BlingBling 3k12
Somewhere... dunno though
as a viewer... well said serpicolugnut...
it's a discussion/debate... not a place for anger...
it's a discussion/debate... not a place for anger...
Can Apple ever make up for the big mistake?
- Thread starter fryke
- Start date
You're right. I didn't want to attack those who really answered to my original post. Just those who missed my point. Sorry that you've been among them.
I do know them. They don't mimic the parts that are important to me, though, just the part that Windows or a third party utility like WindowBlinds allow to be 'skinned'. The term very much shows what I mean.
Of course not. And I didn't mean you should all agree.
An example (again, *sigh*): Racer X found an error among my list. The Carbon question. And I certainly agreed in one (two?) of my later posts. But I also stated things like that I'm not talking about Windows or Linux converting, but people stated 'I come from Windows and would never have bought a Mac with OS 9' all the same. This is all well and great, but not what I was talking about. If someone wants to talk about how cool OS X is for Windows or Linux converts, they should start a thread on their own and not put the comment into a thread where I specifically (and understandably) targetted OS 9 converts/upgraders.
If you reread my first post, you can see that I tried to avoid exactly some things that have happened later on, and that's what makes me angry. I know, it's my fault that I take myself so seriously, but I think it's our job as human beings to try and understand each other.
The reason why I started this thread was because I value many people on this board as intelligent and insightful. I wanted to hear their opinions about my opinion, but even more I wanted to debate what the title of the thread suggests: Whether Apple can/will/can't/won't ever make up for a big mistake. And still nobody has targetted my basic message, that they have made a big mistake by reinventing the wheel where there already was one.
And I think that's more of a sign about the repliers than about me, although I must admit that my previous post is quite harsh to those people. My apologies, but I was looking for something else than a 'Themes for Windows'-answer.
Ricky
Registered
Let's think about this logically for a second.
Apple wouldn't jump into something without thinking carefully about it first. Let's not forget that Apple spent ten years developing OS X. Something has to be said for that. And why do you think Windows XP looks so much like OS X, sans color?
Microsoft also knows what they're doing.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have copied Mac all through the years!
The power of OS X is amazing. I have only experienced one crash on it that wasn't a kernel panic. What do you think of that? XD I crash every single time I go into OS 9. Also, everyone is converting their apps over to OS X. They must feel that the OS has strong potential. And it does. I can't think of a single time that the software industry has made one gaping mistake.
Anyone want to battle me on these points? I'll stand firm. I contrast the point that Apple made a horrible mistake with the new OS, and say that OS X is the best thing they have ever done, only second to RELEASING THE ORIGINAL MACINTOSH!
VIVA LA MACINTOSH! VIVA!
Apple wouldn't jump into something without thinking carefully about it first. Let's not forget that Apple spent ten years developing OS X. Something has to be said for that. And why do you think Windows XP looks so much like OS X, sans color?
Microsoft also knows what they're doing.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have copied Mac all through the years!
The power of OS X is amazing. I have only experienced one crash on it that wasn't a kernel panic. What do you think of that? XD I crash every single time I go into OS 9. Also, everyone is converting their apps over to OS X. They must feel that the OS has strong potential. And it does. I can't think of a single time that the software industry has made one gaping mistake.
Anyone want to battle me on these points? I'll stand firm. I contrast the point that Apple made a horrible mistake with the new OS, and say that OS X is the best thing they have ever done, only second to RELEASING THE ORIGINAL MACINTOSH!
VIVA LA MACINTOSH! VIVA!
Finally.
Microsoft also knows what they're doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have copied Mac all through the years!
Perfectly right. Someone else misunderstood me. I didn't say WinXP was ahead of Mac OS X, I said the gap was getting smaller.
I think you're another one *NOT* getting that I'm talking GUI and not power/stability and anything else. Which is a pity. I strongly suggest anyone posting here reading the whole thread, as it seems to become a poster child thread for how people don't read them most of the time. Or not carefully enough.
Ricky
Registered
Do you think Aqua was Apple's top priority?
Once OS X gets into later releases, I'm sure they'll either speed up the interface or make an option to make it look like the old Mac OS (ala XP.
)Personally, I like the new look. It's very nice, and I like to brag to my fellow Windows users about how good it looks. But it's a bit too slow for me. I'd like to see it bumped up a notch in terms of responsiveness.
Patience. They want this to be great for everyone.
ZeroAltitude
Registered
Would it be fair to say that this is what has happened so far?:
---
one dude: OSX is powerful, but something is wrong with the GUI.
other dudes: But man, OSX is *powerful*!
one dude: Right, but, something is wrong with the GUI.
other dudes: I like the GUI! Man, OSX is powerful!
one dude: I know, but...
