".  I have experience with Windows, DOS, four different flavors of Unix, and Macintosh.  Each x86 box was something that I built alone, installed the OS, and configured it to my liking.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

Actually my main intent was--to get everyone to wake up!  Mac OS X is better, but it is also much slower.  You can blame it on the hardware; however, the reason that I'm a Mac user is because I believe Apple's philosophy, which is handling both software and hardware, it can offer the best end-user experience.

Well, guess what?  Windows has past Mac OS since 1996 and Linus is catching up.

It's time for us Mac users to demand more than just good-looking computers.

We want a mature Mac OS X--not just a good enough OS--like the ones Microsoft offers.

You see me as your enemy?  Fine.  You just don't see it until you admit it.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

Heh.  Slap me around and call me stupid.

I missed the sign posted:
_Do not feed the trolls_

OK, I'm done here.  Bye bye.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

Sorry guys.  It's really late here in Taiwan.  Please excuse my poor English.

Let me try this again.

Actually my main intent was--to get everyone to wake up! Mac OS X is better, but it is also much slower. You can blame it on the hardware; however, the reason that I'm a Mac user is because I believe Apple's philosophy, which is by handling both the software and the hardware end, it can offer the best end-user experience. 

Well, guess what? Windows has passed Mac OS since 1996 and Linus is catching up. 

It's time for us Mac users to demand more than just good-looking computers. 

We want a mature OS--not just a good enough OS--like the ones Microsoft offers, not Mac OS 7.x.

You see me as your enemy? Fine. You just won't see it until you admit it.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

nkuvu,

No, I won't "slap [you] around and call [you] stupid."
But I will call you turtle, just like what Windows 2000 would call Mac OS X.

Wake up sleepy head!  We are paying more and getting less!!!


----------



## rliebsch (Apr 26, 2002)

you are just trying to bloat your posts.

YOu have nothing to say, you are talkin about 
things of which you clearly know nothing.

Maturity? ...do research.
Security? ...do research.
Tuning a System? ...do research.

You might as well be a Mall shopping consumer pet american.


seriously. You are void of anything intelligent.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

Thanks!  People are so friendly here.  You've got a point though.  That is, I'm wasting my time here.  Research.  I'm a user.  All I care about is user experience.

Good night.  It's 1:25 in the morning in Taiwan.

Thanks for all your feedback!


----------



## edX (Apr 26, 2002)

> _originally posted by the naive one_
> Well, guess what? Windows has passed Mac OS since 1996 and Linus is catching up.



to whom, Lucy or Charlie Brown? 

frankly, osx is a lot faster than os 9 for lots of things. especially use of firewire devices. in other ways it is just as fast - the finder works very quickly and smoothly. the only places it slows down are in specific applications which leads me to continue to believe that it is not osx to blame. it is the developers understanding and use of the os that causes the slow down. 

case in point - i recently complained to a small developere about a speed issue with one of his apps. Within a couple of weeks he had sent me a beta copy with the problem totally corrected and it works lightening fast now. the public version has already been released and reviews of the app have been much more favorable. This particular developer related to me that fixing the problem involved a complicated code rewrite. Perhaps most developers just aren't willing to put in the effort that this one did.


----------



## rliebsch (Apr 26, 2002)

I apologize for being so abrasive. 

But everything you said, indicated, that you wanted something 
out of the box. 

A computer is not a gaming console. It is more like a pet. You have to read the manual. You have to learn how to use it. You need to learn how to make it best suit your needs. 

Everything I read was inflamitory, derogatory and unfounded.

The simple soluiton. Read Manuals. Read man pages, Read FAQs, Read HOW-TOs.

Dont just stop yer foot and shake your tiny fist.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 26, 2002)

some of the main "perceptions" in the slowness of X has to do with poorly coded/optimized Applications. Examples: Compare an application like OmniWeb. Look at the version that shipped shortly after 10.1 came out. I believe that was OW 4.06. Sloooow as molasses, even under the optimized 10.1. Now, look at the 4.1b4 release. Much, much quicker. 

The very first wave of OS X apps all had speed issues. Whether they be Carbon or Cocoa. The reaons were varied, some due to the OS, a lot due to the newness of the APIs, and developers who weren't quite adept at optimizing for the new OS yet.

Another example would be Lightwave. When version 7.0 came out, it had some serious speed issues with rendering and OpenGL performance. They just released 7.5 last night, and woa - the app is much more responsive, and rendering/OpenGL are dramatically improved too.

I will agree that Apple could still do more to optimize OS X, and they will. However, if speed is such a concern for you, then ante up for a new Mac. Speed was a concern for me, and I ponied up for the G4/800DP. It runs OS X plenty fast. Could it run OS X faster. Of course it could. But at this level, OS X feels just as fast as OS 9 (except for Explorer, which I have abandoned in favor of Navigator/Chimera ). Now on my PBG4/500, OS X definitely feels slower than 9, but not anywhere near the point that I would consider going back to the arcane, crash prone OS of days gone by.

Sorry you have an avalance of disagreement falling on you now, but I think you are in the minority on this one....


----------



## Valrus (Apr 26, 2002)

Wow, georgelien built _five computers_! How can we *possibly* argue with that?

You're not going to convince anyone here that you're right. If you keep arguing, that makes you a troll. And at this point you're not making many arguments at all; you're just insulting the thing that brought all of us here!



> But I will call you turtle, just like what Windows 2000 would call Mac OS X.



And we're _not_ supposed to respond to that with hostility? What did you hope to achieve by saying that?

There are many people here who won't argue that Mac OS X is sluggish in many areas. But here's a little computer tip for you:

*Slower <> Worse*.

And here's another tip.

*Don't come to a web site called "macosx.com" and use the phrase "Macs suck" in a serious way unless you want to be called a troll or have something besides MHz numbers to back it up.*

Sheesh.

-the valrus


----------



## genghiscohen (Apr 26, 2002)

One of my pet peeves ever since OS X 10.0 was released is people b*tching that "it's too slow."
*What* is too slow?!?  Yes, the GUI (and especially the Finder) is too slow in certain areas, and still buggy.  But actually *doing* something in OS X is FAST!
Uploading and downloading.  Composing and editing texts.  Tweaking graphic images.  All FASTER than OS 7.5 -9.2.2 (never used earlier Mac OSes).  Not to mention the stability and multitasking.  And the ability to use UNIX programs.  And the Developer Tools.

Damn, I *love* OS X!


----------



## wadesworld (Apr 26, 2002)

You want a wild, unsubstiated, guess?

I think at WWDC, Apple is going to show us that they've hooked OpenGL into the Quartz engine so that OpenGL now does all the Aqua drawing, meaning of course, that it would be accelerated.

Based on a few "teaser" emails from Apple people, that's what I think is going to happen.

Wade


----------



## wadesworld (Apr 26, 2002)

Incidentally, even at its current speed, I too LOVE OS X.  My Mac has power it's never had before.

If a window does pop open with quite the same speed, I'm OK with that, especially knowing it's going to get better.

Wade


----------



## googolplex (Apr 26, 2002)

Guys,
Don't be some silly and inconsiderate. He is allowed to have a view. He *isn't* trolling. You might not share his view, but don't attack him as a troll and tell him he does't know what he is talking about. Thats just mean and I know you wouldn't like it if it were being done to you.

Now, I don't have a problem with OS X but he might. I don't think macs suck now - I think the mac is better then it has been in years. OS X is why I came back.


----------



## Sogni (Apr 26, 2002)

> But I will call you turtle, just like what Windows 2000 would call Mac OS X.


You mean (CRASH) Windows 2000 (BSOD) is actually (Keyboard stoped responding, hard reboot) much faster (ARGH!!! Froze! Completly! Stupid Windows! Reboot AGAIN! Oh great, now it's forcing me to chkdsk my hard drive, have to wait 10 minutes to finish) than OS X (what service failed during startup???).... You coulda easily fooled me - NOT! 

Blasing fast speed does not mean better if the system is going to crash whenever you try to do something other than web browsing or use MS's own proprietary software - oh wait, that crashes Windows too! 

I come from a PC world since I had a Tandy 1000 EX, then a Packaged Hell - err Bell with Windows 3.1 and I've had every version of Windows and a couple of Linuxes and built my own PCs aprox 7 of them for myself (altho I only have 3 of them now), a couple of servers and then some for clients since. And I must say that I've haven't had as many problems with Mac since I made my very wise descision to buy my Mac! 

And the ONLY problems I've had with my Mac where all MY fault that I've admited... Or faulty RAM that I had installed. 

I've never been this happy or satisfied with a computer since... since... hmmm... let me rephrase that - I've NEVER been this happy and satisfied with a computer ever!


----------



## Sogni (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> * but Apple is still playing around with only 1GHz G4 while AMD and Intel are passing 2GHz?
> *



So... um... why is it that my Dual 533Mhz G4 Tower blew away my 1Ghz Athelon and my friend's 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4 when doing the exact same graphics work? (and an IBM laptop I sold after it was put to shame with the same test - having a serious crash) Seriously we where even doing the same actions and timing on all three computers... My Athelon Crashed, his P4 froze for a couple of seconds, My Mac was at the finish line waiting for the two PeeCee slow-pokes to catch up...

Now I know I have an unfair advantage over the Athelon since my Dual 533s must put me around at 1066 Ghz - but that's no excuse to crash! What a quitter! But the P4 has no such excuse! 

Now I'm going to get off of my soap box before I get flamed! heh


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

Sorry, googolplex, but he is trolling. He's purpously stating incorrect facts and trying to start a flame war here. He has offered nothing useful.


----------



## daily (Apr 26, 2002)

I have no complaints about Macintosh computers (can't say so much for pcs), although the one thing that Apple has been stubborn about is the one button trackpad/mouse.  Everyone has different preferences on how to work, but it doesn't make sense to corral everyone into using one button on their laptop, since it adds time to the simple tasks of navigating.  I will not go so far as to say that this small problem makes Macs not worth using, nor that having three or more buttons and wheels on a PC makes me want to use one.  If I'm missing some underlying reason to the button shortage please enlighten me.  

Oh, by the way, all I use is OS X and it kicks the ass of all the PCs I've ever used, its never crashed on me (using for 7 mos), what PC user can say that!!!!


----------



## Koelling (Apr 26, 2002)

Nobody will ever see my post way down here after all these good posts but I would feel bad if I didn't say anything.

I use a computer that has a 266mhz chip. I saved for 4 years from my 6th grade year till I was a sophomore in High school. Now that computer is 3 years old and I still use it and for me, it runs X.1 great. That is only possible by the fact that I have for all practical purposes built this machine. 

I opened it the first time to install memory. A second 32 meg chip on the top side and I felt so good that I did it myself. Then for christmas I got 264 megs in two chips so I opened my machine again. Being a pro at the top chip, I got even more excited at digging farther into the machine to the bottom chip. Then I had an external drive which I switched with my internal (see sig) and that was so awesome because I had to get under the cd rom and there was no manual so it was all done by knowing my machine.

So when people say that Macintosh computers are for people who don't want to get their hands dirty, I just laugh. And when people say that there is no way to upgrade the hardware, I snicker. But when people say that Macs Suck I hang my head in sorrow because it's obvious that person isn't willing to make the personal connection to their mac that they do when building a win 2000 machine. 

My mac may be old and may not perform as many calculations per second but that's alright because it's my trusted friend and companion.


----------



## Sogni (Apr 26, 2002)

I don't have a Mac Laptop... but I know what you mean having used a 1button mouse on my Mac for a while...
and even tho it's optical, I just didn't feel comfortable with one button - especially comeing from a PC world, where I have a 4 button mouse with a scroll wheel - hey wait a minute! That is not standard equipment on a PC! 
So I quickly yanked it and put it on my Mac! There! Much better! 

I forget who said it or where it was said... but TRUE geeks toss the rat that comes with their computer and gets a REAL mouse! But from what comes as standard equipment with a computer - Apple was sensible enough to give us a good one for free! 

And if you argue that PCs are doing that now too - I'll call them Copycats - but then again they've been accused of that how many times already?


----------



## dricci (Apr 26, 2002)

Macs have only 1 button because Apple did research many years ago that found that 1 button is the easiest way for humans to navigate a user interface. I'm not sure how it was done, but it still applies today. Apple still includes only one button mice by default because that's their philisophy. You can still hook up a mouse with more buttons, but I think Apple will always include a 1 button mouse by default.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

> _daily said_:
> If I'm missing some underlying reason to the button shortage please enlighten me.


The best reason I have heard is _ease of use_.  This really is the case for new users.  My roommate was always getting confused -- "Do I right click or regular click?"  This may sound silly to advanced (like most of the computer world  ) users, but it is a real phenomenon.

