Can Apple ever make up for the big mistake?

Wow!

All you forum pros! So much to respond to, so little time.

True, its all habit and personal opinion.
True, its not a 'what you can do versus what you can't do in each OS': all these OSes are pretty darn capable. What you can do on any computer today, makes computers 10 years ago look like a joke.
True, I have 4 Mac OS Xes in my life, and I like the OS, otherwise I wouldn't have bought that many. More importantly, my wife likes the OS-- sysadmin at home making sound technical decisions :)
True, I have a masochistic streak
True, our production computers and servers *never crash*. Small/Medium/Large its all relative, in my case Medium is 29 or so, Production workstations. 11 Servers (some live, some experimental) and one Mac OSX machine. Actually, now that you bring it up, i quite like the way OS X interoprates within our Windows/Linux/Solaris enviroment...

but i'll hold steadfast, General Electric with Tide, kicks all other washing-machine butt

BackInMac
 
Maytag, GE, whatever. All the rage these days are the frontloaders. Someone's actually figured out that gravity is of useful assistance in beating the crud out of clothing, (Europe). Man, they do a great job. Use whatever soap you want, too. But back to the idea at hand...

I want to ask something... and it's 'cause I don't know but I've heard...

When Intel gets to 10.832 Ghz on their processors, what is our PowerPC going to be at? I know that Mhz or Ghz labels don't absolutely define the effectiveness of a chip, but given this thread, it put thoughts in my head. (Like exercise, a novell experience...) Complaints about latency; complaints about usability and GUI; complaints on crashing, stability and transparency. Really, Unix is the right underpinning; most of these complaints can be sorted out by well-compensated folks at Apple or the community at large.

What about our chips? Where is the next G5, 6, or 8? It seems to me that the sheer volume of Wintel machines out there adequately funds further develpment of the Pentium lines. There's a need.

And now to prepare myself for the onslaught....
 
Maytag? GE? Kenmore?

HAH!

Frigidaire is the best brand of washers AND driers, especially since both are front-loading (go gravity!).
 
Originally posted by BackInMac
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 [/B]
Click to expand...

That's your first and final warning man.

Don't swear on this board again!

(I figure w/ 13 posts you're sorta new, so I'm assuming you missed the "don't swear in here" posts.)

Thanks.
 
fryke-
windows does NOT have AA text throughout the system better then OSX. no OS in the world does that i know. OSX flat out kiss ass over any OS in the world when it comes to how good the text looks. So that's funny you say windows looks better with text. i think it's ugly big time compared to os x.
 
Im getting my Mac this summer BECOUSE of OS X.
No OS X, No Mac for me. The old system you had was, and im not exagerating here, just plain ****

But I wont be forgiving to Apple if they dont let the user (read me) customize the system to the users needs. (witch Mac isnt known for really) often the user is considered an idiot... hehe.

Basicly, im looking for a new Amiga in the year 2002... Fast, reliable, good looking, customizable and way ahead of the competition.
Apple are very close to that now.

And sorry for my english... :)
 
Originally posted by Securion
The old system you had was, and im not exagerating here, just plain ****.

And sorry for my english... :)
Click to expand...

I have found that people who try to use other operating systems the same way as the ones they are currently using seem to have the most problems. I would suggest, and I'm not exaggerating here, that you learn how to use a system before making judgments about it. My guess is that you'll be just as unhappy with Mac OS X if you find the old Mac OS not to your liking. I can't remember the last time I had any problems with Mac OS 9 on any of my systems, but then again, I know how to use it.

Please be sure before you buy a Mac. Macs are not Windows systems, they are not Linux, they are in the end just Macs.
 
OK, I'm not sure if this was addressed later on that I read (My eyes are hurting so I skimmed from about 3/4 onwards...) but all people mentioning slow responsiveness in OS X seem to be using G3 systems. Remember, OS X was actually designed for the G4, and actually works faster than OS 9 on these systems. Of course, I'm not saying you're wrong by saying it's slower. On your systems it slower, but that's not Apple's fault.

Note: I am not saying this with anger or anything, and I am definately not discriminating against G3 users ;)
 
Originally posted by buggs1a
fryke-
windows does NOT have AA text throughout the system better then OSX. no OS in the world does that i know. OSX flat out kiss ass over any OS in the world when it comes to how good the text looks. So that's funny you say windows looks better with text. i think it's ugly big time compared to os x.
Click to expand...

