Apple - Part II

[dricci]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

and

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

and

Windows has past Mac OS since 1996 and Linus is catching up.

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]

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]

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]

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]

-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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.