---
an oversimplification, I know
Well, anyway, it's nice when everyone can be right. Not that there isn't some genuine disagreement. I remember seeing on another thread someone made the point that OSX strays much more from the Human Interface Guidelines that Apple itself wrote, than does OS9.
My own take? I, too, adopted OSX for the power and stability. I do find myself putting up with latency and GUI issues, but, my hope is that as obsessively as Apple worked on OS x-9, they will do the same to OSX until it's just as snappy (it really is amazing that they have gotten the speed and the GUI so far as they did, and the point of some other posters that when you compare this to X-windows/CDE, it is just a quantum leap forward, is absolutely right -- and all this, with an admittedly large penalty in speed going with a Mach- instead of a monolithic- kernel; seriously, that's amazing).
So, I found this thread valuable, and I know why fryke was frustrated, and I know why others were, too.
OSX power > OS9 power
OSX speed < OS9 speed
OS9 GUI > OSX GUI (arguable, but reasonable opinion)
OSX GUI > X-Windows/CDE GUI
OSX power <= generic Unix power
OSX speed < generic Unix speed
A controversial matrix, that hopefully stimulates effort and discussion around features to improve and be happy about.
-0
---
one dude: OSX is powerful, but something is wrong with the GUI.
other dudes: But man, OSX is *powerful*!
one dude: Right, but, something is wrong with the GUI.
other dudes: I like the GUI! Man, OSX is powerful!
one dude: I know, but...
---
an oversimplification, I know Well, anyway, it's nice when everyone can be right. Not that there isn't some genuine disagreement. I remember seeing on another thread someone made the point that OSX strays much more from the Human Interface Guidelines that Apple itself wrote, than does OS9.
My own take? I, too, adopted OSX for the power and stability. I do find myself putting up with latency and GUI issues, but, my hope is that as obsessively as Apple worked on OS x-9, they will do the same to OSX until it's just as snappy (it really is amazing that they have gotten the speed and the GUI so far as they did, and the point of some other posters that when you compare this to X-windows/CDE, it is just a quantum leap forward, is absolutely right -- and all this, with an admittedly large penalty in speed going with a Mach- instead of a monolithic- kernel; seriously, that's amazing).
So, I found this thread valuable, and I know why fryke was frustrated, and I know why others were, too.
OSX power > OS9 power
OSX speed < OS9 speed
OS9 GUI > OSX GUI (arguable, but reasonable opinion)
OSX GUI > X-Windows/CDE GUI
OSX power <= generic Unix power
OSX speed < generic Unix speed
A controversial matrix, that hopefully stimulates effort and discussion around features to improve and be happy about.
-0
Have hope, remember we're still early in this transition. At least that's what I keep reminding myself.
There are defintely some things that need tweaking, but overall I am very pleased with the added productivity X has given me. It has been a very rough transition for me personally as the apps SLOWLY trickled in and some apps got dumped and replced for other and some things I simply had to let die with no replacement. Even with all that, X has proven itself to be a very impressive foundation.
As for it being a mistake, absolutely not. At first I thought so, but I was wrong. I also thought APple should have bought Be Inc., but I was wrong about that too. That's why Steve's the man and I'm not. He has vision. UNIX as a foundation is a brilliant move. You immediately open yourself up to the best of the best in the programming world. If you can have them on your side, it's all good from there. What good is a great computer and its OS without the software? None. Application programmers determine all our fates and APple doesn't have the resources to create an entire line of applications.
Slap a beautiful GUI like Aqua (we can argue over whether it's beautiful or not later, let's agree that it's better than a terminal interface) and now all of a sudden you've got the consumer world on your side too. OS X is a brilliant marriage or power and aesthetics.
As readers on this board now, I have been bitching about X's speed in the graphics layer for months. I'l continue to do so here. It is a weakness right now. I have to believe it will be resolved. I still don't know who to blame. People want me to blame app developers, but EVERY SINGLE DEVLOPER has been proven to not be able to come up with an app that rivals OS 9's speed. The only exception that I have found? Apple's own software, especially Final Cut Pro which glides along every bit a smoothly as in 9.
Here's some other annoyances that bug me:
spring loaded folders (looks like it's unanimous that we all want em)
labels (a very powerful underrated feature)
a cursor you can see as you arrow around when renaming files (is anyone else totally annoyed by this?)
hot-keying to file name in dialog windows by pressing the first letter in its title doesn't work (zoinks!)
slow resizing of windows and other screen graphics in many Carbon apps
But here's just a few of the very, very good things that the UNIX decision gives us:
long file names
fast network speed (I've got an iMac serving up files faster than our dedicated Windows2000 Advanced Server!)
very stable as you well know
NO MORE MEMORY ALLOCATION!!!!!!
built-in server
potential access to a boatload of high end database, 3D, engineering, etc, applications just waiting to be ported
My friend, OS X may have its issues, but it is very far from a mistake. It may be Apple's salvation.