Actually, I hate to admit it, but Windows XP actually does have fully anti-aliased test throughout. I've been using my sister's Toshiba laptop for a while, and it does actually do a pretty damn good job at it. Even on it's low resolution screen, some of the test looks better than my iMac, and also, OS X doesn't AA lower than size 9 (maybe 8 can't remember) while ALL test is AA in windows. Sorry, had to point that out. :)
 
Originally posted by Dradts
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.
-----
iMac DV SE 500 / 256 MB RAM / 30 GB HD / 8 MB ATI RAGE PRO 128 / MacOS 9.2.2 / MacOS X 10.1.2
Click to expand...

Now, have a look at your system specs, and I'm sure you'll find your iMac is using a G3 processor. Mac OS X incorporates Velocity Engine technology... found only in the G4 chip... wonder why it's not that fast for you? It's not Finder's fault.
 
From RacerX:
My guess is that you'll be just as unhappy with Mac OS X if you find the old Mac OS not to your liking.
Click to expand...
In most cases I might agree with you. But I really don't like working in OS9. I love OS X.
 
In another thread you said that you hadn't worked in the Classic OS since System 7. But to continue on with your point, what is the difference between the two as you see it?

From my point of view, the layout is pretty much the same. All the major interface features are still there (though I still like Rhapsody better because of the Apple Menu). What was so different that you didn't like Mac OS 9 but love Mac OS X?
 
Originally posted by Hypernate
OK, I'm not sure if this was addressed later on that I read (My eyes are hurting so I skimmed from about 3/4 onwards...) but all people mentioning slow responsiveness in OS X seem to be using G3 systems. Remember, OS X was actually designed for the G4, and actually works faster than OS 9 on these systems. Of course, I'm not saying you're wrong by saying it's slower. On your systems it slower, but that's not Apple's fault.
Click to expand...

Considering that until January of this year, all "consumer" Macintosh models were G3 machines, and considering that Apple has been bundling and moving users to OS X for the past year or so, OF COURSE it's Apple's fault for making the Finder so slow on the MAJORITY of its user base! In fact, Apple has been telling its users that Mac OS X would run well on all G3 and up machines since day one.

Look, I know Apple still has ways to go in terms of optimization, and I know OS X is still in its infancy, but the fault for the Finder for being so slow and buggy on G3's is COMPLETELY Apple's fault. It's certainly ridiculous to point fingers at G3 users and tell them to get G4's when there weren't even consumer G4 machines until January! In fact, there isn't even a G4 consumer laptops!

-B
 
Originally posted by phatsharpie


Maytag rocks so much harder than General Electric.

-B
Click to expand...



The UI of the Dyson is far superior to these, plus it never crashes, and has an Aqua theme.
 
Originally posted by buggs1a
fryke-
windows does NOT have AA text throughout the system better then OSX. no OS in the world does that i know. OSX flat out kiss ass over any OS in the world when it comes to how good the text looks. So that's funny you say windows looks better with text. i think it's ugly big time compared to os x.
Click to expand...

Windows XP uses ClearType, subpixel-based antialiasing, which looks extremely good on LCD (TFT) screens and also gives better results than 'normal' (grayscale) antialiasing on CRT monitors. Adobe has developped a similar technology called 'CoolType' which you can turn on in Acrobat Reader. Look through its preferences, you'll find it.

The antialiasing used in Mac OS X is nothing to be so happy about. It's yesterdays technology sold to you as new. CoolType has been around, and I guess Apple would just have had to license it from Adobe but didn't want to so far. Or maybe it would make the system even slower, then maybe Adobe does something wrong there.

Other topic: Mac OS X faster on G4 than OS 9.x. Please notice that people who state that OS 9 feels faster don't mean application speed. They mean the sluggishness of menus, the wait time browsing a harddisk and the like. Of course there are fields where OS X is actually faster or lets you work faster. But coming directly from OS 9, almost *everything* on OS X feels quite slow, whether you're using a G3 or a G4. Also there's no fast way to put stuff from several locations to several other locations. This will be addressed in Mac OS 10.2 with spring-open folders, but that's a feature from OS 9. Read the first posts about those things.
 
