Poll - will OS X succeed?

Has or will Mac OS X succeed when compared to Mac OS 8/9 and Windoze XXXX?

  • OS X is already more useable than OS 8/9 and Windoze XXXX

  • OS X needs a lot of work before it can compete with OS 8/9 and Windoze XXXX

  • OS X is already more functional than Windoze but not as good as OS 8/9

  • OS X with its UNIX base is too complex for your typical Mac user

  • Apple screwed up royally by releasing OSX final with an incomplete GUI


Results are only viewable after voting.

erdunbar

Registered
I know most people on here fall into a few broad categories, possibly including (1) early adopters, (2) *nix fans, (3) those who like the multitasking, (4) the Aqua GUI fans, and (5) curious by-standers (like me).

But, more importantly, will Apple succeed in fixing the interface and the experience enough to justify upgrading to OS X from Mac OS 8/9, rather than jumping ship to a cheaper/faster Windoze computer? Is Windoze currently better than OSX? Or, alternately, is OS X already as good as it has to be to kick butt?
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Hmmm...
Why would anyone compare OS X to windows this early in the game. OS X will succeed if adopted by current macusers, and adopted by programmers pure and simple. Once current macusers are won over then it's on to windows.

Do not get ahead of yourself :)


Admiral
 

erdunbar

Registered
Originally posted by AdmiralAK

Hmmm...

Why would anyone compare OS X to windows this early in the game. OS X will succeed if adopted by current macusers, and adopted by programmers pure and simple. Once current macusers are won over then it's on to windows.

Do not get ahead of yourself :)

Admiral
The reason I threw Windows is that Mac OS X is a "final" release product, and, as such, ought to be compared to other final releases, regardless of what Apple would like us to compare it to, and pretend that it is [not] a the real public beta.

I think it's going to be really hard to win over existing users if you can't provide performance similar to the current OS or Windoze. My computer is a B&W G3/450 with 192 MBs of RAM & a 12 gig drive. Not too slow by G3 & G4 standards (probably in the top 1/2 to 1/3 of all G3s & G4s in existence (including iMacs)). OS X behaves like a dog. Windoze 98 under 64 MB VPC 4.0 emulation launches programmes waaaay faster, and is more responsive than OS X native (not to mention that Explorer 5.5 handles strange web pages better than 5.1 under OSX... of course, that's M$ crippling the Mac version)!!!

That's not to say Apple won't beef up OS X performance, but they've probably lost a good chunk of sub-400 MHz G3 & G4 general + iMac users as potential clients if they don't (I like the multitasking, but I can't stand the clunky interface, slow response times or hideous Finder... I NEED the Apple menu & the application menu... my life is controlled by those two and losing them to the dock is more than I can take... not to mention that I've never been able to stand dock-like programmes under OS 8/9).

In all this bickering we have to keep a few things in mind: Apple doesn't give one iota about old G3s & G4s (or even new ones). Three considerations exist: selling new hardware (great margins) and selling OSX to existing clients to get them hooked, and require them to buy newer hardware eventually, and retaining existing customer loyalty.

So, if they can make more $$$ net by releasing an OS which is good enough that it will force people to buy Apple hardware again (rather than jumping ship to Windoze) they will (that'll include making OS X perform like a dog on sub G4/500 systems). If they can make more $$$ in the long run (2-3 years I'd guess) by releasing an OS which will run on slower G3s & G4s (not to mention all the high-end 604 & 603 users that will be left behind) they will to ensure people invest in software and have to buy their offerings a few years down the road.

But, to do that, they need a GUI performance which is true to the Mac OS 1/3/4/6/7/8/9 experience. That they do not have yet, and, if I can judge by the [lack of] difference between the GUI in the OSX DP4 and the OSX final, separated by a year, they have no intent of fixing the interface... which, IMNSHO is a mistake since one of the biggest draws to the Mac OS <10.0 for me is the elegance of the interface, and the power of the Finder.