This is an old topic, but every time someone complains about the one-button mouse I have the same thing to say:  If you don't like it, get a new mouse.  OS X supports most multi-button mice with no drivers installed.

But I like the pro-mouse, even if it is only one button.  BTW, I use a two-button trackball with scroll wheel at work, so don't tell me I don't know what I am missing.


----------



## fryke (Apr 26, 2002)

some really, *really* good reasons for one button mice:

1. simplicity: you can't hit the wrong button when there's only one.

2. your left hand is free to use modifiers while you're using the mouse, so more mouse buttons are not needed, really.

3. hmm... now that i've found two good reasons why *not* to have more than one button on your mouse, i have to say that i'm glad that I *do* have a two-button mouse with scroll wheel on my mac. what i hate is that people think you can't hook them up with macs... *sigh*


----------



## Sogni (Apr 26, 2002)

Watching my nephew trying to use my PeeCee was painful... he tried clicking on things - pressing ALL the mouse's buttons at the same time! He didn't understand left, middle, right clicks... 

Now my mom and her friend want me to teach them how to use a computer, at least the ".com" part (it's so funny the way my mom says it! heh). I'm either teaching them on my Mac - or plugging my Apple Pro Single-button mouse into the PC!


----------



## mindbend (Apr 26, 2002)

I haven't read every word of every post here, but I seem to be in the minority in fully supporting georgelien's POV. Here's a few points:

1. As many people know by now, I have been bashing OS X's speed for months and taken the hits for it here. I am fortunate enough to have the best machine Apple makes and it is STILL not as fast as OS 9 [and therefore, not fast enough] in most graphics layer areas, period. That is a fact, not an opinion. So, on this point, george and I agree. I am disappointed that so many so-called Mac faithfuls continue to ignore this issue or push it aside as though it's no big deal. Here's a reality check for the millionth time:any piece of junk Windows box made in the last five years running their latest OS runs circles around OS X (graphics layer only, which is VERY important). Chew on that a while.

2. As for the totally unecessary attacks on georgelien's character, I would argue that some of the most faithful Mac addicts are also its bigest critics (myself included). We are hyper critical because we want our chosen product to be the best.

3. Converts. We all know of OS X's inherent advantages that truly make up for this speed defficiency, but it's going to be a tough sell for those PC users that sit down at the beautiful new iMac and launch IE and then get hit in the face with the pathetic screen redraw issues. That's a red flag for a major problem.

I can assure you, that industry wide (I am deeply entrenched in graphics publishing) that OS X's graphics layer speed is a MAJOR problem. Apple would be wise to prioritize a resolution, which I am confident they are.


----------



## phatsharpie (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *1. As many people know by now, I have been bashing OS X's speed for months and taken the hits for it here. I am fortunate enough to have the best machine Apple makes and it is STILL not as fast as OS 9 [and therefore, not fast enough] in most graphics layer areas, period.*



Since most graphics and page layout programs Carbonized for Mac OS X didn't get released until very recently, I think you are being a little hasty in adopting it for your particular focus. Let's keep in mind that Apple only made it the default boot OS in January. True, Apple wants you to use OS X solely, but it knows it's not ready for prime time in some market segments, so it does include a full blown OS 9 with the installation. If you find OS X speed unbearable for now, stick with OS 9. OS X is a very new OS, it needs time to get polished and spit shined. Apple did the right thing by making sure OS X is ultra stable before working on making it speedy. If you want raw speed stick with OS 9 - but I prefer the ability to run things in the background and not having to fear it hanging and crashing my machine.



> *I am disappointed that so many so-called Mac faithfuls continue to ignore this issue or push it aside as though it's no big deal. Here's a reality check for the millionth time:any piece of junk Windows box made in the last five years running their latest OS runs circles around OS X (graphics layer only, which is VERY important). Chew on that a while.*



Once again, need raw speed? Run OS 9. Need stability? Run OS X. Apple and the Mac community is aware of the situation. OS X is only a little more than an year old. I don't see what people are expecting Apple to do in such a short time. They already made the system rock solid in terms of stability - they have limited resources, and they decided to make the OS stable before fast. What's wrong with that? Give them time to fix it.

In terms of Windows speed. Yes, they are fast. But they are also based on foundations that have been around for at least 10 years. They are evolutionary systems and not evolutionary. Windows NT 3.1 (its first version), was dubbed "Needs Transputer" - meaning it demanded more resources that what was widely available at the time. People bitched and moaned, but things got better as the OS got updated. It's just progress.



> *I would argue that some of the most faithful Mac addicts are also its bigest critics (myself included). We are hyper critical because we want our chosen product to be the best.*



True. I don't think it's right to attack George. I know his perceptions are valid. But I also feel that just looking at how fast a window redraws on screen is not a correct assessment on an OS productivity. I crashed 3 times while surfing on IE in OS 9 on a clean install last night. How productive was I rebooting all the time? As I stated. This is a known issue, why are we beating a dead horse when Apple is trying to resolve it?



> *3. Converts. We all know of OS X's inherent advantages that truly make up for this speed defficiency, but it's going to be a tough sell for those PC users that sit down at the beautiful new iMac and launch IE and then get hit in the face with the pathetic screen redraw issues. That's a red flag for a major problem.*



Notice that Apple is trying very hard to woo UNIX and tech-savvy users? That's because these people know raw speed isn't everything. OS X is probably the most powerful arsenal Apple has right now in terms of gaining marketshare. It's an amazing OS. People in many technical industries, who have never even thought about owning a Mac are coming in drooves. This is a good thing. These are the people who often come up with innovative software and solutions.



> *I can assure you, that industry wide (I am deeply entrenched in graphics publishing) that OS X's graphics layer speed is a MAJOR problem. Apple would be wise to prioritize a resolution, which I am confident they are. *



As stated. For speed use OS 9 for now. Apple is aware of the speed issue. So it included a full blown version of the OS with every computer.

I am sure OS X will only get fast and better.

-B


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *1. As many people know by now, I have been bashing OS X's speed for months and taken the hits for it here. I am fortunate enough to have the best machine Apple makes and it is STILL not as fast as OS 9 [and therefore, not fast enough] in most graphics layer areas, period. That is a fact, not an opinion. So, on this point, george and I agree. I am disappointed that so many so-called Mac faithfuls continue to ignore this issue or push it aside as though it's no big deal. Here's a reality check for the millionth time:any piece of junk Windows box made in the last five years running their latest OS runs circles around OS X (graphics layer only, which is VERY important). Chew on that a while.*


Even if the Microsoft OSs do have a faster graphics portion, the rest of the OS make this a trivial point.  I can write programs that are fast but unstable.  I guess it comes down to which is more important, stability or speed?  I'll choose stability, as I think is obvious from my previous post.


> *2. As for the totally unecessary attacks on georgelien's character, I would argue that some of the most faithful Mac addicts are also its bigest critics (myself included). We are hyper critical because we want our chosen product to be the best.*


When I point out that speed of graphics is not everything, and that point is ignored -- I call that trolling, or flamebait.  Consider the following:


> _georgelien said:_
> Microsoft's Windows 2000 is killing OS X's aZZ
> 
> _and_
> ...


I personally see a trend.  georgelien is claiming that because Windows has a faster graphics redraw, it is a better operating system.  Because the x86 market has 2GHz CPUs, they are better.  I disagree, and I do not feel that georgelien has noticed anything that anyone has said.  True, many of us have posted with emotion, but there are facts to base our feelings on.  I have yet to see anything from georgelien claiming why Windows is better than OS X in anything other than redrawing graphics.


> _mindbend said:_
> *3. Converts. We all know of OS X's inherent advantages that truly make up for this speed defficiency, but it's going to be a tough sell for those PC users that sit down at the beautiful new iMac and launch IE and then get hit in the face with the pathetic screen redraw issues. That's a red flag for a major problem.*


Two words:  bull puckey.  I am a Windows convert, and I was impressed by the quality of the graphics.  The speed is completely acceptable, given the number of advantages I have already listed.


> *I can assure you, that industry wide (I am deeply entrenched in graphics publishing) that OS X's graphics layer speed is a MAJOR problem. Apple would be wise to prioritize a resolution, which I am confident they are. *


I am not trying to criticize you or georgelien personally, just the methods you are using to argue your points.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 26, 2002)

1) I agree with Ed Spruiell and serpicolugnut that "some of the main "perceptions" in the slowness of X has to do with poorly coded/optimized Applications."  Yes, I use the best idea browser in the world, the OmniWeb, but it is also the slowest in the world--4.06 anyway.

2) rliebsch,

Apologise accepted.  While you may have your opinion, my opinion is that if we cannot offer the "out of the box" experience to end-users, then how can we expect the PC people to switch over?  Certainly not by selling higher priced computer.  Sure Macs are better designed, but not everyone spends money on computers like us.

3) Valrus,

Yeah, you've caught me.  Well, it's aZZ-O like you that made me popped.  Still, you're right--I shouldn't have acted like you guys--poor temperament.


----------



## Valrus (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *
> 3) Valrus,
> 
> Yeah, you've caught me.  Well, it's aZZ-O like you that made me popped.  Still, you're right--I shouldn't have acted like you guys--poor temperament. *



I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that the number one difference between trolls and people who just express unpopular opinions is that the latter make an active effort to avoid offending people, and make sure to give everyone else's responses the consideration they merit. I personally feel that you have done little of either.

In short, it's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.

That said, I was unnecessarily sarcastic in my first post here. I apologize and will try to avoid that in the future. Actually maybe I just won't post here - I'm not really sure I actually have anything incredibly valuable to contribute that hasn't been said by someone else.

Maybe I should have thought of that the first time. I know. I'll say that so you don't have to. 

-the valrus


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 26, 2002)

You're still using OW 4.06? Do yourself a favor and d/l the latest version , OW 4.1sp5. You will be AMAZED at the speed difference.

Then, download Navigator at chimera.mozdev.org. You will be amazed at the rendering speed. 

If your main areas of complaint with regard to speed are browsing (which is what the Wired article focused on), those arguments are silenced with OW and Chimera, not to mention Mozilla, which is very fast. MOF, all OS X browsers are faster than IE right now.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 26, 2002)

-sigh-, I know this is hopeless as I've been thru this a million times, but here's one last shot just for fun.

I personally find X's graphics layer UNACCEPTABLE  for a modern OS in the year 2002. Again, people keep trying to rationalize it as new, in progress, only a year old, blah blah blah. It's not like GUI's were just invented. They're 20+ years old. It's been done before, many many many times and every single time until X, faster (from what I've seen). 

I'll give Apple credit, though, even with sluggish performance, they realize that OS X's good design sells (e.g. iMac). If you don't believe me, ask some of the women buyers of iMacs and machines with OS X. I installed three iMacs for women friends. Each one of them bought iMacs (original) solely for their looks. SOLELY FOR THEIR LOOKS! One paid $300 extra because the color she wanted wasn't available in a cheaper model. Another woman friend switched to X SOLELY FOR THE COOL SCREEN SAVERS! Can you believe it? I do. Eye candy sells. Right now OS X's "graphics layer" is stunning eye candy and we're paying the price for it.

I also have to keep reminding myself that type in print on bulletin boards comes across much worse than if I were actually talking to you. Also, I don't point out enough that OS X is without question the most beautiful OS ever. It's also rock solid, very stable, a joy to use and very well thought out. On a DP machine, multitasking is the real deal and in some instances Altivec is actually the real deal (MP3 encoding, DV encoding, etc.). Network performance is excellent. I've got a little iMac acting as a faux file server that runs better than the true Windows 2K Server machine we used to use. OS X is fantastic. I have used it exclusviely for six months and 50% for a year. I'm well aware of its performance relative to 9. I'm well aware of my options, thanks. I also agree that X, overall, is still leaps and bounds more productive than OS 9 ever was. I never said anything to the contrary. My focus has always been, and continues to be with what I dub genericly, for lack of a better term, the "graphics layer". As soon as Apple fixes it, OS X will, for me, be perfect. Until then, you're gonna hear me bitch and moan about it.

Other notes:
I'm glad to hear nkuvu is a convert and the X speed didn't deter him. I'm glad to be wrong about that. I'd be curious to hear what other PC users think. I work with some, and they ain't thrilled about it.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

mindbend, I agree with you.  The graphics layer has quite a bit of improvement to go.

What I don't agree with (and haven't for this entire thread) is the claim that Windows is a better OS because its graphics layer is faster.  There are lots of other things to consider when looking at an OS, as I am sure everyone is aware.

I second the motion to update OmniWeb -- but even its fastest versions are not as fast as Mozilla.  (OW is my default browser, btw)

And I would like to thank georgelien (I assume he did it) for removing the "sucks" from the thread title.