As for interface design, which was the main point of your statement. Obviously, it's subjective. For me, I like it. It's much cleaner and beautiful. But so what? How about INTERFACE? Again, other than a few caveats as mentioned above, I prefer X's approach. I like column view, very cool. I like transparent windows (not sure why there's a growing aversion to this). I love single window view. I like the folder view options for constraint and size. I find the red, yellow, green Aqua system a bit odd and unintuitive, but I like that I can click on a window that's four layers deep to close it without effecting the front windows, nice. I freaking love the dock, though I'd like to see some slightly better solutions for when you try and hide it, but it keeps popping up as you're working (ever try and edit in Final Cut Pro with a hidden dock?). I like having higher quality icons. I like long file names. I like how I can get to where I need to quicker via the dock or Finder. I DON'T like where some things are, like fonts and buried preferences and techno files that I don't understand and such. I also DON'T like seeing what should be hidden files in some cases (temp files in particular. DO NOT show me these, Apple, what's the point?). These are just a few examples of why, for me, Aqua and X is indeed a better interface.
There are defintely some things that need tweaking, but overall I am very pleased with the added productivity X has given me. It has been a very rough transition for me personally as the apps SLOWLY trickled in and some apps got dumped and replced for other and some things I simply had to let die with no replacement. Even with all that, X has proven itself to be a very impressive foundation.
As for it being a mistake, absolutely not. At first I thought so, but I was wrong. I also thought APple should have bought Be Inc., but I was wrong about that too. That's why Steve's the man and I'm not. He has vision. UNIX as a foundation is a brilliant move. You immediately open yourself up to the best of the best in the programming world. If you can have them on your side, it's all good from there. What good is a great computer and its OS without the software? None. Application programmers determine all our fates and APple doesn't have the resources to create an entire line of applications.
Slap a beautiful GUI like Aqua (we can argue over whether it's beautiful or not later, let's agree that it's better than a terminal interface) and now all of a sudden you've got the consumer world on your side too. OS X is a brilliant marriage or power and aesthetics.
As readers on this board now, I have been bitching about X's speed in the graphics layer for months. I'l continue to do so here. It is a weakness right now. I have to believe it will be resolved. I still don't know who to blame. People want me to blame app developers, but EVERY SINGLE DEVLOPER has been proven to not be able to come up with an app that rivals OS 9's speed. The only exception that I have found? Apple's own software, especially Final Cut Pro which glides along every bit a smoothly as in 9.
Here's some other annoyances that bug me:
spring loaded folders (looks like it's unanimous that we all want em)
labels (a very powerful underrated feature)
a cursor you can see as you arrow around when renaming files (is anyone else totally annoyed by this?)
hot-keying to file name in dialog windows by pressing the first letter in its title doesn't work (zoinks!)
slow resizing of windows and other screen graphics in many Carbon apps
But here's just a few of the very, very good things that the UNIX decision gives us:
long file names
fast network speed (I've got an iMac serving up files faster than our dedicated Windows2000 Advanced Server!)
very stable as you well know
NO MORE MEMORY ALLOCATION!!!!!!
built-in server
potential access to a boatload of high end database, 3D, engineering, etc, applications just waiting to be ported
My friend, OS X may have its issues, but it is very far from a mistake. It may be Apple's salvation.
As for interface design, which was the main point of your statement. Obviously, it's subjective. For me, I like it. It's much cleaner and beautiful. But so what? How about INTERFACE? Again, other than a few caveats as mentioned above, I prefer X's approach. I like column view, very cool. I like transparent windows (not sure why there's a growing aversion to this). I love single window view. I like the folder view options for constraint and size. I find the red, yellow, green Aqua system a bit odd and unintuitive, but I like that I can click on a window that's four layers deep to close it without effecting the front windows, nice. I freaking love the dock, though I'd like to see some slightly better solutions for when you try and hide it, but it keeps popping up as you're working (ever try and edit in Final Cut Pro with a hidden dock?). I like having higher quality icons. I like long file names. I like how I can get to where I need to quicker via the dock or Finder. I DON'T like where some things are, like fonts and buried preferences and techno files that I don't understand and such. I also DON'T like seeing what should be hidden files in some cases (temp files in particular. DO NOT show me these, Apple, what's the point?). These are just a few examples of why, for me, Aqua and X is indeed a better interface.
Just a short interruption from the 'bad guy'. NOW this is getting more to the point. btw: good points, mindbend. transparency gets its aversion from the fact that screen clutter leads to total confusion now. and you (and someone else) said mac os x was not a mistake but apple's saviour. i didn't mean they should have done nothing since 9.1, but should have concentrated more on their strengths as a company who did THE great user interface in the eighties.