From what I have experienced OS X's GUI is (at the moment) less functional than that offered by <yuck> Windoze (&, I have been a Mac fan since I started using the MacIntosh with System 0.97 and Finder 1.0 (when people still capitalized the I) in 1984). I've been happy with every other OS advance Apple came up with: Finder 5.3/System 3.2 provided better software support, System 6.0.x added true type fonts, System 7.0.1 was a leap forward for the Finder and for multitasking (& PPC support), OS 8.1 was a badly needed upgrade to outclass Windoze 95/98, and OS 9.0.4 has brought nirvana to my computer and whooped Windoze 2000 where it hurts as far as GUI and Finder are concerned. OS X is clunky besides even System 3.2/Finder 5.3 on a Mac 512 in many respects!!!

Ah well, Apple will be forced to come up with a good solution or else they'll sink. Sink or swim, and nearly every good money grubbing, spineless capitalist would rather compromise and swim than be obstinate and sink.

Anyway, I'm sure OS X will be improved. Right now they don't have the formula right, but, with a bit of work I'm sure it'll improve (they're in the business to make money, and to make money you need to make people happy, and to make people happy, you have to give them what they want (more or less), especially if there is *some* competition (although, I guess that didn't work too well in M$ case since they had Word for Mac 1.0 in 1984 and didn't catch up with a comparable product on the Windoze 3.1 side until Word for Windoze 2.0 in 1992 (when M$ Mac Word 4.0 already existed, and v 5.0 was being released)).

Right now, it seems that OS X appeals more to the *nix crowd than to the run-of-the-mill Mac user (judging by the number of people on here who list Linux as an alternate OS being run on their Mac).

L8r
 

erdunbar

Registered
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
Hmmm...
Why would anyone compare OS X to windows this early in the game. OS X will succeed if adopted by current macusers, and adopted by programmers pure and simple. Once current macusers are won over then it's on to windows.

Do not get ahead of yourself :)

Admiral
Just one more comment: to be adopted by current Mac OS 8/9 users & by programmers you have to have the framework (build it and they shall come). I'm not convinced there's enough of a framework to justify users switching, although the switch for programmers ought not be too great (Metroworks ;). If Apple can beef up the GUI it'll have no problems wining over Windoze users.

This is the greatest switch *ever* in the Mac's history (greater even than the move from Lisa/Macintosh XL to Macintosh, or from 68040 to PPC) and I'm disappointed that the R&D guys didn't coordinate their actions better with the marketing department. I'm not interested in a Linux or a Unix, I'm interested in a functional OS with a *good* GUI (a good GUI can make up for weak innards as Mac OS 8/9 show)!
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
OK, OS X is a final but,
if you are going to compare it with OS 9 (and less) and windows....why not compare it to IRIX, solaris, linux, QNX, BeOS ....and many more ? They are aaaaaaall final versions am I right ? So why not mention them. OS X is a final but it is a radically new OS for the mac and the PPC platform. It is a bit slow now but it will improve.

Furthermore, I think you are confusing useability with familiarity. Yes it is true that OS 9 is more useable BECAUSE as you have stated you have been using it since MacOS 0.97! You have gotten used to it and it seems more useable. Dont confuse familiarity with useability. If and when you get used to the OS X finder then you will see the error of your comparison.

This flaw of familiarity extends to the app menu and the apple menu. There is NO NEED for an apple menu, even though there exists one, and there is no need for an app menu, the dock takes care of this. If you want one then you can add a shareware/freeware program to do so.

And finally, coding and app development. <long pause to gather breath>
Apple has moved from one OS to another, deal with it. There *needs* to be a change in programming to reflect that and take advantage of the OS. You want to continue to write legacy apps ? go ahead they can run under classic. Just because people are getting used to one thing doesnt mean that that thing doesnt have to change. If it remains the same we stagnate. We need innovation in this world. I was superfamiliar with the old OS but it is time to move on. Things change, and we need to adapt. windows changed from win 3.x to win 9x and now its changing to an NT kernal. SOme like it, some dont. Its a matter of familiarity, and how much you are willing to change to be more productive, have more fun, get more info and so on.