----------



## Sogni (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *While you may have your opinion, my opinion is that if we cannot offer the "out of the box" experience to end-users, then how can we expect the PC people to switch over?  *



I am one of those "PC people" who switched over to Mac a year ago knowing full well about OSX - actually switched in anticipation of OSX and have been patiently awaiting 10.1, the moment it hit the shelf I purchased it...
I have been an extremly happy PC Person-convert to Mac since!

Can't offer the "out of the box experience" to end-users? Sorry? But is there something wrong with OSX that I just don't see? 

I AM - WAS a PC person! I converted to Mac and OSX! My friends and coworkers still can't belive it! 

WHAT IS SO HORRIBLY WRONG WITH OSX THAT I - A PC PERSON - JUST DONT SEE???!!!! 

I honestly don't think there is anything so *horribly* wrong with OSX as you are making it out to be - and those of you who think there is - I say its *YOU* that has a personal problem or beef with OSX and that it's not what YOU personally wanted... 

Ok... that's it - now I'm the one that calls Troll! And I'll stop feeding Trolls now...


----------



## mindbend (Apr 26, 2002)

Nkuvu-
Just so I can cleanse myself, I want to point out that I never once said Windows was a better OS, nor have I ever thought that. I have only said that it does that one thing better. I'm pretty sure you were talking about someone else though.

Tormente-
I am ecstatic that you also are a convert. As for what I see as a semi-medium beef with OS X cannot be expressed more clearly than I already have.

Os for Omniweb, since it came up, I have many times tried to give it a go, but inevitably I find a site that I frequent that it doesn't like, so it's back to IE, which ALWAYS works, like it or not. Mozilla started to grow on me, but I dumped it for one fairly minimal reason, but huge to me. There is no one click solution to auto-filling forms (that I could find, IE has the button in main bar). Also, their form fill implementation is completely idiotic.


----------



## Sogni (Apr 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *
> Tormente-
> I am ecstatic that you also are a convert.
> *


*

Thank you! 
But I hated Macs since the Apple //, up until the Beige (?) G3... once the Blue/White G3s came out they started to grow on me... Now I have a Graphite dual G4 and you'll have to pry it from my dead grasp! 




			As for what I see as a semi-medium beef with OS X cannot be expressed more clearly than I already have.
		
Click to expand...


I didn't mean you and sorry if you thought I did... I know your oppinion has a lot more reason, even though I don't see it on my Dual G4 (533) does not meant it's not there on a Single G4... Alto I have played a little with the new iMac - I belive an 800 something or other and did not notice a speed problem as far as the gui went, but it was a demo at the store so not real-life environment to really say anything about it...




			Os for Omniweb, since it came up, I have many times tried to give it a go, but inevitably I find a site that I frequent that it doesn't like
		
Click to expand...


Same here - except *I* am the one that tends to not like Omniweb for one reason or another as much as I try!




			so it's back to IE, which ALWAYS works, like it or not. Mozilla started to grow on me, but I dumped it for one fairly minimal reason, but huge to me. There is no one click solution to auto-filling forms (that I could find, IE has the button in main bar). Also, their form fill implementation is completely idiotic.
		
Click to expand...

*
NO!!! YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER MY PASSWORD NOR MAY YOU REMEMBER WHO I AM FOR NO FREGGING REASON!!!!

I love Mozilla and only have on problem with it - how the HECK do I turn off the remember password and auto-form fill???!!! Turn those off and I'll be a happy camper! Yeah I know - I'm paranoid! 

Can you tell I'm actually a recovering Microsoft-holic? I trust NO ONE with ANYTHING - not even my own computer! Well the Mac in general I do - but no browser! 

As of last night tho I just gave up on Chimera... it refuses to log into Yahoo Groups - which I wanted to use as my 2nd browser identity (enter multiple-identity joke here! lol)... and I don't want to use IE for my casual browsing* so it's off to search for a 2nd browser again. 

*I must keep and use IE tho as I design web stuff that has to look right on IE as well... sigh...


----------



## georgelien (Apr 27, 2002)

nkuvu,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't the one who removed the word "sucks."  This forum is being censored.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, OmniWeb was a bad case.  Let's try this one: iPhoto.

In the past, software applications from Apple are compact and run efficiently.  For example, ClairsWork, ClairsMail and etc.

For me, iPhoto runs on my PowerBook G4/500 too slowly.  It's a fun and easy-to-use software with true plug-and-play, unlike Windoz's "plug-and-pray."

I understand that IE may not run fast on OS X because it's not from Apple.  But an application that came from Apple shouldn't run so slow.

The Mac platform used to have close to 10% of the market share of the computer industry.  And have you ever wondered why with all these awesome hardware and the new excitement in the new operating systemm, the Mac OS today only hangs around 5%?

I'm serious people, read this: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,51926,00.html 
I'm NOT the only one out there.

If Apple is not doing anything about it, we as the Mac user should.  After all, it's not us who need to buy Macs--we already are--it's the PC people Macs need to be sold to.

Sure.  We sometimes get some PC converts.  But guess what?  We have lost more than what we have gained whether you want to face reality or not.

Originally, I was hoping that MacOS X would help making people take a look at the Macs.  Well it did, but that's all they'll do--look--and go buy a PC.  Why?  Not because PC is better, but because it's a low-cost-and-get-the-job-done machine.

The market share of the Mac platform will never surpass 10% if we cannot compete well in the market.  Right now we are losing.  I started building and using PCs--not because I like them--but because I wanted to know what they've got.  Doesn't look too good.  I still praying that Apple is secretly building a version of OS X for AMD CPUs.

Windows XP, which seemed to learn a lot from OS X, is attracting many people to PCs as OS X is leading people to Macs.  I  don't like XP, but as a long time computer user I do not represent the new users.  I can see however, how XP can help attract more people to buy PCs.

They did it again: steal ideas and made it cheaper.  You may not like Windows--don't blame you--but they are cheap.  And cheap is what people want when they are not as resourceful as we.

Anyway, I need to demand more from Apple if you want the Mac platform to excel.  I, for one, will stop giving money to Apple, at least, not until it shows me something truely worth buying.


------------------------------------------------
PowerBook G4/500
Power Macintosh G3/233 with G4/500
Power Macintosh 8600/300
Power Macintosh 8600/200
PowerBook 2400/180

Windows 2000 Professional
AMD 1.33GHz Athlon 256DDR RAM
AMD 1GHz Athlon 256DDR RAM

Windows 2000 Server
Intel 450MHz Pentium II
128MB RAM

Linux Servers
AMD 600MHz Duron 256MB RAM
AMD 600MHz Duron 128MB RAM


----------



## Koelling (Apr 27, 2002)

> You may not like Windows--don't blame you--but they are cheap. And cheap is what people want when they are not as resourceful as we.


 Windows is not cheep. Windows charges you as much as Macintosh does for the operating system even if you don't get anything new. Wintel hardware is cheap. Mac hardware is not cheep. Microsoft gets rich by selling software that sucks and Apple practically gives equivilant software away for free, yet charges for the hardware.

I know what you mean but pretend for a moment that a new computer user comes to this forum (and actually lasts through reading it) and gets into his/her mind that Microsoft makes life cheep. If you want cheep go Linux or Darwin and leave the headache of Microsoft out of the picture.


----------



## sequoiaman96 (Apr 27, 2002)

I can't believe this guy...that is an idiot that complains in a non-sense way.  I LOVE it so much and it's dead stable and u can beat it up if you want to without crashing it hard.   It runs pretty well in the finder on the G4....but it's slow in some area  that's just the GUI!!!!!!!!  They are WORKING on the issue and it's still improving and improving.   You can't have a OS perfect overnight!!!!!  NOT the OS itself.  Programs like lightwave, Mozilla, Photoshop 7 smokes!!!!!!!!!!!  they run hella fast  can catch up a 2 GHz PC running Windows XP.  Thanks and spread the word on this article...   I wish people think twice on what they say...they are wasting their words....blah blah  blah


----------



## edX (Apr 27, 2002)

> The market share of the Mac platform will never surpass 10% if we cannot compete well in the market.



and may it remain that way. I, for one, am not interested in seeing tons of pc converts. Let fish live in a fish bowl. 

seriously, i don't want to see Apple take over a major market share. I don't want there to be a mac in every home. I don't want to see Apple become m$. I used to be mad because of the fact that m$ stole the right ful place of the mac as the home computer but no more. I am glad it worked out like it did.  Let them worry about constant virus threats and so many hardware vendors that compatibility is constantly questionable. 

and someone wanted to use rendoring in ie as a baisis for complaining about the speed of the os. pleeeeze. since when do we use m$ products to judge our os by? only someone still naively tied to the pc world would dream of such a thing. if you want your m$ products to work their best, run them on a m$ os. and don't whine to apple about m$'s inability to do something right.

I still find icab to be the fastest and most reliable browser out there even it if it isn't the prettiest.


----------



## fryke (Apr 27, 2002)

First of all, let me state again that I'm a Mac OS X user. Maybe more so than you, I've erased all instances of Mac OS Classic on my machines.

I have bashed Apple myself - also on this board - for their decision to release Mac OS X the way it was at version 10.0. The graphics layers that needed work so badly... It was hell to promote Mac OS X to 'Classic Veterans' back then.

I would have released Mac OS X without all those nice effects. I'd have chosen a GUI like Rhapsody had (basically an improved Platinum appearance) and made the Quartz layer a plan for 'the future of desktop publishing'.

Switching from Mac OS 8.x/9.x to Mac OS X 10.0/10.1 included the following (negative in perception) steps:

1. The 'UN*X-Feeling' of speed. By that I mean that apps take longer to open but actually run faster. As we (Mac OS users) are used to rather the opposite, this is a big step. It seems like the OS is slow.

2. A chimera (not the browser) interface. With all kinds of sources, namely something old (OpenStep), something new (Aqua), something borrowed (Windows), something blue (Mac OS), the 'new' interface was both gorgeous and horrifying for many a Mac user. As much as I would say anytime that Apple is the leader in developping GUIs for operating systems, I'd also have to say that Aqua @ Mac OS X 10.0 had big flaws that were not entirely cleaned up until 10.1.

3. No applications. When OS X appeared, there simply were no 'real' applications around for the good old Mac OS user. He could run his apps in Classic, yes, but that doesn't really sound like a good deal, does it? 'Buy a more expensive operating system and you'll be able to run your apps in a compatibility environment (if they don't access hardware directly) where they share the same memory space, so they can't make use of the stability of the new operating system.' This has - of course - changed by now, but that's  what it was like.

4. Paradigm shifts. We've been handling our files in the Finder faster than on any other operating system for years. It was one of my main points against Windows. On the Mac, I could label my files/folders. I could handle them all so naturally. Every Mac user I knew had a different style of handling his files, but each one was fast (at least much faster than on Windows). Came OS X and took all freedom away. Yes, Column view is great, I agree and use it all the time, but Mac OS 9 has an edge there.

5. Machine requirements. Every time a new OS comes out, people fear that their hardware won't be quite enough for the new OS. They know they want to try it, but they fear it'll need more RAM, more harddisk space and so on. Well, yeah, that step was a big one, right? OS 9 runs smoothly on a first generation iBook (300 MHz G3) with 64 MB RAM. The OS itself can be installed on two floppy disks (if you'd still have a drive for them) - or it'll use about 100 MB if installed cleanly. Mac OS X crawls with 64 MB. You'll want more than 256 MB of RAM in your machine, you'll notice the speed difference. And Mac OS X needs 1 Gig of HD space for an installation.

That was a big post, I know, and I have to add a few more things here. Two lines maybe.

Sometimes, there's a need for changes. In 1996, Apple decided to leave the Classic Mac OS track and bought NeXT Inc. Apple has a track of making transitions smoothly, and you're experiencing just that just now. Mac OS 9 is still installed on every new machine that you buy. But it's time to come aboard, if you want to experience what computing will be (and is now). If you're not ready, stay in OS 9 for a while. You'll lag in knowledge. You may be doing so already, as we are already experts at Mac OS X.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 27, 2002)

Maybe I'm missing something here. georgelien, you have your PC systems running Windows (which you think has been more advanced than the Mac OS since 1996), so why are you here? Why are we supposed to care what you think?

Please, please, just move totally to Windows. You sound like you would be much happier. You don't need our approval or disapproval, just do what makes you happy. We are all doing what makes us happy, but you seem to be the only one who has some real issues with just leaving. Please just use what makes you happy and stop whining about it.

I think the Windows community is getting what they deserve with you joining their ranks.

Happy _ctrl-alt-del_!