NOW this is getting more to the point. btw: good points, mindbend. transparency gets its aversion from the fact that screen clutter leads to total confusion now. and you (and someone else) said mac os x was not a mistake but apple's saviour. i didn't mean they should have done nothing since 9.1, but should have concentrated more on their strengths as a company who did THE great user interface in the eighties.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Fryke: In addition to this quote that you seemingly overlooked (it deals with the GUI), I wanted to add something: I find myself working much faster in OS X than OS 9. That's not only because of the pre-emption features and other stuff, but because of the GUI. I can have windows from different applications interspersed between each other, which is a great thing. The Dock really does help me with its dock menus (I particularly like SlashDock, and SETIDockling). Column view is much better. Menu extras rock. I like being able to access the shut down, restart, login, and recent items as well as the location from any application.
I could keep on going, but OS X really does have a good GUI. I have to admit that, yes, I would love spring-loaded folders, and that yes, the speed of the Finder does still need a good speed boost, but OS X definitely has a better GUI, IMHO. I don't think Apple made any mistake at all.
Oh, and translucent menus are not harder to read at all. They are only slightly translucent, making it hard to read stuff BEHIND the menu, but you can read it nonetheless. Stuff IN the menu is just as readable, and the black of the text is still pure black, so I don't understand you're argument at all about how translucent menus make it harder to read. Also, OS X's menus open just as fast as OS 9's do -- maybe they don't on your system, but they do on mine.
Ricky
Registered
Amen!
Now we're getting somewhere. I also find myself much more productive with X, basically because it doesn't crash. But seriously, all those features that SimX mentioned are all helpful. The Dock is great for the GUI; it keeps all the apps I frequently use right there, and it's much better (and more sensible) than the Launcher in OS 9. I used to use the Launcher because it did all the things that the Dock does; keep my files and apps organized and within easy reach, and I can get it out of my way when I need to.
Recent items: Some of the apps that I don't use very often don't go in my Dock, but whenever I quit them I lose them out of my Dock. I just go to the Recent Items, and BAM! There they are.
I don't find the translucent menus a problem. I know they're a bit on the slow side in terms of appearing, but I don't know if that happens on all Macs. On my dad's G3's they're pretty snappy. I don't think they're unreadable either.. and I have bad eyes. XP
The red-yellow-green thing can be fixed by choosing a Graphite scheme.
I like being able to close a window without having to make it active. That is the best feature for me. Switching apps is kind of slow too.
Apple revolutionized the computing world with the release of Mac OS 1.0. (I had that on my first Mac!) Windows adapted to look a lot like it. Apple's still the company that revolutionized the GUI. If you look at Windows XP, it looks a lot like Mac OS X. This is solid proof that Apple has changed the face of computing forever.. because Windows copied them. Once Microsoft copies something, they don't let go.
There's been a trend of Microsoft copying Apple.. time for a lawsuit!
Now, I also realize that this isn't the perfect system release. OS X is still very slow. But keep this in mind:
10.0 was around 75% slower than 10.1.
They're working on this. Yet again, be patient. They'll come through, they always have.
Now we're getting somewhere. I also find myself much more productive with X, basically because it doesn't crash
. But seriously, all those features that SimX mentioned are all helpful. The Dock is great for the GUI; it keeps all the apps I frequently use right there, and it's much better (and more sensible) than the Launcher in OS 9. I used to use the Launcher because it did all the things that the Dock does; keep my files and apps organized and within easy reach, and I can get it out of my way when I need to.Recent items: Some of the apps that I don't use very often don't go in my Dock, but whenever I quit them I lose them out of my Dock. I just go to the Recent Items, and BAM! There they are.
I don't find the translucent menus a problem. I know they're a bit on the slow side in terms of appearing, but I don't know if that happens on all Macs. On my dad's G3's they're pretty snappy. I don't think they're unreadable either.. and I have bad eyes. XP
The red-yellow-green thing can be fixed by choosing a Graphite scheme.
I like being able to close a window without having to make it active. That is the best feature for me. Switching apps is kind of slow too.
Apple revolutionized the computing world with the release of Mac OS 1.0. (I had that on my first Mac!) Windows adapted to look a lot like it. Apple's still the company that revolutionized the GUI. If you look at Windows XP, it looks a lot like Mac OS X. This is solid proof that Apple has changed the face of computing forever.. because Windows copied them. Once Microsoft copies something, they don't let go.
There's been a trend of Microsoft copying Apple.. time for a lawsuit!
Now, I also realize that this isn't the perfect system release. OS X is still very slow. But keep this in mind:
10.0 was around 75% slower than 10.1.
They're working on this. Yet again, be patient. They'll come through, they always have.