Oh, one last thing. Yes MacOS X *could* run under less than G3 processors, but ti would be as slow as dirt and the OS would be burdened with extra code it would not need. I for one am GLAD OS X supports above G3 processors. IT saves you from headaches and frustrations. When win95 came out of course you needed bigger better machines to run it, why should OS X or any other OS differ ??? Also machines (low end) that did support win95 when it came out and had their owners that tried to run it got the owners of the machines angry and frustrated because win95 was slow in comparison ton win 3.x

Anyway...remember your history.


Admiral
 

RacerX

Old Rhapsody User
Admiral: "OK, OS X is a final but, if you are going to compare it with OS 9 (and less) and windows....why not compare it to IRIX, solaris, linux, QNX, BeOS ....and many more ?"

Another reason that comparing OS X to MacOS/Windows is not a fare comparision is the applications barrier. OS X is currently on almost equal footing with Irix, Solaris, QNX, BeOS, and others that may in fact be far superior to both the MacOS and Windows but don't have the application base.

Lets look at at the not so distant cusin of Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server 1.x. Here was a strong OS that could be run on 604e system (like the 8500, 9500, 8600, and 9600) and even some 603e systems (like the PowerBook 3400 and 2400). The general interface was more MacOS like than OS X is today. And lets not forget that it was released almost 2 years ago. Why didn't every one who posts on this page run out and buy it back then? Okay, besides the $499 price tag, I would bet that it was because of the complete lack of applications that would run on the system. Can anyone name a good word processor that runs on Server 1.x?

The point I would make is that until we get a bunch of mainstream apps (and alternative Cocoa apps), it is hard to farely compare OS X to any other OS accept the other application deprived systems.

Just my option.
 

kilowatt

mach-o mach-o man
I hear this rant about osx running slow on imacs all over this board. Whats up with that? I mean, is there something really different about imac architecture (besides the obvious) that makes osx run slow?

I've got one of the first G3's to come out - a beige g3 266, rev. 1.
128megs of ram, big 40 gig ide, usb/firewire card, extra ethernet card (on-board doesn't work, long story), and an ATI RAGE Orion video card (I 'm running 2 monitors, or heads).
USB mouse(three buttons, middle is a scroll wheel), adb keyboard. Serial port console/terminal.

Thats basicaly a really slow system with alot of custom hardware. Yet, it runs great.
Well, the video on the on-board graphics unit is pretty pitiful. But my rage orion at 1600x1200 looks and runs great. Dragging windows (live dragging, of course) can be a bit choppy, and iTunes might skip a beat, but it has worked flawlessly.

It hasn't crashed. I haven't ever run out of memory like you could in os9. Apache and the mach ftp server run fine. WebAdmin (for osx server 1.3), and Bash compiled. I mean, this is wonderful.

If its running so darn slow, call apple or something. You may wait on hold until osx 10.1 comes out, but tell those guys. Something is wrong!

Logging into a win NT station at my school takes about 50 seconds (password validation, maps 2 network drives). And thats on a 400mhz P3 with 256 megs of ram!!!! Now that sucks!

I'm dropped into the finder within 10 seconds of typing my username and password and hitting return. Can't beat that. iMac users: How long does it take to just login and get into the finder?

Oh, and more to the topic: even windows users know windows sucks. They admit it. Why do we compare osx to windows? $hits and Giggles, baby!
There is really something wrong with VPC running explorer faster than osx. I understand booting faster - sx has alot more to do. But wouldn't you rather drive a Harley than a bicycle? Sure, the Harley needs gas and oil, etc. But the bicycle sucks.

my 2 cents, as usually.
 

PoweMACuser

Registered
I think everyone will have his/her own answer when see this question.