----------



## georgelien (Apr 27, 2002)

fryke,

I too reformatted the hard drive of my TiBook before performing a clean OS X install onto my Mac.  Nothing but OS X.  It's so slow when compared OS 9.  Believe it or not, my OS X crashes.  I mean I had to reboot the computer.  I, however, can avoid OS 9 crashes by looking for what causes the crashes.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's fine that you all are so protective with your Macs, since--like me--you've already spent a fortune on them.  But to lie to yourself that OS X has to be the best Mac OS there is simply because you use it as your only OS is kinda crazy.

Unlike many of you, my ideal world is to have more people using OS X than XP, but I guess this is not your ideal world.

That's fine.

Guess Apple will have to live less than 6% of the market.  Not good if it plans to open a total of 25 retail stores.  Doesn't matter how much cash it has now, a company can always burn through money with 25 retail stores at hand.

Then perhaps OS X can become the next IBM OS/2--hey, it's a great looking OS--with only a few apps running on it.

Did you guys read this article before blashing me? http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,51926,00.html

User experience is suffering.  Not the interface experience, but the speed.  Apple has to do something about it, fairly quickly.


----------



## edX (Apr 27, 2002)

> _originally said by Fryke_
> 1. The 'UN*X-Feeling' of speed. By that I mean that apps take longer to open but actually run faster. As we (Mac OS users) are used to rather the opposite, this is a big step. It seems like the OS is slow.



and how did we solve that problem? by leaving our apps launched since it no longer crashes the system with open apps competing for memory 

overall i agree with Fryke's points. I didn't switch to osx right away. It was terribly slow at first. But graadually it and its apps got a lot better and the overall experience was much better than a perception of speediness here and there in os 9. the fact is, that now when i use os 9 occassionally, it feels slow and sloppy compared to osx. which is exactly the opposite of what george keeps harping on. and i just have a little old imac.

George, is your car slow if it's not doing 80 mph? is your TV slow if it doesn't have a picture the second you turn it on? 

just out of curiosity george, and others who think it is slower, do you ever do anything to optimize your disk and system? Do you run prebinding? do you defrag your disk? Do you ever use haxies to take advantage of some of the speed that isn't there "right out of the box"?  maybe osx is slow for you because you aren't doing your part. 

or maybe type A personalities will not be happy until the computer is 2 steps ahead of their next mouse click. 

maybe your new os is trying to tell you something, you really do get more done at a nice stable, regular pace than in short bursts of perceptual speed. Relax, have a cup of coffee. no wait, make that something decaffinated.


----------



## dricci (Apr 27, 2002)

> Did you guys read this article before blashing me? http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,51926,00.html



Yes, that's old news. And many of us have already declared it flawed. I've never had a site take 10 seconds to load in OS X, even when I used IE as my main browser! I don't seem to have any of those problems. In Mozilla, pages seem to load next to instantly for me. I don't see what everyone is complaining about unless they have a very screwed up OS/software setup and/or internet connection.



> User experience is suffering.  Not the interface experience, but the speed.  Apple has to do something about it, fairly quickly.



D***IT, are you freakin *DEAF* (or blind, in this case) ? Or just ignorant?

OS X has been out for a little over a year. What Apple has done in this time is AMAZING! Every 10.0.X update was an improvement, and 10.1 improved even more. It's still growing! I don't care what you think, Apple is not a large company that can afford teams of thousands to just work on the Interface! They're trying, and it'll get better in the next major update, and then the updates after that. Do you go to hospitals and critisize the newborns for not being able to use the toilet, talk, or walk?

As it's been said, if you're not happy with Apple and/or Mac OS X, and you don't have patience enough to wait a few months for it to get better, than go build a Windows 2000 Box and go hang out at Windows Addict! Sell your soul, get a Passport account, buy Norton Virus scan, have a keg party, I don't care! You're not wanted here if all you're going to do is spew out flamebait!

Remember, Good things come to those who wait.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 27, 2002)

Yet I have been waiting for it since 1995.  Keep waiting guys, they already passed us.


----------



## dricci (Apr 27, 2002)

Waiting for what? I'm not waiting for anything except lunch time, oh and my Mac Addict subscription to come.

If you've been waiting for something since 1995 and still haven't got it, then maybe it's time to look for something else?


----------



## georgelien (Apr 27, 2002)

BTW, I'm going to clear out my hard drive and reinstall OS X tomorrow.  It will be the only OS on my PowerBook G4/500--again--since being able to run X was the reason I bought the TiBook in the first place.

The difference is guys, I have options: OS X, OS 9 or Windows 2000.  This is one of the reasons why I liked Apple.  It offered an alternative OS if one doesn't like Windows.  It still does.

It's just sad that after using Mac OS for over a decade, I find myself surfing the web, writing email and doing work on a PC instead of my Mac.

Most people are not us.  Most consumers just want out-of-box-experience.  Until Mac OS X produce it as well as the i-Series software that Apple makes, the new default OS can never gain more market share than it has now, unless it can also run on an AMD chip.

Best of luck to OS X!


----------



## dricci (Apr 27, 2002)

I have had a pretty good out of the box experience, the only problems I've ever had were from me messing with things that shouldn't be messed with, like core system files and hex editors 

Much better than my Compaq that *came with an AMD chip*. That had to be the suckiest computer I ever had! Even when I upgraded it from Windows Me to Windows 2000, it still had driver conflicts, ram problems, random crashes, etc. etc. etc.

I guess I'm not like everybody because I *gave* my Compaq away to clear up desk space just for my Power Mac after many headaches? I've been there, and I didn't like what I saw, so I am sticking with my Mac and OS X. I've got plenty of raw stable power to use to my advantage for all of my digital lifestyle tasks. Stability and easy of use, something that even an 80 GHz AMD running Windows 2000 or XP couldn't give me.

Give OS X a try. If you can't be happy with it, then give me your Power Book. I'm sure I'll find a way to "force" myself to enjoy it 

Then you can go build a Windows 2000 AMD 80 GHz Hammerhead DDR supersystem and tweak your registry and hardware 'til your heat is content, and you won't have to come back here and spew flamebait at us. You can use Windows Addict Message Boards for that!


----------



## RacerX (Apr 27, 2002)

Please georgelien, just move to Windows already! We are all going to be much happier when you do.

Oh, and why do you need to clean off your system and reinstall Mac OS X? The last clean install I did on my system was when I got a new hard drive (that was back with the Public Beta), and I'm still going strong just updating it. Really sounds like the primary problem is you. And the best fix would be Windows!

See ya!


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 27, 2002)

I've been sticking with this thread on the off chance that someone might make a valid point on georgelien's side of the fence.  I guess I am waiting in vain.

So I'm completely done with this thread.  Ciao!


----------



## dricci (Apr 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *I've been sticking with this thread on the off chance that someone might make a valid point on georgelien's side of the fence.  I guess I am waiting in vain.
> 
> So I'm completely done with this thread.  Ciao! *



georgelien does have some valid concerns, but he/she's expressing it in a way to purpously cause flaming to happen. Just look at the quotes he has said and the original subject title.. That's not a good way to get your point across and have somebody take you seriously.

The issues expressed have been covered in many other topics. Apple knows there are some issues and bugs, but I'm more than postitive they plan on taking care of it in future releases. Flaming and trying to piss off an entire board will not help Apple work any faster. Sending them positive feedback on their feedback page will.


----------



## Valrus (Apr 27, 2002)

Can somebody please close this Godforsaken thread?

-the valrus


----------



## mindbend (Apr 27, 2002)

I (an avid Mac fan and 100% OS X user) still support the general tone of georgelien's message, which is that in some areas OS X is unacceptably slow. I'm disappointed by the thorough knee-jerk bashing he has received, but hey, we're an emotional bunch aren't we!

Here's a new and improved method of communicating my point. While totally subjective, it still has an inherent relativity that indicates my point.

I am rating all the apps I use based on two measures of speed, 1)graphics layer (windows resize, grabber hand moving, scaling, etc.) and 2)processing (rendering, calculating, filters, effects, etc.). Keep in mind, these are somewhat subjective and all in OS X using a DP G4 1 Gig with 1 Gig RAM, which is the entire point, of course. Unfortunately, I don't have a Windows machine to also rate. That would be the ultimate test.

I'd be curious to see what ratings other people might indicate on similar or different machines. 10=fastest imaginable speed (given today's technology), 1=slowest. All ratings are based on using a fairly demanding file or project, since any app can handle small files well.

I.E. 5.1.4
Graphics=3
Processing=7

Acrobat 5 & Acrobat Reader
Graphics=4
Processing=7

After Effects 5.5
Graphics=8
Processing=8

GoLive 6
Graphics=9
Processing=9

Illustrator 10
Graphics=4
Processing=8

InDesign 2
Graphics=4
Processing=8

LiveMotion 2
Graphics=8
Processing=8

Photoshop 7
Graphics=7
Processing=9

Suitcase 10.1.2
Graphics=7
Processing=8

Final Cut Pro 3
Graphics=8
Processing=7

Office v.X(all Apps)
Graphics=7
Processing=9

AccountEdge
Graphics=4
Processing=8

OmniWeb 4.1
Graphics=3
Processing=7

Mozilla 1.0.0
Graphics=4
Processing=8

Peak DV 3
Graphics=8
Processing=8

ToonBoom Studio
Graphics=3
Processing=8

Quicken
Graphics=8
Processing=9

Toast 5.1.3
Graphics=9
Processing=9

Giants (game)
Graphics=8
Processing=8

Admittedly, there many apps that perform just fine, if not exceptionally. More than I had realized. However, I make my living on the apps that are the worst performers (Indesign, Illustrator) and spend a lot of time on the internet, thus the continued rant on the speed thing.

As for web browsers, they all perform virtually identically for me, which is to say they load pages plenty fast (cable modem) and render on resize painfully slow. That Wired article has some faulty logic in it somewhere. The weird part, and this shows how I don't understand programming for graphics (or anything else for that matter) is that they all [browsers for X] scroll glass smooth, so you (I) wouldn't think resizing the window would kill it so much.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 27, 2002)

> _by mindbend_
> *I (an avid Mac fan and 100% OS X user) still support the general tone of georgelien's message...*



His general tone is that Windows is better, that it has been since 1996, and he has been waiting for something better than the Mac OS since 1995. I just think he is taking six years too long to make the move.

He has made two threads like this one and not taken part in constructive threads on the subject. We have an _Opinion: Reviews & Open Letters_ section for angry consumers to vent in, let him go there (though I still only see Windows as a true solution to his problems).

Ah... what where you saying about supporting his general _tone_ again?


----------



## ksuther (Apr 27, 2002)

Is it me, or have we had millions of threads ranting and raving about how OS X/Mac's suck a whole lot, and that everybody should switch over to Windoze?

I think the moderators have been taking a bit too much time off of closing some threads, and they really need to be closing a bunch, like this one. These kinds of arguments don't go ANYWHERE at all because a bunch of people scream and shout that their right, end of story. Other people try to lay out constructive arguments and points, but the people screaming and shouting don't want to listen. What's the point?

twyg, maybe you wanna read this? 

georgelien, I just hope that when reinstalling OS X, you get a much better experience.

Please close this thread!


----------



## mindbend (Apr 27, 2002)

What's this close the thread request? Why? What's the point of even having stupid boards like this, which are entirely based on heresay, conjecture, opinions, gossip, subjectivity, emotional responses and other nonsense (mine included)? I mean, the freaking title is "Mac Rumors & Discussion" not "Hitlerian Dogma about Macs". Sheesh.

The thread will close itself when nobody responds. Until then, it's a perfectly legitimate place for people to share ideas and debate things, even if it is for the millionth time. That's the fun of it, for me anyway. So now all of a sudden, because one guy doesn't like something we have to shut it down. Sounds like an old German philosophy. 

As for georgelien's tone, he has stated some very logical, reasonable points that I agree with, even if I don't like the reality. In fact, I just read every word of each of georgelien's posts, and found for the most part his points to be about Windows' superior speed in many areas, not so much that it was a better OS. I also found a lot of wording from georgelien about his support for Macs, the technology and the interface and applications, but everyone seems to conveniently ignore those comments because he properly blasted our precious OS  in its achille's heel. 

Why the heck am I defending georgelien? Because as Mac users, we have a long history of blind faith (myself at the top of the list) and when someone comes along with a legitimate argument, we take it way too hard. If I can speak for g and myself one more time, I think we and many others are on the same page, just using different words to say that OS X is wonderful in most every way except for some speed issues, which should be and probably will be resolved sooner than later.