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
I have to admit I LOVE Mac OS X. I used NeXTSTEP as my first Unix operationg environment when I was still in high school and instantly fell in love with it. Thus I was completely gun-ho about OS X. However, I have to admit that Aqua is FAR from perfect in many aspects. First of all, I am not an OS 9 fan, I used Macs for a few years (when 7.5 first came onto the scene), but I was never a zealot when it came to Mac's UI. I thought it was nice, but I didn't think Win9x was all that far behind (ducking from flames). However, my main draw to Mac OS was simply the fact that the OS architecture itself was simpler (at least on the client side). I was able to drag and delete applications without worrying about shared libraries (ala Win9x), and the idea of configuring the OS via draggable control panels and extensions was great too. In other words, the actual management of the OS itself was what set Mac OS (pre X) apart from the Windows crowd.
There is no doubt Mac OS X is an amazing achievement. I love it. I am a J2EE developer and I have an iBook with OS X as my own personal development environment. I even installed WebLogic onto it to develop EJB's (despite what BEA says, you CAN install WebLogic on OS X). Finally I have a Unix based OS that allows me to run all the Unix apps I need and a polished UI. However there are many "features" of Aqua that IMHO un-necessarily slows the system down without providing much value to usability. For example, what's with all the transparency? Sure, it looks cool, but does drop-down menus really need to be semi-transparent? It's not transparent enough for me to read what's underneath it (why would you need to, I don't know), yet it's not opaque to hide completely what's under it. Secondly, if you have multiple windows open, and when the windows are not in focus, the titlebars become transparent. At first, it seems like a logical way to differentiate between foreground and background windows, but when you have multiple background windows, the titlebars layer each other so you can't really tell the layering anymore. Why? What's the point? These issues and such animations as "genie effects" for minimizing windows are all just eye candy without adding value. And these eye candy sucks processing power!
There is so much about Mac OS X that I love. In fact, without OS X, I wouldn't have even came back to the Mac platform, but some of the Aqua UI design decisions really doesn't make much sense. It sometimes sadden me to think the potential that is underneath the gooey layer that is Aqua. I like the PDF-esque rendering and I agree that staying with Display PS would've been a bad choice (the technology is expensive and outdated), but I feel that so much of Aqua is implemented with a "this would be cool" mindset, rather than "this would be helpful".
Just my humble opinion.
-B
There is no doubt Mac OS X is an amazing achievement. I love it. I am a J2EE developer and I have an iBook with OS X as my own personal development environment. I even installed WebLogic onto it to develop EJB's (despite what BEA says, you CAN install WebLogic on OS X). Finally I have a Unix based OS that allows me to run all the Unix apps I need and a polished UI. However there are many "features" of Aqua that IMHO un-necessarily slows the system down without providing much value to usability. For example, what's with all the transparency? Sure, it looks cool, but does drop-down menus really need to be semi-transparent? It's not transparent enough for me to read what's underneath it (why would you need to, I don't know), yet it's not opaque to hide completely what's under it. Secondly, if you have multiple windows open, and when the windows are not in focus, the titlebars become transparent. At first, it seems like a logical way to differentiate between foreground and background windows, but when you have multiple background windows, the titlebars layer each other so you can't really tell the layering anymore. Why? What's the point? These issues and such animations as "genie effects" for minimizing windows are all just eye candy without adding value. And these eye candy sucks processing power!
There is so much about Mac OS X that I love. In fact, without OS X, I wouldn't have even came back to the Mac platform, but some of the Aqua UI design decisions really doesn't make much sense. It sometimes sadden me to think the potential that is underneath the gooey layer that is Aqua. I like the PDF-esque rendering and I agree that staying with Display PS would've been a bad choice (the technology is expensive and outdated), but I feel that so much of Aqua is implemented with a "this would be cool" mindset, rather than "this would be helpful".
Just my humble opinion.
-B
actually, the one thing thats really getting on my nerves is the os x finder. it is sooooooooo buggy and sooooo slow. its not even multithreaded, copying files sucks big time, list view sucks, and so on and so on. i hope they will soon get the functionality of the old os 9 finder into os x. but i don't really think this will happen soon as they havent updated the finder since 10.1.
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
if you don't like the OS X Finder, you can replace it with Snax. Snax is Cocoa based, and has some really nice features.
http://www.cocoatech.com/products/
http://www.cocoatech.com/products/
Just out of curiosity, how many of you people use Macintosh/Windows/Linux/Unix simultaneously?
I run a medium-sized multimedia design shop, and funny enough we're all about Windows 2000 Pro , and various flavors of Linux, and one solitary OS X machine. For all thee who wonder, our Windows 2000 Pro setups *don't crash*. period. We also use Windows 2000 Servers, and they *don't crash*. period. Linux is a sweetie too.