In another thread you said that you hadn't worked in the Classic OS since System 7. But to continue on with your point, what is the difference between the two as you see it?
Click to expand...

Dang it, you keep catching my slip ups! Knock it off! ;) The last real experience I had with a Mac was in fact System 7.5. But when my roommate first got her iMac I played around in System 9 before going to OS X. So I dabbled in System 9, and didn't see a lot of difference between that and System 7.

From my point of view, the layout is pretty much the same. All the major interface features are still there (though I still like Rhapsody better because of the Apple Menu). What was so different that you didn't like Mac OS 9 but love Mac OS X?
Click to expand...

The command line. The Unix base (read: Stability). Aqua. The multiple views from within the Finder. The dock.

All of these things are what I miss when using OS X. I installed FruitMenu, so I have similar functionality to the original Apple menu (which I think was a good thing), but it's still not quite the same.
 
Platform agnostic. That's a subject.

I may not be agnostic, but I tend to use the right system for each task. For a long time I just *needed* both a Linux box and a Mac box, because on one platform (Linux) I couldn't get graphical work done as fast as needed, and I lacked the support and development Adobe provided me with. On the other platform (Mac) I lacked stability and a testing environment for web development. Mac OS X is the answer here, so I gladly switched when it arrived. I still have a Linux box, because I like to work on two computers at the same time, but I could replace the Linux box with a G4 now. Only, there's no need to, because I don't want to work on two copies of Photoshop (let alone own two).

But the initial thread was about the step from OS 9 to OS X. The transition - which is often compared to the transition from 68k based Macs to PPC - wasn't as smooth as possible. Apple decided to try a fresh start. Apple was a GUI leader forever, it seems. With Mac OS X they killed many features OS 9 users learned to love (and work fast with). I think this was a mistake, because it makes the decision of a Mac OS 9 user to switch to OS X more difficult than needed. In many ways, Mac OS X 10.0 felt like a beta to many OS 9 users. In many ways, OS 10.1 *still* feels like a beta to OS 9 users, mainly because there are still features missing, still apps that are not ported (although that's not really Apple's fault). And the UI has rough ends that just don't fit Apple, which was very well known for UI excellence. That's why I asked, whether Apple can ever make up for the big mistake.

Maybe the answer is 'yes', and 10.2 will provide it. Maybe it's 'no' and the world is just going down a different path from now on.

If I had been 'Apple', I'd have taken the best of both worlds (OS 9 and OpenStep) and combined them to a truly modern, rock-solid and fast OS. 10.0 was *not* what I (personally, of course) saw as the best of both worlds. It was a strange new breed, and although it was (almost) truly modern, although it was rock-solid, it wasn't actually very fast compared to its parents. It was a slow child with a strange haircut.
 
by fryke
If I had been 'Apple', I'd have taken the best of both worlds (OS 9 and OpenStep) and combined them to a truly modern, rock-solid and fast OS. 10.0 was *not* what I (personally, of course) saw as the best of both worlds. It was a strange new breed, and although it was (almost) truly modern, although it was rock-solid, it wasn't actually very fast compared to its parents. It was a slow child with a strange haircut.
Click to expand...

I think I have to agree with fryke here. Having worked with all the systems (NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody, Mac OS X, Mac OS 8/9), I would have to say that Mac OS X is slow by comparison to the systems that led up to it. I have work with NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and Rhapsody 5.1 on Pentium 133 systems and found them to actually be quite responsive. I now have Rhapsody 5.6 (Mac OS X Server 1.2) on a PowerBook G3 266, and it is very nice. But Mac OS X 10.1 on a G3 350 is not nearly as fast as my PowerBook with Rhapsody on it.

Somewhere things changed. Mac OS X DP3 & 4 both needed only 64 MB of RAM, but now we consider someone with 256 MB to be handicapped. I don't know what the problem is (though I would guess Carbon), but I've been getting the feeling that Apple feels the solution is to put out faster systems that cost less (but still cost something compared to using someone's existing system) rather than to invest in cleaning up the code.

I do like Mac OS X, but I look at OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and Mac OS 8/9, and I have to say that I think Apple may have missed the mark (though they seem to be correcting the problems each update and 10.1 seems pretty close).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top