Someone wondered about those of us who "do our part" to maintain the computer. None of those things help one single bit with my only remaining OS X complaint, which (all at once now) is the graphics layer speed issue. InDesign does not run faster when I optimize my Mac, though it does launch a tiny bit faster and maybe pulls in linked files a wee bit faster and such, but definitely does not scroll faster, scale faster, page render faster, apply effects faster etc. which is where I need the speed.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 27, 2002)

mindbend,

Thank you!  At least somebody knows how to read and think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for closing this thread, I agree that the slowness of Mac OS X is no "news," nor is many ex-Mac user switching to Windozs, but I never expected the new bread of the Mac OS users can be so closeminded.

If you don't like this thread, you don't have to come back.  This is the Internet, a place where everyone can voice his or her opinion.  I'm a guy by the way.

I sure hope people at Apple don't think the way many of you do, because your thinking almost caused Apple to go out of business in the late 90s.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ksuther,

Thanks!  I too wish to have a better experience this time.  However, this will be my fifth time.  I won't expect much until 10.2.


----------



## neutrino23 (Apr 28, 2002)

I have upgraded five Macs to OS X. We still sometimes switch back to OS 9 for compatibility with old applications or (in my case) recording with Coaster and Applescript.

It is true that some aspects of the GUI are slower than OS 9 but they also behave differently. The live updates and text rendering are worth the slight speed penalty (IMHO). Many other parts of OS X are much faster than OS 9. It is well documented, for instance, that transferring files via a network is much faster with OS X. 

One of the truly wonderful aspects of OS X is the industrial strength multitasking. I can simultaneously burn a data CD, encode an MP3 in iTunes, surf the web and have several helper applications open in the background. I have had only one instance of the system freezing up and that was in October last year. We have had similar experiences on the other Macs. They have not been totally trouble free but compared to OS 9 this is a God-send.

OS X is not perfect. Any one using it several hours a day on a daily basis could come up with a list of things they would like to see improved (open and save dialogs for instance), however, the short summary is that OS X is very, very good now and only destined to get better. 

Maybe we are too used to instant gratification to appreciate what Apple is doing. A year ago when 10.0.4 came out it worked but still had huge shortcomings. 10.1.0 was a huge leap forward and each of the updates since have brought welcome improvements. I can compare that with products I have seen from other companies that have not changed at all or gotten worse in the same period. I wish that my own companies products could have improved as much in the same time frame. I'd be in fat city.

One last comment on speed. Many of the critics of OS X and Apple compare it with the 2+GHz products from the wintel crowd. The thing is not many people buy those kinds of machines. There are still tons of 866MHz P-III computers being sold. The leading edge is fun to talk about but the bulk of the market looks for a balance between speed, reliability, value, ease of use and such.


----------



## edX (Apr 28, 2002)

i absolutelyagree that closing threads is ridiculous. if people are tired of the subject then don't read it. life is full of choices - make one. 

now back to my constant point, you guys (mindbend and george) keep harping on the the way specific apps run and then blaming the whole os. How do you reason that?  Just seems like the developers need to take the effort to improve the software. 

I am not a graphic pro and don't use the programs you gripe about so i have no way to know what you are experiencing. But surely if this is app specific, shouldn't the first shot fired be at the software developer?

Now, i am not saying that osx can't be improved. I am sure they will find ways to make it easier for developers to speed up their apps. Plenty of the big companies are waiting for apple to do something that would make their job easier before they even try to fix their issues. case in point -  I have an adesso intellimedia pro keyboard. Adesso has yet to release osx drivers for it that bring back its button functions. they continuely blame apple for not including some kernal extension or something. yet a small independent developer who just happens to have one of their keyboards and wants it to work has written drivers for it that provide function to 9 of the 22 keys. couldn't adesso have at least done this much on their own while waiting? my guess is they could do more than that since they have all the code they need. they just don't want to make the effort sonce they keep believing it will be easier with the next update. 

Adobe has not been up to speed with osx with any of their apps. they have been ridiculousy slow in developing them and they are consistently slow upon release. The problems with their osx products are theirs, not Apple's. And if you have been relying upon Adobe products to make yur living, then perhaps it is time you looked for alternatives. Like m$, they do this because we let them by thinking they are the only game in town.

mindbend - it is good to know that you have been making the effort to optimize. and it is good to see you admit that optimization will improve some aspects of the systems and/or apps functioning. I can appreciate that it might not bring enough gain to large tasks to make a perceptual difference. I still believe things do get worse if you don't do these things in either os.


----------



## Valrus (Apr 28, 2002)

Aaaagh, once again I have to defend myself.

The posts immediately preceding my "close this thread" request were not indicative of a healthy debate as these last few have been. Sorry for the presumption.

Now I'm really, truly, actually going to stop posting here, since I just keep making an ass of myself. 

-the valrus


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

I found this site by typing macosx.com, thinking it would bring me to OS X section of apple.com.  But hey, I found this wonderful support site on OS X.  Great!  I bought my TiBook because I want to support Apple by supporting OS X, thus I'd not mind running into a site like this one.

So I put up this thread hoping to gather some thoughts and perhaps some power to notify Apple that it better commit to certain improvement soon otherwise, supporters like us would leave the platform.

Unfortunately, I encountered many close-minded people on this board.  Instead of reading, they only picked up negative words and flamed me soon after.

I always thought that by being a Mac user I was able to see things in various perspectives.  Using the Mac and PC platforms gave me even more perspectives.  Many of you who flamed me are locked up to the Mac platform--no, I standed corrected--Mac OS X platform.

You no longer have perspectives, but have turned into Borgs who think anybody attacking your OS must be evil--therefore wrong.

It's sad to be a member of this family.


----------



## edX (Apr 28, 2002)

george, you have me confused. i don't think either of the last 2 posts since your previous post deserved that reply. We didn't flame you, we didn't call you nmes and we didn't treat you like a windows user. We looked at your arguements and made a few of our own. What's so dissapointing about that?

basically you have made a newbie mistake. one - you posted to the wrong forum if what you were trying to do is get apple's attention. that would be the 'Open Letters' forum to do that. Here you get other users. You brought up a subject that has been discussed over and over. most of the poeople who started these threads, or joined in them very loudly, were real life pc trolls who come here every so often for kicks.  You don't sound like one of those. You do sound like one of those people who wants their mac to be like a windows' box, only perfect. You come across as a newbie to osx, not just the site. not that you would be alone here with those qualifications.  

we also get a fair share of linux people who expect osx to behave just like real unix. they also are confused in this new os at times. and us old mac users, we are lost in anything that requires a terminal.  In the end, we all come together because despite one little discontentment here and another there, we see the overall advantages of osx. It may lack speed in certain applications, it may have an "inferior file system", it may need 3rd party diagnostic and repair programs, it may fall short of perfect in a variety of different ways. but it is the future of the mac os and maybe even of 'nix as a home user platform. What it will never be is the next windows. of course i am sure you know that windows was once the next apple. and really just continues to be. Apple has always been just a step or 2 ahead of m$. Apple develops and implements something and a short while later, m$ popularizes it under the lure of cheaper hardware. Windows XP is just another windows system. It is not blazing a whole new frontier. OSX is still young for a radically different os. And i believe it really is designed for the home user and small networks, not the professional specialties. 

so think about this, how much different do you think this thread would have been if you had started it as a question, asking how you could get something specific to work faster? as oppossed to blurting out how terrible the speed of osx is compared to windows and how apple sucks? really, do you think even apple would have taken you seriously with a title like that? 

so if this family is something you are ashamed of, perhaps you have created this sad little position for it all on your own. sometimes it is not what you say, but how you say it. Can you really say you were not pushing people's emotions with the title of this thread and your original post? If so, you don't understand emotions very well.

besides, i've never seen a family that got along perfectly. were you comparing this family to your real one when you judged us so critically? where do you have a family you are proud to be a part of?


----------



## simX (Apr 28, 2002)

mindbend and georgelien:

You want to know the reasons that you are getting flamed?  Because you are overexaggerating the problems that you guys are having with OS X.

Yes, we all acknowledge that OS X is very slow in some aspects, like window resizing.  But you guys seem to make it out to be that it is unbearably slow.  This is not the case.

I have been using Mac OS X since version 10.1 was released in September, and it isn't totally unbearably slow.  If it was, I would've gone back to OS 9 a long time ago, waiting for OS X 10.2.  But I haven't, and that's because the speed is acceptable.

Note that I am saying "acceptable" in the sense that it is fine for everyday use.  Could it be faster?  Yes, of course it could.  Is it slower than OS 9?  Yes.

But please do two things: 1) don't blame the OS for applications that run slowly, because there are ones that one lightningly fast, and 2) don't overexaggerate and say that the interface is unbearably slow.


----------



## fryke (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *You no longer have perspectives, but have turned into Borgs who think anybody attacking your OS must be evil--therefore wrong.
> 
> It's sad to be a member of this family. *



And you can't think of one reason why people would flame you? Troll, I say, troll. Every message of yours since your original post brought new flame-wear into the discussion, while other people calmly tried to explain things, to help out and to - yes - disagree.

Call me borg, call me without perspectives, call me what you want. But be aware that I answer.

And the answer is this: Many users of this board and many defendants of Mac OS X in the case of 'perceived slowness' have used more than one operating system in their lives. I have myself gone through Atari TOS 1.2 - 1.4, from Windows 3.0 up to Windows XP, from System 4 on a Mac Plus through every version up to 9.2.2, I've used (and administered) Linux machines since - lemme think - 2.0.34. And yes I think I've found the light with Mac OS X. I was a fan of the idea to marry the Mac experience with UN*X from day one. I've played with some NeXT-Stations just to get an idea what NeXT-Step was like. I used Rhapsody DR 2 on both a PowerMac and an AMD K6 box. If I'm now a borg, if I have no more perspectives, if I'm really locked in a track called Mac OS X, then there must be a reason. And I think the people who've 'attacked' you after your messages have their reasons, too. You state yourself that you've used many a operating system. If it's not for you, then it isn't. You say you posted this, because you were 'hoping to gather some thoughts and perhaps some power to notify Apple that it better commit to certain improvement soon otherwise, supporters like us would leave the platform'.

Well, you *did* gather thoughts. Maybe not all to your liking, but thoughts nonetheless. You also found some power and anger. And - as far as I can see - Apple is committed to improving OS X, because otherwise supporters like us would - well maybe not leave the platform, but be angry. 

Your task is fulfilled, dear georgellen, you may now pass on to other stuff. Why not start a thread about how gorgeous a browser IE is? Maybe you could also state something like 'Macs suck!' to gather some attention. Also the infamous 'Apple should release Mac OS X for X86' is always a runner. If you can't get enough of flamewars, go to newsgroups or /. for a while.

I still think you're a troll. At least on this thread.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

Yes, you have used other operating systems before.  But you cannot compare operating systems by memory.  Human beings memory is as dependable as computer hard drives.  They are getting much better now, but notice why RAID is still being deployed?

Call me whatever you want.  You have no perspective.  And that's it.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _future Windows Troll_
> *Yes, you have used other operating systems before. But you cannot compare operating systems by memory. Human beings memory is as dependable as computer hard drives.*



I can't speak for what fryke has on hand around him right now, but as I look around the room here I have the following operating systems up and running: Rhapsody 5.1 (on both a desktop and a ThinkPad), Rhapsody 5.6 (aka Mac OS X Server 1.2 on my PowerBook), A/UX 3.0, Solaris 7, Irix 6.2, Irix 5.3 (on two systems), Mac OS 8.1 (on three systems), Mac OS 8.6, Mac OS 9.2, and Mac OS X (the system I am writing this on). Something tells me that my memory is not _so_ bad that I can't move a couple feet and still remember what my other systems are like. As for Windows systems, I do support for Windows PCs, Macs, Suns, SGIs, and Linux PCs, so I see Windows in action on a daily basis (I see almost everything on a daily basis for that matter).

So some how I find it hard to believe that fryke has _no perspective_, when his experiences and opinions are fairly close to mine. Your opinions (and the most colorful way you have of putting them) show that you are truly the one that has no perspective here.

You are a sad little Troll.

  And that's it.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

What are they doing?  Sitting around wasting energy?  Grow up!  How old are you now?  So calling people names make you feel better.  How sad.