At home I have a couple of Macs (cube and g4 866) running OS X 10.1.3, and I use a new ibook for my personal work, and for shuttling data back and forth. I've rarely used os 9, let alone 8, since i defected from the Mac OS to Win 95 back in August of '95. Again, for anyone who cares, I've been using computers heavily since 1984, and I was onboard wit the first PCs, Apples, and even the very first Macs, through the SEs, and the SE30s, and the IIcx-es and the IIci-s, and the IIfx-es, and the Power Computings, etc...Now that I live, breathe, work and sleep with all of these OSes, and I've been back with the Mac again for close to a year --and this is a very personal and subjective opinion--I have to say that what I feel is that OSX is fun, pretty, sexy, slick, but if you wanna get some real work done, then roll up the sleeves and sit in front of a Windows 2000 Pro/Server machine or Linux machine and kick some work-ethic ass.
Yes, I like OS X, but at the moment its really not that practical, and in rendering that lovely interface, it puts millions of processor cycles to complete waste. Its bad enough that GUIs like Windows 2000 Pro already rob your CPU as much as they do, why waste more?
I can be suckered into OS X, whole heartedly, if one single windows feature that I really really really love makes its way in: Resizing a window from any corner or edge! Sounds fickle, but as far as I know its the most convenient way to manage multiple windows on the screen at any given time. Is there a way to currently achieve this?
Anyway, i recommend that everyone stay as platform agnostic as possible, because they're JUST F***** OSes! There are more significant things in this world. Like washing machines: I think General Electrics rock, all you Maytag lovers suck balls!
BackInMac
I run a medium-sized multimedia design shop, and funny enough we're all about Windows 2000 Pro , and various flavors of Linux, and one solitary OS X machine. For all thee who wonder, our Windows 2000 Pro setups *don't crash*. period. We also use Windows 2000 Servers, and they *don't crash*. period. Linux is a sweetie too.
At home I have a couple of Macs (cube and g4 866) running OS X 10.1.3, and I use a new ibook for my personal work, and for shuttling data back and forth
. I've rarely used os 9, let alone 8, since i defected from the Mac OS to Win 95 back in August of '95. Again, for anyone who cares, I've been using computers heavily since 1984, and I was onboard wit the first PCs, Apples, and even the very first Macs, through the SEs, and the SE30s, and the IIcx-es and the IIci-s, and the IIfx-es, and the Power Computings, etc...Now that I live, breathe, work and sleep with all of these OSes, and I've been back with the Mac again for close to a year --and this is a very personal and subjective opinion--I have to say that what I feel is that OSX is fun, pretty, sexy, slick, but if you wanna get some real work done, then roll up the sleeves and sit in front of a Windows 2000 Pro/Server machine or Linux machine and kick some work-ethic ass. Yes, I like OS X, but at the moment its really not that practical, and in rendering that lovely interface, it puts millions of processor cycles to complete waste. Its bad enough that GUIs like Windows 2000 Pro already rob your CPU as much as they do, why waste more?
I can be suckered into OS X, whole heartedly, if one single windows feature that I really really really love makes its way in: Resizing a window from any corner or edge! Sounds fickle, but as far as I know its the most convenient way to manage multiple windows on the screen at any given time. Is there a way to currently achieve this?
Anyway, i recommend that everyone stay as platform agnostic as possible, because they're JUST F***** OSes! There are more significant things in this world. Like washing machines: I think General Electrics rock, all you Maytag lovers suck balls!
BackInMac
hmm... it's nice that you get your work done in windows 2k. super. i'm getting my work done with mac os x, so i guess there are different opinions around. (my windows 2k box is running linux most of the time because i'm a web developer. can't use win 2k for that.)
but this thread was not 'your moma's os flame war'. it was about OS X and what was left behind with OS 9.
i think it's clear as water: linux for webservers (and development), macintosh for graphics design (and development), windows for microsoft office. really, office v.x is nice and all, but if you're a secretary, there's nothing like a cheap wintel box running microsoft office.
but this thread was not 'your moma's os flame war'. it was about OS X and what was left behind with OS 9.
i think it's clear as water: linux for webservers (and development), macintosh for graphics design (and development), windows for microsoft office. really, office v.x is nice and all, but if you're a secretary, there's nothing like a cheap wintel box running microsoft office.
Valrus
Now With Even More Dumb!
BackInMac, your last paragraph made me laugh out loud.
I would like to be more platform-agnostic, but at this point I'm just too set in my ways. I have never had a purely positive experience on a Windows machine, and for that reason I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay a Mac zealot who can use Windows when he absolutely *has* to. But I can respect and maybe even envy your position.
-the valrus
I would like to be more platform-agnostic, but at this point I'm just too set in my ways. I have never had a purely positive experience on a Windows machine, and for that reason I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay a Mac zealot who can use Windows when he absolutely *has* to. But I can respect and maybe even envy your position.
-the valrus
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Interesting quote, but I actually find that I get much more work done on OS X. And yes, I've been immersed in Windows both at work during last summer and over the 4 years at high school. I think I'm pretty much as platform agnostic as you can be.