Good os means

1. Stable (\/)
OS X is really stable than other OS.

2. Compatible (\/)
Hardware and Software compatible. OS X runs both Carbon and Cocoa application. But OS 9 runs Carbon and Classic application. OS 9 > OS X

3. Software Supported(X)
Few software support OS X. Futher it will better, but for OS classic, OS X application is always less than OS 9.

4. Comfortable(X)
I don't used fast to discribe that it is comfortable. If the speedbar only occurs for .05 second, nobody says that he/she feels comfortable. If the speedbar take a long time to respond, nobody feels comfortable. If the mouse is always wheeling, nobody feels comfortable.

All this is based on the course I have taken in my University call: Computer and Human Communication.

Does OS X is good OS? Your answer is always right. You are using different Kind of and Speed of machine. Your feeling is the best answer to yourself.

Let's take a survey that He/she feels OS X is good, let the data tells the true.
 

plaidpjs

Registered
This poll is misguided at best.

First, while OS 8 and 9 are similar, they are distinctly different. particularly in terms of performance. Therefore, to compare to both of them, as you have grouped them together, is next to impossible.

Second, the premise of your poll relies on OS X being similar to or the same as previous Mac OSes. It simply is NOT. The GUI is almost entirely new and the core IS entirely new. It is also, very different from any Windows OS that is or will be on the market in the near future. While it is possible to compare Apples to oranges, in doing so you will simply get no good results.

Third, while there are admittedly problems with OS X, the only way to determine its functionality is to actually use it. At the moment, unless you are, like me, prepared to go out on a limb and use entirley new software or experiment with the new opportunities available due to the Unix base, it is simply not feasible to make a conclusive determination of OS X's functionality across the board.

Fourth, OS X is essentially a 1.0 release. To expect it to have all of the "usability" of OS 9.x (a 20 year old OS) is next to ridiculous. Mind you, I am not talking about the simple functionality issues of an OS, I'm talking about the user enhancements that have been added over the years and the extension facilities that have been slapped on by numerous 3rd party programs.

As it stands, OS X is a wonder to behold. It is the first consumer OS to successfully meld an intuitive and graphically pleasing UI on top of a Unix core. because of the move to OS X, Mac users now have a standards based OS with stability and amazing room to grow. Not to mention the fact that we now get true-premptive multitasking, protected memory, a true multiprocessor aware OS, and access to the technologies that are driving the course of the "online" world (i.e., PHP, Python, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SSH, Perl, etc., etc.) and they come to us in native form, not in a Mac hacked version, which limits the usability of whatever we do with them.

Also, because of the move to OS X and a unix core, new developers are coming on almost daily with software that heretofore would never have made it to the Mac OS. Including those listed before, we also have Apache, Maya, Cinema 4D, and many, many others.

In total, while there are several areas that need "ironing" out in OS X, as a whole, we have gotten something from Apple which should help move the successfully through the next decade. And, if all goes well, the direction may also help to increase Apple market share and bring Mac users to a higher level of respectability in the general computer using populace. For what it is, there is no true comparison between OS X and OS 8/9, besides in terms of raw speed and customizability, both aspects of this new OS that are only just beginning to "find their feet."
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
OS X is gooooooddddd
(Esta mucho buenooooo --> trying to learn spanish to impress the babes lol )
(Einai foberooooo!!!!1 --> In greek to all the greek peoples out there)
(Es ist sehr Gut --> I hope my german prof sees this.. I NEED THE GOOD GRADE! )

OK to the serious part now:

Personally, if OS X was the *only* thing loaded on my mac I would have no prob.
I would research it more, get more shareware/freeware apps to customize the
heck out of it and make stuff work. fortunatelly/unfortunatelly I also have OS 9 on it and I have apps that I am used to running that OS X doesnt support currently like VPC ( yes I have to use windows to see those nice little .exe animated cards that my friends send me from time to time, and I experiment with other OSs...I think someone else had the term "OS whore" for this behavior. A bit dirty for my tastes but anyway).