----------



## boomw (Apr 28, 2002)

OS X runs fine on my PowerBook G3 Lombard. Of course no DVD, no infrared, no hardware accelerated graphics, moan, whine, complain... There are a few other annoyances, all of which I'm sure will be addressed in 10.2 (even if Apple has to be sued to get them to happen!) In the meantime I think that there isn't any reason why the tempo shouldn't be picked up at Motorola to get those G5's out there. Since we know there are going to be no new hardware announcements in July we can hope for something new in January next year.
If you look at the roadmap for the G series chips you can see that we will only get to G6's sometime in 2006 or 2007. That's a snail's pace! I'm concerned that because Apple's created the megahertz myth stuff we may have to lag behind for at least the next decade. That sucks. Despite the fact that Apple does not want to invest in porting OS X to Intel, it ought to be looked at, if for no other reason than to co-opt Wintel and AMD users who are in the megahertz lead.
Also, getting OS X to feel faster would be of great psychological importance. It's one thing to explain how PowerPC's are more efficient and can beat Windows at certain tasks, and another to apologize for OS X's immaturity as the reason for it's perceived slowness.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

Not as sad as your use of words in this thread's title. As has been pointed out, constructive threads on this subject have come before this one. Troll is an accurate description of you no matter what age you are. At least my choice of language is far more adult than yours has been thus far.

Just move on to your Windows systems that you think have _passed Mac OS since 1996_, and get on with life.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

I am.  I have been using Windows since 1996.  It's just sad to see my favorite platform getting its aZZ kicked by Windozs.  As for your "adult language," I don't see name calling as an adult-like act.


----------



## .dev.lqd (Apr 28, 2002)

omfg- give this a rest already.

Goerge- accept that people have disagreed with your premises, continue to wait (or not wait), and get on with it. There are far too many complacent (read- SATISFIED) OS X users accumulated here. If you want to be patted on the back, go find some MacOS X sucks forum somewhere and have a ball.

If you'd expected anything less than what you got from this thread, you clearly haven't been watching the forum long enough to judge from past itterations.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by boomw _
> *Also, getting OS X to feel faster would be of great psychological importance. It's one thing to explain how PowerPC's are more efficient and can beat Windows at certain tasks, and another to apologize for OS X's immaturity as the reason for it's perceived slowness. *



Getting OS X to feel faster is very important--especially now--since PowerPC is way behind the race.  It is more important now than ever that Apple shows off its engineering superiority by making its computers run faster in less MHz.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by boomw _
> *That's a snail's pace! I'm concerned that because Apple's created the megahertz myth stuff we may have to lag behind for at least the next decade. That sucks. Despite the fact that Apple does not want to invest in porting OS X to Intel, it ought to be looked at, if for no other reason than to co-opt Wintel and AMD users who are in the megahertz lead.*



First the fastest Intel processor currently is running at under 900 MHz. Intel has it's own problem with the MHz myth no matter what Apple says.

Second, have you ever seen any of Apple's operating systems running on Intel based systems? I have. When making a direct comparison between Rhapsody 5.1 for both PPC and Intel based processors, the PPC systems are much faster.  I would even go as far as to say that a 1 GHz G3 (when IBM ships them) would be faster at running Rhapsody than a 2.2 GHz Pentium 4. So, how do you think a dual G4 at 1 GHz is going to fair against any PC system running Mac OS X?

Believe what you want, I've believe what I've seen. I understand Apple staying with PPC (though I think moving away from IBM here is a mistake).

And georgelien, again with the language. Like I said the description fits (and it fits you better than most trolls of late). And you are doing a bad job of faking that the Mac is your favorite platform.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by .dev.lqd _
> *If you'd expected anything less than what you got from this thread, you clearly haven't been watching the forum long enough to judge from past itterations. *



No I haven't really.  What friendly crowd!  I like this forum.  I just wish we Mac people could be less protective and be more objective.

When I began selling computers (both Macs and PCs) in 1996, I feared that Windows would advance enough to replace Mac OS.  And it did.  It replaced Mac OS in many graphic fronts.  Now even music people are no longer looking for the Macs when they need new computers.  Why?  Because we think we are the best.  Really, Mac people often do.

It's fine with me the best can stay the best.  Unfortunately, that was not the case.  Apple did a great job at hardware advancement with world's number 1 industry design products.  Its software however is still behind.

I speak both Chinese and English.  Mac OS used to be the #1 platform when it comes to muti-language.  Once again, Windows surpassed it in 1997.  I can give you so many cases.

Anyway, I'm just sad to see my favorite company with my platform going down hill just because people using the platform care more about being right than knowing what's wrong to fix the problems.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *And you are doing a bad job of faking that the Mac is your favorite platform. *



I'm not "faking" it.  It's just I like OS 9 more than OS X, that's all.  And many people, not from this board obviously, tend to agree with me since OS X has yet to share its graphic load to the graphic accelerators.  Until then, my PowerBook G4/500 will run slower than it should.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> *It's just I like OS 9 more than OS X...*



And you think Windows is better than OS 9. Saying that the Mac platform is your favorite and saying that you think Windows is better than Macs means you are either faking about one of them or you have serious dual personality problems.

I am more productive on a Mac, therefore I think Macs are better than Windows. You think Windows is better than Macs, therefore you must be more productive (which is really the only way to compare two operating systems) with Windows. 

You should move completely to the Windows platform. Seems logical to me. I still don't see why you've waited this long. 

Just do it.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Apr 28, 2002)

I am sorry... I don't mean to change the subject... but where can I get Rhapsody Racer ??


 ok... back to the show:  yeah buddy... go to windows.  we know what is best.


----------



## dricci (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Just do it.   *



I second that motion.

All in favour say "I."


----------



## fryke (Apr 28, 2002)

Well, let's leave it at that, is what I say. The poll shows more than 88% of people loving Mac OS X. There are 8% that still work in OS 9 and two people (about 3%) who don't like Mac OS X for one of each reasons provided by the poll.

You wanted data on a certain subject. You've got it. I'm glad this discussion has taken place, because it shows very well how the opinions on this board are (un-)divided.

Actually, I think I'm starting a new poll right after this post, and I hope I'll see you all there.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

Yeah, you've caught me.  I am a cross-platform person.  This what I call perspective.

What are you running on Rhapsody?  Other than wasting electricity?

I'm glad a site made for Mac OS X has over 90% OS X users voting for the OS.  But let's not forget that there are still more Macs out there running--not OS X--but the Classic.

Now that's perspective!


----------



## fryke (Apr 28, 2002)

Yes, you are very, very good, Georgelien.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

"Good" is relative.  I just wish OS X could be speedier.  I really don't want to wait until 10.2.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *What are you running on Rhapsody?  Other than wasting electricity?*



You know, the usual. TextEdit (obj-c port), Quicktime, MacOSXAmp (mp3 player), PDFView, Create (actually the complete Stone design suite), TIFFany 3, Cutting-room, OmniWeb 3.1, WriteUp (I like TextEdit better), PasteUp (Create is better for what I do), HTMLEdit, RBrowser, Web Objects, and of course games (DOOM I & II, Quake II & III, Balling, Hextris, and others), and my desktop system acts as my internal Apache web server for testing out web sites I work on (I can see what a web is going to look like on almost every type of system in the internet).

As a Rhapsody power user, I have a Rhapsody system with me everywhere I go. I am currently transferring 4 GB of documentation on every type of system I might come across from my ThinkPad to my PowerBook (which is running Rhapsody 5.6... no Mac OS installed).

What do you run on your Windows systems, which are taking more electricity than my Rhapsody systems I imagine.

And here is a shot of my desktop for you.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 28, 2002)

This has gotten totally out of control. Isn't this fun?

I'm going to try and not use names or put more fuel on the fire, but I do want to clarify one semantic issue from my POV.

I don't recall ever once saying "unbearable" (please correct me if I'm wrong). My term has always been "unacceptable". "Unacceptable" does not equate with "unusable" so much as it equates with "disappointing". I know that sounds trivial, but I don't want to be lumped in with the wrong crowd. 

As for who to blame, it's clearly a chicken or the egg syndrome. One could easily blame Apple for deciding on Aqua or whatever it is that is making the UI so slow, or one could blame the app developer for not optimizing for it. Or we could go back to blaming Apple for forcing the apps to use the main CPU instead of a graphics card for rendering (in which case all of the blame is on Apple), though there are some examples of apps by non-Apple devlopers that seem to run just fine. I don't know who to blame, nor do I care. I am simply an end user who is unsatisfied with a certain UI experience. In my opinion, it is Apple's primary responsibility to provide the tools and influence to make properly coded apps by third parties. Unfortunately, the types of apps that I use which take the biggest hit all seem to perform sluggishly. For example, Illustrator is mildly painful. It scompetitors (Freehand and Corel) perform equally sucky. So who do we blame there? Nobody seems to be able to find a way to do fast vector-based redraws in X. At least not in a high end fully developed app like those. There are some low end ones that perform great.

I use OS X exclusively and have for about 6 months, so obviously I see the advantages that all of you do. I am SIMPLY saying, and most everyone has agreed, that OS X has some graphics layer speed issues. 

"g" has a more extreme view then me and with OS X as a whole, but I stand by my criticisim of this particular speed issue.

As for the poll. I voted "Love OS X" because that poll question is about the OS as a whole. My point has never once been about OS X on the whole, which I do love. It's been about one single issue which is very important to me, just as Networking, Permissions, Serving, Gaming, File Organization, Interface, etc. might be to some of you.


----------



## edX (Apr 28, 2002)

thank you mindbend for the well worded reply which addresses the issue. george seems to have gotten caught up in defending himself and forgotten about the subject, repeatedly ignoring points that others have made on the issue.

you blame apple, i blame the developers. i am willing to concede that the truth probably is somewhere inbetween. i have never had a need to use them myself, but i am wondering if you have ever tried any of the process managers out there? is it possible that by controlling the process memory allocution during long tasks that would normally time out and share with other tasks, that your issue might be solved or at least improved?


----------



## georgelien (Apr 28, 2002)

RacerX,

Your Rhapsody looks like the Mac OS X Server, the 1.x version, that I used to run until I found Linux to be more efficient.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed Spruiell,

I never need to "defend" myself since the market already proved me right.  While I read and understand your points, I can't see you guys putting out the same effort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mindbend,

I too expected OS X to be better than it is now.  Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait.  Hell, I have been waiting since 1996, might as well wait a little longer.


----------



## Valrus (Apr 28, 2002)

I just _had_ to post again.

george, I think you're gonna get it for that last post.

Not from me though.

-the valrus


----------



## simX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *RacerX,
> 
> Your Rhapsody looks like the Mac OS X Server, the 1.x version, that I used to run until I found Linux to be more efficient.*



Why don't you just move to Windows and make yourself happy?  RacerX is happy in Rhapsody, so let him use Rhapsody.  You don't have to force your opinion on everybody else, as it seems you are doing.  Most of us here acknowledge that Mac OS X has some user interface speed issues, but we think that Mac OS X is the best operating system yet.  If you ask around, you'll find some WINDOWS converts.  Hmm, funny that, isn't it?

*



			I never need to "defend" myself since the market already proved me right.  While I read and understand your points, I can't see you guys putting out the same effort.
		
Click to expand...

*
The market already proved you right?  What in the heck does the market have anything to do with the price of tea in China?

Apple's market share in the U.S. has actually grown this year (see IDG market statistics), because of Mac OS X, the new iMac, and Apple's iApps.  Sure, Apple accounts for only about 5% of the market, but that doesn't have anything to do with Mac OS X being the worst operating system ever.

You know, there are many more cockroaches than humans on this planet.  Does that make cockroaches inherently better than humans?

Oh, and it seems like most everybody is in agreement that you are the one that's just being a "mindless drone" who seems to not be able to see the light.  *shrug*  To each his own.

*



			I too expected OS X to be better than it is now.  Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait.  Hell, I have been waiting since 1996, might as well wait a little longer.
		
Click to expand...

*
It seems like you'll always be waiting.  Why don't you make the switch to Windows like RacerX suggested, and be done with it?


----------



## edX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _originally said by george_
> Ed Spruiell,
> 
> I never need to "defend" myself since the market already proved me right. While I read and understand your points, I can't see you guys putting out the same effort.



whatever you say george. I can see now that you are always right. after all, the market doesn't lie or deceive. there is only one true market and it is all powerful. there is nothing we can do, because the market has already decided our destinies. 

I'm guessing you are trying to use the old, 90% or more of the world uses windows argument and that many people can't be wrong. an IQ curve would tell me that about 95% of people have an IQ below mine. Should i therefore abandon my perceptions and rely on theirs?

george, how much is there to understanding your latest posts? you haven't offered any new points in quite a while. and the posts that have countered your suppositions with examples and suggestions, you ignore. instead you continue to explain what a superior guy you are and how wrong it is for everyone to attack you. You are about at the point where name calling and character questioning would be more entertaining than trying to engage you in discussion. You seem to be more responsive to it at any rate. You have yet to explain how you can blame the os for the behavior of specific apps?

unless you are 15-17 years old, why don't you stop playing "my computer is bigger than your computer"? If you are 15-17 years old, then we should just go away and let you go thru this developmental stage on your own.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _georgelien_
> *Your Rhapsody looks like the Mac OS X Server, the 1.x version, that I used to run until I found Linux to be more efficient.*



You must not be up on the version numbering systems for Rhapsody. They are as follows:

Rhapsody 5.0____________________ Rhapsody Developer Release
Rhapsody 5.1___________________Rhapsody Developer Release 2
Rhapsody 5.2________Rhapsody 1.0 (pulled before being released)
Rhapsody 5.3___________________________Mac OS X Server 1.0
Rhapsody 5.4_________________________ Mac OS X Server 1.0.1
Rhapsody 5.5_________________________ Mac OS X Server 1.0.2
Rhapsody 5.6___________________________Mac OS X Server 1.2

All versions from Rhapsody 5.1 on use the same interface and can run most of the same apps (in the case of the Intel version, the developers needed to have compiled the apps for either Intel or both Intel and PPC).