However everyone's biased. You know why? Because everyone's used some operating system before and so they are going to be used to using that operating system. It's no different from the switch to OS X from OS 9. I STILL have some habits that I fall back to that just don't work in OS X yet (one example is the annoying open/save dialog boxes... you used to be able to use the keyboard to navigate around in there, but now it just chokes -- I hope that gets fixed). So if you come from a Windows environment, you're probably going to like Windows better. It sounds to me that you've been predominantly in Windows in UNIX until Mac OS X came around, so you've got a bias there.
However, it's basically a fact that a new user who has never used a computer can get more done on a Mac than they can on any other platform, just because it is more intuitive and more easy-to-use, especially when you factor the iApps into the picture.
As for me? My productivity goes waaaaay down the drain when I get onto a Windows machine. It's just completely unintuitive. I absolutely CAN'T STAND applications that have an enclosing window and then several windows inside that window. That just limits the usability so much (one example used to be Hotline on Windows). And the fact that the menu bar is not ALWAYS on the top of the screen just halves my productivity right there. These are fundamental user interface flaws, and you might have gotten used to them, but I haven't.
Again, an opinion based on habit (I'm not bashing you here, I'm trying to point it out). I can't stand this feature in Windows and I will vehemently express my opinion to PREVENT it from coming into Mac OS X. I really do hate it. It doesn't save time at all, and I rarely have to resize a window just vertically or horizontally, so I'll have to go to the corner anyway. Plus, it's just another thing that can get in the way, and I really hate that about Windows -- it gets in the way a lot of the time (yes, this is an opinion based on my habits too).
I'm just trying to point out that's it's very hard to be platform agnostic even if you live in a place where there are multiple operating systems. You end up preferring one, and yours happens to be Windows 2000. I, on the other hand, am much more productive in OS X.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
I for one have all of those platforms currently running here at my home (clockwise around the room: Irix 5.3, Solaris 7, A/UX 3.0, Irix 6.2, Mac OS 8.6, Mac OS X 10.1, Mac OS 8.1, Irix 5.3 [yes another one], Rhapsody 5.1, OPENSTEP 4.2/Red Hat 6.2, and Windows 3.1/95/98/NT4.0sp6/ME/2000Pro in VPC and another Rhapsody 5.1 [my ThinkPad in my bag by the door]). I currently do consulting, and the ratio of Macs to Windows systems used by my clients is better than 4:1 (though currently only one person is using Mac OS X). There are very few systems that I would not be able to be productive on (or fix for that matter), but the Mac OS is just the best there is (and that is a very experienced opinion).
Funny is right, your description would have me thinking that you had a small-sized multimedia design shop (I know of very few people who use Windows for anything multimedia because Microsoft is working so very hard to remove the multi part from Windows ability to work with media).
So you left the Mac platform (that is bought a new system) so you could use a version of Windows so bad that many users quickly ran back to Windows 3.1? The first version of Windows that even held a candle to the Mac OS (even 7.5 and 7.6) was Windows NT 4.0 sp3 (and that was just because it didn't crash, the GUI was still a weak link). And Windows is still plagued with but not having rootless applications (like simX brought up), even on my SGIs I don't have to have all the windows of a given app limited to one window. Talk about a productivity killer, that alone kept people from moving from the Mac OS even though Windows NT seemed much more stable. As for not having used Mac OS 8/9, you missed out. When set up correctly, those systems could actually give NT a run for it's money for uptime when being used as a workstation (I know this from personal experience having had a Windows NT 4.0 sp5 system and a Mac OS 8.6 system sitting side by side on my desk at my last job.
Then why do you use a Mac at all? You are completely off base when talking about users in general (productivity has more to do with what environment you are more comfortable working in), but I am guessing that you seem to believe that you can get more done on these other systems. So what do you think you (on Windows or Linux) can do that others (happy with their Macs) can't do? That is really the question, isn't it? What is it that you are doing so much more productively on your choice of systems that I could not do (and be as productive) on my choice of systems?
First you say that you have three Macs (two at home, and an iBook) and that you only use Mac OS X on them, then you don't think they are practical? What? It took you buying three systems to decide they are not practical? And then you say that the resizing of windows is the feature that ... what, makes them practical? Do you read this stuff before posting? From what you have posted, I would have to conclude that you are either masochistic or don't really own a Mac (actually I figure you do own a Mac, so I'm leaning towards masochistic
).
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
I use Windows2000 and Mac OS X. At my office (which I have to go to every other day), it's all Windows2000/NT4. At home, I have two Macs (see below), and one PIII/800, which is basically used only when there is something that I can't do on the mac (or via VPC). It's a last resort box, that occassionally gets used to run Spinner, again, something not available for OS X (at least until Real gets off their arse with a OS X version).