I like OS X, I have decorated it with Mr Sparkle, I have downloaded apps to run on it, the fact remains that it is a nice OS that lacks application support. Once OS X has more apps, people will look beyond what seems the lack of speed or lack of support and get it, use it, and fall in love with it (well... in the figurative sense).

And as far as speed goes, I agree with a couple of posters back that people are running different systems with different configs and so on. People are going to notice speed diffs. If two machines are exactly the same, and there is a diff, then there is a prob! No two machines are the same, heck we even name em differently! Granted that In comparison to OS 9, OS X ain't the same, but it's only 2 months ol in its final form. OS 9 has been in "final" for a couple of decades ???



Admiral
 

erdunbar

Registered
Since I triggered this thread, I feel compelled to respond [again]

One observation I have to make [again] is that from the bulk of the posts here most people here are early adopters, OS experimenters (as shown by the # of Linux users), & Mac fans.

Don't get me wrong, I *love* the underlying stability. It's the behaviour of the GUI that is a serious problem for me. One poster mentioned OS familiarity vs. functionality and I've kept that in mind, ever since I first got the opportunity to play with DP4 nearly a year ago.

I have attempted to be objective in my experiments with OSX because I long ago recognised that there are GUI kludges in Mac OS 8/9 & Windows 95/98/2000/etc (yes, I include Windows because, like it or not, it's a pretty polished interface) that are likely not optimal and merely legacy items.

As for the one comment that Mac OS 8 vs. 9 are markedly different: I disagree. If you know how to use OS 8, it will take you *seconds* to figure out OS 9 and vice versa for 90-95% of the not-so-everyday Finder tasks. For everyday tasks they are virtually identical. Thus, lumping 8/9 is not an unreasonable assumption.

For everyday tasks OS 8/9 are not different in from OS X (except that there has been a further improvement in multitasking over 8 to 9 to X) [of course, there's also not that much of a difference b/t Mac OS and Windows for those tasks]. You create documents, enter data, play games, quit programmes, draw shapes, type, etc the same way.

What kills OS X for me is that I've been stuck in a Kalidoscope scheme (from which I cannot escape by disabling Kalidoscope (I don't like Windows, even after having used it for 1000s of hours, because IT IS UGLY vs. Mac OS 6/7/8/9) which sucks beyond belief, fonts that are too big for my young eyes (I'm nowhere near far-sighted), etc. I like the *look* of OS X (it looks *good*), but when it comes to using it all the fanciness takes over and interferes with the work (which is why I have never been fond of Kalidoscope themes b/c 99% of them are too fancy for my tastes... I'm a minimalist in decoration).

And, furthermore, we have been given a Greg's Browser type program instead of a Finder. Greg's Browser is a program which I've tried over the years on the Mac OS 7/8/9 side (since it's early years) and found it uninteresting for file manipulation every time. It was a neat toy under System 7.x, but Finder releases under OS 8/9 have rendered it superfluous and klunky. Similarly, the file browsers on the Windows side have always been handy *addons* but never capable of replacing the Desktop, and folders.

The other things that don't endear OS X's interface to me are the exact same interface flaws I dislike in Windows: Start menu/Task bar = Dock [At least Window's Task bar takes up less screen real-estate]; the annoying location of the close, zoom and hide buttons [whenever I observe not so computer savvy Window XX users get frustrated with windows is when they try to close a window but end up maximising it, or vice versa b/c the buttons are too close together... at least Apple didn't make us DOUBLE-CLICK to close a window].

Ah well, as I said in my first post, and others have said: this is but a first release. Apple will either have to fix the problems so that the GUI is acceptable to most people's sensitivities, or else face the prospect of having people desperately sticking with OS 9 (which is a well supported OS with a *smooth* interface (I dare say it's interface is [at the moment] by FAR the best)).

Oh, one last comment about this being a "1.0" version. Two problems: it's *not* being marketed as 1.0 but as 10.0 so people should expect a clean product experience & the other one is that it was possible to release a rough OS in 1984, and even when Windows 3.1 came out in 91, but we're in the year 2001 now. Windows 2000/ME/etc is pretty smooth. It's moderately crash proof (sometimes), fast in day-to-day operation (provided you don't restart), and well supported. Mac OS 9 is very smooth, well supported, and, if you don't run too many strange softwares, pretty crash proof itself.