And as for moving from Rhapsody to Linux, this is not surprising. I removed Linux from one of my PCs (and bought my ThinkPad) to run Rhapsody (5.1). Then again, these are being used as workstations (which was what the OS was designed for), not closet systems. Nothing runs headless like Linux.

Like simX said, this is what I enjoy working with. I'm happy with my systems, and I never even thought about starting a thread like this one. If i didn't like something, I move onto what I did like.

Again, I think you should move completely to Windows and/or Linux. As you keep pointing out, you like them better. It is actually funny that you still feel the need to vent on the subject when you have already stated what you think is a better platform.

I am sure that the rest of the Mac community would be happy to join me in showing you the door (or Window) to that better platform. Your knowledge and experiences with this one, lacking as they are, will not be missed. The Windows community truly deserves you (and I offer my sympathy to the Linux community).

An example of Rhapsody 5.1 for you (yes, I love my systems , note that uptime!).


----------



## .dev.lqd (Apr 29, 2002)

Sweet jesus on a popsicle stick! This is still going?

Honestly Goerge...

'I don't want to wait until 10.2'?

Rest assured, Apple has heard your obviously empirical observations and has dispatched Steve Jobs in a pixie outfit to _sprinkle magical pixie dust_ on your system. Expect him within the half hour, or your next labotomy is half-off!

Of course you don't want to wait, but exactly what update would you want them to deliver this speed update in? a sub-point release? How about 10.1.5, due in around 2-3 months? 

I have yet to read of any specific complaints or claims that you've made. What  I have been reading are general sketchy perceptions and vague complaints about perceptions and UI and speed. It basically sounds like you just want to bitch. Stop... it's all been done before. 

If you really are dead set on this... reread the old threads of this ilk from the forum's extensive archive. If your initial response is 'but I don't have that kind of time to waste!' think again... because you're doing the same thing now. The only difference is that the responses are being generated on the fly and are directed to you, personally. 

You made a comment about musicians. You're dead wrong.

Pro tools- THE 800 lb. gorilla. Think Avid, think Photoshop, think Pro Tools (you can draw a few metaphors between avid and pro tools since one owns the other). Don't bother trying to run it on 2k or XP. It works best on a Mac, period. MOTU- makers of the fabulous Digital Performer digital recording package (available ONLY on Macintosh), also produce the poster children product for firewire based digital audio interfaces, the 828 and the 896. Audio people want it to work and they want it to stay out of the way. Disparate hardware configurations and attempts at broad hardware support markets don't translate into reliable performance.

My point- Macs are the ideal for pro audio. The people who don't go Macintosh usually make the choice because Macs are at a premium. There is a 9600 with a G3 upgrade card at school that's running the pro tools setup there for film scoring. My dual 500 tears apart Digital Performer. The possibilities of all this are really really exciting. Ask anyone... the best way to go is on a macintosh. Sound Engineers, musicians, studio managers, producers.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

.dev.lqd,

Pro Tools|24 actually runs on Windows 2000.  Currently none of the digidesign product runs on Mac OS X.  How about that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valrus,
Thanks for the warning.  I expect nothing else from a bunch of mob.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RacerX,

Cool!  Do you mind sharing some specs on the hardware your Rhapsody is running on?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction everyone!

I do like MacOS X, despite its current state of lack of full software support (Yes, Adobe finally came out with Photoshop, but we're still waiting for Quark, right?), I just wish it would run more efficient on my PowerBook G4/500.

Like everyone else, I spent a fortune on it, $3,600 USD to be exact.  PC people don't need to spend this kind of money for a decent system, but we do.  You see my point?

If we cannot provide decent system with acceptable price, I don't see how the Macs can gain more market share.


----------



## .dev.lqd (Apr 29, 2002)

Correction- Pro Tools runs on Windows 2k. It works on Windows 98.

It rocks on a Mac  

And presently, there's almost NO pro audio software out for MacOSX, because Core Audio is a huge shift from Sound Manager/ASIO. Most people are being patient, because their studios still work with os9. Cubase SX is almost kind sorta out... but a lot of the other people have just said 'we're working on it already'. I know a lot more studios running MacOS than I know that are running Windows 2K. 

The reason? Driver shift between the 95/98/ME cores and the NT core in 2k. The people that make this stuff hate working with system software... once they have their interface code setup... they don't want to mess with it again (since it's a huge chore). There's also been a lot of wierdness between hardware in general (esp. when it comes to sound). I won't say Pro audio on 2k isn't viable... it's just iffy. Most things are just more stable in 98.


----------



## Sogni (Apr 29, 2002)

Um guys - georgelien is comparing a bleeding edge OS to an already old OS! He's comparing OSX to Windows 2000 - and NOT XP!

Hmmm... I wonder why he's bitching and complaining about OUR Bleeding-Edge OS while not even testing those same waters on MS's Bleeding-Edge OS! 

What's the matter? Affraid OSX will beat the living daylights out of XP georgelien?  

Am I right? Oh common you know I'm right! 

You can no longer get a new system with a later version of the OS in Windows - so stop comparing OSX to Windows 2000 and older! 

Now, how many of those PeeCees you got georgelien that can actually run Windows XP? Ooooo wait, you're going to go broke before you can even try installing XP on that many computers, huh? At what - 300$ a pop (Pro Edition)? *OUCH*


----------



## Sogni (Apr 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *
> 
> I do like MacOS X, despite its current state of lack of full software support (Yes, Adobe finally came out with Photoshop, but we're still waiting for Quark, right?)
> ...


Nope, Quark will no longer get my money as I've given up on them. And not because of OSX 



> *
> Like everyone else, I spent a fortune on it, $3,600 USD to be exact.  PC people don't need to spend this kind of money for a decent system, but we do.  You see my point?
> *



Nope... I don't see your point... Mac people don't need to spend $3,600 for a decent system... from Macmall.com:

New iMac from $1,394
G3 iMac from $794
iBook from $1,194
Powerbook from 1,994

I think only people doing Profesional stuff spend $2000 and above for ANY system setup - PC or Mac! 



> *
> If we cannot provide decent system with acceptable price, I don't see how the Macs can gain more market share. *



Are you really living in a cave? Does newspapers and current prices of things ever reach your cave?


----------



## .dev.lqd (Apr 29, 2002)

Tormente- you're living up to your title just a tad too well. He hasn't even replied yet.


----------



## Sogni (Apr 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by .dev.lqd _
> *Tormente- you're living up to your title just a tad too well. He hasn't even replied yet. *



Quz he knows I'm right!


----------



## edX (Apr 29, 2002)

George - so if photoshop and other Adobe products are what isn't cutting it, why not write to Adobe about it? Why not start a thread called "Adobe Sucks"?  We could be on the same side of that one. we might become new 'best buds'. 

or if it is a whole set of programs from different developers, why not contact them and voice your complaints. Why not let them know you are worried about their market share?  I know getting the 'big guys' to give you as much consideration as my example of the small developer who fixed my speed complaint isn't very easy, but they sure aren't going to hear you or care as long as you keep laying all the blame on Apple. too many of the big companies are making excuses about osx and blaming apple while small developers are making the most of the new revolution. Wuite frankly, i hope all the old standards who fell so high and mighty that they can jerk us around, all lose their market share and fall by the wayside while younger and more responsive companies come along and take their place. But while apple isn't perfect, i have had my small problems with them since about 1984 or so, they are still the best of what's out there in terms of caring about their customers. I would love to hear an arguement to that.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

So you guys are waiting for me, eh?  FYI, all of the hardware I own can run Windows XP just fine.  I'm worry guys.  First XP "borrowed" many ideas from OS X.  And should they will benefit by attracting people to their camp.  I still see myself a Mac user who also uses Windows.

Say whatever you like, but you are not making fun of me, but the people use Mac OS X--yourself included.

The reason why I don't run XP is because I know that at core its Windows NT 5.0 or Windows 2000 2.0, and at the surface, its an interface that borrowed ideas from Windows 98 and OS X.

Windows 2000 Professional has been around for close to two years now.  OS X should be out the same time.  No, but instead it's still at 10.1.4 stage while Windows 2000 already have Service Pack 2 out and soon SP3 will be out.

OS X beats XP right now, but with the speed Apple is perfecting OS X, XP will be pass it in no time.

And by the way, I'm the one of suckers who bought my PowerBook G4/500 when it first came out in January of 2001.  Call me stupid but I love my Mac.  Just wish OS X could live up what Macintosh standards.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 29, 2002)

> *Cool! Do you mind sharing some specs on the hardware your Rhapsody is running on?*



_Rhapsody 5.1:_
(1) IBM ThinkPad 760 ED* (Pentium/133, 80 MB RAM, 6 GB hard drive, 12.1 @ 1024x768 display)
(2) Digital Celebris (Dual Pentium/233, 48 MB RAM, 2 GB hard drive)

_Rhapsody 5.6:_
(1) PowerBook G3/266 (1 MB of L2, 192 MB RAM, 4 GB hard drive, 14.1" @ 1024x768)

The Digital was originally running Red Hat 6.1 (which was move to another Digital system that is also running OPENSTEP 4.2). The ThinkPad and PowerBook models were dictated by drivers. Apple didn't officially support mobile systems, but Steve Jobs had a ThinkPad like mine, so they made video drivers for it. Engineers at Apple wanted to use Rhapsody on PowerBooks so they added unsupported drivers for the 2400/3400/Kanga-G3 in Rhapsody 5.1 and unsupported drivers for the 2400/3400/Kanga-G3/WallStreet-G3 in Rhapsody 5.3 - 5.6. Results of attempted installations on Lombard-G3 systems were mixed at best, and all known attempts on Pismo-G3 systems have failed.

Seeing as I was buying these systems to run Rhapsody and they would be little more than a paper weight to me (specially a PC laptop) if they couldn't run Rhapsody, I made my purchases conservatively (buying only systems and/or parts I knew Apple had made drivers for).

And now for the big question... why do you care?



> *Like everyone else, I spent a fortune on it, $3,600 USD to be exact. PC people don't need to spend this kind of money for a decent system, but we do. You see my point?*



The PowerBook I just got cost me $500, my copy of Mac OS X Server 1.2 (with Web Objects 4.0) was $35, and I'm thinking about getting a NeXT ADB mouse for my PowerBook which adds another $25 to the total. Quicktime movies run great on it, mp3s sound great (compared to my ThinkPad which Apple didn't make sound drivers for), and Quake II plays great. It NXBenched 3.5 times as fast as my ThinkPad, but even that played my movies (silent though they were) great.

Oh, I couldn't help noticing that you seemed to be leaving out the cost of Windows on the prices of the PC systems you list ($320 for Win 2K Pro, $1000/$1200 for Win 2K Server). I just spent three weeks working with Microsoft's lawyers proving that one of my clients had all the licenses for the Microsoft products that they owned (which wasn't much because it was a magazine, and they used mainly Apple and Adobe products). You are paying for all that great software aren't you? They seem very touchy about that type of stuff from my experience.

(* denotes second system of the exact same configuration, first system was stolen almost two years ago)


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *George - so if photoshop and other Adobe products are what isn't cutting it, why not write to Adobe about it? Why not start a thread called "Adobe Sucks"?*



Why not Adobe sucks?  Because they are not the one who decide to change the OS platform for the Macs.  And believe me, I did complain.  And you know what?  The answers I got are the same ones I wrote in the past of this thread.

These companies are not losing market.  In fact, ever since Windows NT, many of the software companies began to focus more on the NT platform than Mac OS.  This is why OS X is so essential to our survival¡Xyet the development has been nothing¡Xbut slow.  Steve knows this, I know this and I hope you know this as well.

Don't blame the developers, because Apple should be responsible for the OS.  Market is what attracts developers.  Unfortunately, there has to be a market before developers jump in and design software for sale.  If it weren¡¦t for iMacs and PowerBooks, you think Photoshop 7.0 for OS X would ever be released?