I've used many OS' from 1979 on. Win3.1 was my first "GUI" system. I used it for about 1 year until I discovered the real thing - a Mac running System 7. I looked at Win95 when it came out and yawned. I re-evaluated Windows again when Win98 came out. Another yawn. When I switched jobs in '99 from desktop publishing (all mac) to web design, I found myself at a job that used nothing but NT4. I adapted (still used my Macs for freelance and work at home) and solidered on NT4. Let me say this about NT4 - it's stable. That's about all you can say about it, because other than that - it sucks. The GUI is horrible, it's unintuitive, and very hard to use.
In 2000, I was getting very disenchanted with Apple's continued delay in producing a next generation OS. I took a real hard look at Windows2000, and liked what I saw. It's rock solid, has tons of apps, and addresses a few of the problems I had with NT4's GUI. It's still not half as easy to use as a Mac, but it was good enough that I couldn't dismiss it anymore. I got a PIII and used it, thinking that I may one day migrate completely from the Mac to Windows.
All that changed when Apple shipped OS X. Sure, the first version lacked in many things, but it addressed my number one problem with the Mac OS of old - stability - even when using Classic applications. The promise upon OS X's release was finally becoming a reality, and I gave Apple another 6 months to get the last pieces fixed. They did, and 10.1 was released. It was what OS X should have been from the start (I forgive Apple for shipping 10.0 as it was - if they didn't, the apps would haven't appeared until late 2002).
OS X has been my daily OS since it's release. Since 10.1's release, I have only booted back in to 9 (from my Norton CD) to run SpeedDisk. I'm currently running the PS7 betas (anxiously awaiting the shipment of my own copy), and the Dreamweaver beta (again, anxiously awaiting my copy), FlashMX, Illustrator10, Office v.X, and Lightwave 7 (best 3D app available). I do web design every day, along with video editing & compositing.
OS X is a leap frog over the current Windows offering. Apple is firmly back in the driver seat. I'm not slagging XP, because it looks like it has some nice improvements over Win2000, but I will not be upgrading for two reasons - 1) the licensing agreement, and 2) the 4 item limit on changing out a component before Microsoft tells you to stop and call them to ask if it's OK.
Anyway - the point of this diatribe is that many of us use OS X as our daily OS, and don't suffer in the least because of it. Some of us even do it with a fully capable Win2000 machine on the same desk....
I've used many OS' from 1979 on. Win3.1 was my first "GUI" system. I used it for about 1 year until I discovered the real thing - a Mac running System 7. I looked at Win95 when it came out and yawned. I re-evaluated Windows again when Win98 came out. Another yawn. When I switched jobs in '99 from desktop publishing (all mac) to web design, I found myself at a job that used nothing but NT4. I adapted (still used my Macs for freelance and work at home) and solidered on NT4. Let me say this about NT4 - it's stable. That's about all you can say about it, because other than that - it sucks. The GUI is horrible, it's unintuitive, and very hard to use.
In 2000, I was getting very disenchanted with Apple's continued delay in producing a next generation OS. I took a real hard look at Windows2000, and liked what I saw. It's rock solid, has tons of apps, and addresses a few of the problems I had with NT4's GUI. It's still not half as easy to use as a Mac, but it was good enough that I couldn't dismiss it anymore. I got a PIII and used it, thinking that I may one day migrate completely from the Mac to Windows.
All that changed when Apple shipped OS X. Sure, the first version lacked in many things, but it addressed my number one problem with the Mac OS of old - stability - even when using Classic applications. The promise upon OS X's release was finally becoming a reality, and I gave Apple another 6 months to get the last pieces fixed. They did, and 10.1 was released. It was what OS X should have been from the start (I forgive Apple for shipping 10.0 as it was - if they didn't, the apps would haven't appeared until late 2002).
OS X has been my daily OS since it's release. Since 10.1's release, I have only booted back in to 9 (from my Norton CD) to run SpeedDisk. I'm currently running the PS7 betas (anxiously awaiting the shipment of my own copy), and the Dreamweaver beta (again, anxiously awaiting my copy), FlashMX, Illustrator10, Office v.X, and Lightwave 7 (best 3D app available). I do web design every day, along with video editing & compositing.
OS X is a leap frog over the current Windows offering. Apple is firmly back in the driver seat. I'm not slagging XP, because it looks like it has some nice improvements over Win2000, but I will not be upgrading for two reasons - 1) the licensing agreement, and 2) the 4 item limit on changing out a component before Microsoft tells you to stop and call them to ask if it's OK.
Anyway - the point of this diatribe is that many of us use OS X as our daily OS, and don't suffer in the least because of it. Some of us even do it with a fully capable Win2000 machine on the same desk....
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
Maytag rocks so much harder than General Electric.
-B