As I mentioned before, I sold computers from 1996 to 1999 in the United States.  Stopped doing it because I wanted to return to my family in Taiwan.  It¡¦s a lot easier to sell Macs if Windows machines can¡¦t do it as well.   But Microsoft has made it possible with NT.  First, it was publishing, then music, and multi-language.  We need to do something if we want the Mac platform alive.  I know I do.

It¡¦s okay to be misunderstood as long as I know that I¡¦m a Mac user, a Mac faithful.  None of you will change my faith¡Xperhaps only my perspective on my peers.

Anyway, it was nice knowing what you all were thinking, or believing.

Take care!  Long live the Macs!


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> * And now for the big question... why do you care?
> 
> Oh, I couldn't help noticing that you seemed to be leaving out the cost of Windows on the prices of the PC systems you list ($320 for Win 2K Pro, $1000/$1200 for Win 2K Server). I just spent three weeks working with Microsoft's lawyers proving that one of my clients had all the licenses for the Microsoft products that they owned (which wasn't much because it was a magazine, and they used mainly Apple and Adobe products). You are paying for all that great software aren't you? They seem very touchy about that type of stuff from my experience.
> ...



Why do I care?  Because learning new things is more important than being right to me.  Cool systems!  Big thumbs to you (seriously, not making fun)!  How did you manage to get those drivers?

As for the Windows 2000, we can purchase BTO (Built-to-order) version, which cost a lot less than the retail store version.  For example, W2K Professional for $99 USD, W2K Server for $428 USD.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by georgelien _
> *Windows 2000 Professional has been around for close to two years now.  OS X should be out the same time.  No, but instead it's still at 10.1.4 stage while Windows 2000 already have Service Pack 2 out and soon SP3 will be out.
> 
> OS X beats XP right now, but with the speed Apple is perfecting OS X, XP will be pass it in no time. *



Windows 2000 is actually Windows NT 5.0. The lineage of systems is as follows:
OS/2 (IBM/MS) > OS/2 NT (MS Working beta) >Windows NT 3.1 > Windows NT 3.51 > Windows NT 4.0 > Windows 2000

Thee core OS of Windows XP is Windows 2000 which is Windows NT 5.0.

So If Windows NT 3.1 was released in July of 1993, and is only now becoming the standard desktop system (9 years later), I think Mac OS X has more than pass NT in it's learning curve (seeing as NT wasn't even usable until NT 4.0 sp3).

As for the drivers, most are included (and I find some on Apple's site a few years ago). The Mac drivers were not document, so I found out by talking with developers. The PC drivers can be found here. So yes, if you still have Mac OS X Server 1.0, that should actually run on your 2400.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

Good call  RacerX!  Good analysis.  Mac OS X was supposed to be Copland, and Copland was supposed to come out in 1996 or 97, don't quite remember, but it didn't.

So Mac OS X came out late, the only way to make that up is to speed up the development.  I like Unix.  Well, I should say that I heard many good things about it.  However, while I always disagree with people who think its better for Apple to turn completely into a software-only company, I think the company has been focusing too much on its hardware development and not enough on its software.

I miss many features in OS 9.  Yes, it crashes.  But after you have spent as much time as I have in crash preventions, it can actually crash less than OS X--believe it or not.

_______________________________
Question: What happened to the support of our OS X Server after 10.0 version came out?


----------



## RacerX (Apr 29, 2002)

The bizarre history of Mac OS X. In the list of Rhapsody_s_, you may have noticed Rhapsody 5.2 (which no one outside Apple has seen). That was supposed to be the big release of the new OS that we where all waiting for.

Apple ran into two problems on the way to releasing Rhapsody. First was that OpenStep developers started compiling less and less of their apps for the Intel version after the release of Rhapsody 5.1 (which was strange considering that they were coming over from Intel hardware to begin with). This lack of software and the lack of Blue Box for Intel meant that Rhapsody for Intel would be running very short of apps when released. The second problem was Mac developers like Microsoft, Adobe, and Macromedia which told Apple that they had no plans to support an OS that had no users, the cost of rewriting their apps would be just far to high.

That was when Apple pulled Rhapsody from being released (except for Rhapsody Server for PPC), and decided to create a new app environment that would make it easy to port existing Mac apps to the new OS (under the project name _Mac OS X_ at this point). What did we wait for? Apple to develop a completely new development environment for developers. Why did Apple make the Finder Carbon? To prove that they trusted Carbon enough to make one of the most important parts of the OS out of it (which is also part of the reason why we have a slower system today).

What this time did was give Apple a chance to get out from under the thumb of Adobe and their expensive Display Postscript (which made the cost of systems like NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Mac OS X Server 1.x, and Solaris so high). A GNU project based on OpenStep APIs call GNUstep has been trying to replace Display Postscript with an open source version called Display Ghostscript (and they are still working on it). Apple pushed forward with Display PDF, which along with OpenGL and Quicktime make up Quartz, which is still being worked on (the other part of the slowness of our systems). If Apple has stayed with Adobe, Mac OS X would have been more like $300 than $120. Also, think about how much revenue Adobe lost, and then ask yourself why they would to be slow in releasing Photoshop (who says companies don't take things personally).

In order to save face in the light of pulling Rhapsody, Apple rename _Rhapsody Server_ to _Mac OS X Server_ and released it. This gave them the ability to say that they did release the next generation OS by the deadline of 1999.

As for Rhapsody support, with the release of Mac OS X Server 10.0.3, Apple provided _no_ upgrade path from either Appleshare IP 6.x or Mac OS X Server 1.x. Mac OS X Server 10.x and 1.x are two completely different operating systems. And Apple provides very little support for Mac OS X Server 1.x. Even their course work only has a couple pages on the subject (which was why I set out to find out more for my customers who use it).

Also Copland, though killed as a project, did see the light of day. Parts of Copland (partial protected memory, and cooperative multitasking) made it into Mac OS 8.0, and other parts (including theme support) made it into Mac OS 8.5 (including the theme support and the Hi-Tech, Drawing Board and Gizmo themes, seen as early as 1991, where part of RC8).


----------



## edX (Apr 29, 2002)

> Why not Adobe sucks? Because they are not the one who decide to change the OS platform for the Macs. And believe me, I did complain. And you know what? The answers I got are the same ones I wrote in the past of this thread.



so an app that doesn't work properly in the system it was designed for is the system's fault? is that what you are saying? and if apple had only continued to enhance their basic operating system and called it osx, then everything would be working great and mac market share would be on the rise at incredible rates because the old way of doing things is faster.  right? Are you really saying that an advancement into a new age of computing, that has drawn together a more diverse user base than ever before, is responsible for a Windows advantage in sales? and that it is going to continue unless apple redesigns the whole thing back to the way it was so that Adobe and others can figure it out without putting in the effort to learn how it works as it is? 

I don't know everything about osx, certainly not from a programmer's point of view, but I do know that apple made it like it is to give us the advantages that we are happy about - the ones that let us feel great when comparing our apples to windows boxes. I also know that i had to make a few perceptual shifts when i first started using osx in order to understand how and why it is better than os 9. I assure you i was not a public beta user or even a 10.0.3. with 10.0.3, i would play around with it and look at its eye candy, but i couldn't get used to it. Enough was improved with 10.0.4 that i started to take it seriously. and i had, by that time, begun to understand the difference between having to repeat a 2 second lag to complete a task, that had seemed instantaneous in os 9, 30 times a day and the 4 -5 minutes of rebooting spent each day when one of those tasks failed. I had begun to compare what real speed is as oppossed to perceived speed.

and i sincerely believe you when you say that adobe would tell you the kinds of things that you posted earlier. I have already stated that they and others are quick to pass the buck to avoid blame because they aren't up to speed with the new os. What really worries me is that you bought that line of BS.  That is why they don't have to worry about losing any market share, because their faithful are willing to believe anything they say, despite evidence to the contrary.  Shouldn't they be working harder on their next update to give you the speed you want? We have seen them increase their speed on products in the past after severl updates. I am sure they will do it again. But they aren't in any rush to do so as long as people continue to believe they are the only game in town. I want you to mark your calender because i am predicting that in 10 years, they will be like IBM, just another software company that does a few specialized things. The bulk of their market share will have dried up as competitors come along and make equal or better products and are responsive to their customer base. 

and lastly, i am a bit curious as to how the use of complex, pro level graphics programs will effect apple's market share? apple is still first and foremost dedicated to the home user. the average joe who just wants his computer to work. and maybe to look nice, not an eyesore. the imacs, both of them, have set record sales marks in this market. and the new imac has barely even begun to leave its mark on apple's profit line. 

to that line of thinking, i have often thought it might be better if apple just stopped trying toplease graphics pros entirely. you guys seem to be the only ones whining. and then the rest of us wouldn't have to live with that awful myth that macs are just for graphics. But then i realize that most mac pros are thrilled with their product and their os and know that the software companies are the ones responsible for their beefs. It would be really wrong of me to wish away such joy on my professional friends. 

btw, isn't this more interesting when you start responding to the points and ignoring the remarks instead of the other way around?


----------



## .dev.lqd (Apr 29, 2002)

Ed- i have to disagree with you on the 'home user' bit.

Granted... Mac's are great for home users. Let me never argue this.

But mac's have also long been at the forefront of imaging, design, and A/V. 

Apple makes machines and system software that is more transparent to the user. It gets the hell out of the way. That's why the people who use it generally love it. For work or play... the mac is less annoying. Irritation is inversely proportional to productivity... soooooo.... 

Cohesion... failling...

Ack. Why am I posting? Must find sleep. Ugh. Sorry guys... I'm broken.


----------



## edX (Apr 29, 2002)

.dev - i can't argue with you about apple's long history of being the computer of choice for serious graphics and A/V. I never meant to imply otherwise.  that is how i came to apple in the 1st place nearly 20 years ago.

but if that were the bulk of their business, mac users would amount to a much smaller number. since the introduction of the imac, apple has specifically targeted the non professional and non student. It has been very successful for them. and for all mac users. the new imac is continuing that emhasis i believe, although it is enough of a mac-chine to cross over into the pro field a little more i think. again, that is good.

as for all that stuff you said about being user friendly, i couldn't agree more. but that was my 1st beef with osx, that after you get past the surface, it is not as user friendly. In some ways i still believe this and in others i think it was just a matter of being resistant to learning a new underneath side. I am sure that someday i will know this thing as well as i once knew os 9 and then it will all be friendly again.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *and i sincerely believe you when you say that adobe would tell you the kinds of things that you posted earlier. I have already stated that they and others are quick to pass the buck to avoid blame because they aren't up to speed with the new os. What really worries me is that you bought that line of BS.  That is why they don't have to worry about losing any market share, because their faithful are willing to believe anything they say, despite evidence to the contrary.  Shouldn't they be working harder on their next update to give you the speed you want?
> around? *



Money is real, okay?  Either you make them or you don't.  People used to use Photoshop primary on Macs until Windows NT came along.  Windows took away many customers from imaging, design, and A/V.

Developers in general only go to where money is.  This is, of course, not including the more noble ones who make freewares or sharewares.

Now I understand why OS X came out so late.  Unfortunately, this knowledge still does not change two facts:

1. Belated Coming-Out Party
2. Unacceptable progress.

I hope Steve will surprise me once more at this year's WWDC.

I really want to go, but you are guys are so interesting!
^_^


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

Check out the new eMac!  This should be a hit since the new iMac!
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/apr/29emac.html 

PS: Who says I don't like Macs?  I'm just not satisfied with OS X that's all.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 29, 2002)

Oh, and the new PowerBooks!

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/


----------



## Koelling (Apr 29, 2002)

> Check out the new eMac! This should be a hit since the new iMac!


 This is a great machine but it is a niche product. I think it will be a hit among education (partly because they are the only ones who can get it). But as far as the rest of the world goes, this will not phase them. People either love it or hate it and I just hope that the ones who hate it realize that Apple CAN make a product that doesn't apply to them. The iPod wasn't for everyone and neither is OS X server.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 29, 2002)

As much as I keep getting blasted for pointing out OS X's failings in the graphics areana, isn't this poll funny?

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16685

Somehow, everyone seems to agree that it's [OS X] slow to some extent or another, both graphically and overall speed. 

Funny. [laughs to self]


----------



## georgelien (Apr 30, 2002)

Koelling,

I beg to differ.  I bet you that we will see the eMacs on eBay soon.


----------



## simX (Apr 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *As much as I keep getting blasted for pointing out OS X's failings in the graphics areana, isn't this poll funny?
> 
> http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16685
> ...



Funny.  I thought you understood that we all realized OS X could still use speed enhancements.  But it's still acceptable, and that's why you're "getting blasted".


----------