Anyway, I'm sure Apple will fix up the worst of the problems which is why I'm not giving up on OS X entirely. It's just not an OS that's ready for the mainstream (I'm nowhere near mainstream but I despise having to fight with my computer, or *ever* having to face a CLUI). I don't have the luxury of being able to waste time on my computer experimenting with a new OS as this is the middle of my field season. I need my computer too much to facilitate my research so I can't spend an entire day on playing with OS X :( :( :( (I wish I could)

One last, one last comment that I thought of: GUI familiarity may not necessarily be a bad thing. If we lose more by having to learn a new GUI than we gain by learning that GUI, it's not worth the change. I'd love to have a crystal ball to see whether this switch will cost Apple customers. 680x0 to PPC was a seamless transition, right from the 6100/60 onwards. I'm not convinced the transition to Aqua will be as seamless.

I guess my beef is with Aqua, and not OS X proper. Time for someone to write a new interface (because I *really* want the UNIX core but don't want to bother with a new [ugly in MY opinion] interface)!!!

Well, enjoy, and make the OS X experience better for the late comers by providing software developers with ideas ;)

L8r
 

erdunbar

Registered
Just something about the software: it's there. You can run a lot of stuff under the Classic environment so that's not a problem. I'm still convinced that Aqua is more of a hindrance than a help in its current form (of course, I might be off base on this one, but I've rarely been wrong about computer trends before IMNSHO ;)

PS gotta love the collection of smilies available for these messages.
 

jdog

Not a Moderator
No software is ever a "final product." You will never see an end to product updates until a new product replaces the old one. The only thing I see holding back current Mac users is: 1) Lack of software at this stage and 2) Inability to run OSX at usable speeds on slower machines. I have been using Windows for the last 14 years, never even crossed my mind that I would ever own a Mac. Then I heard about OSX. Having used linux a little, I liked the power it gave me, but there were TOO many choices with linux. I do not have the time to decide. MacOSX is a wonderfull hybrid of a great looking GUI and a rock hard underbelly. Lastly, I think Apple's choice to include the development tools with boxed product was one of the best decisions they could have ever made. To find tools that equal those included on a Windows box, one would have to spend hundreds of dollars.

Just my $.02
 

plaidpjs

Registered
erdunbar,

I appreciate all of your points, but I think they aren't as heady as you make them out to be, IMHO.

As for the minimalist, approach, I too favor it. I hate the god awful clutter that accumulates on almost every windows desktop I have ever seen or used. but, for me, i have no problem making OS X and Aqua almost invisible on my standard start-up desktop. With one exception, I have gotten incredibly fond of running DesktopConsole at start-up and it pretty much stays up on my screen at all times.

Otherwise, there is one small button on the left side of myscreen for PocketDock, and my Dock on the right side/top. It's super clean and I love that about OS X, it's something I could never really achieve in 9.1 (Control Strip and the drive icons always got in the way, right along with a Desktop printer and other clutter that just needed to be there (i.e. dropstuff, expander, diskcopy, etc.).

Also, the idea that the Dock is equivalent to or derivative of the Windows Taskbar and Start menu is obscene. First, if anything the Dock is a derivative of the NeXTbar thingie. The taskbar in Windows is actually a derivative of other Unix control mechanisms. Second, the Windows taskbar uses titled rectangles for most of it's function and it is entirely "windows" based (every open window gets a tile). The Dock is customizable and Applications based, the only time windows take up room is if you minimize them. Further, from a UI standpoint, icons are easier to identify and manipulate then are truncated text messages, which is what the windows taskbar devolves too when you have four or more open windows.

Then there's the "Aqua" fanciness, here I'm not sure what your are refering to, but I'm guessing you must mean the visual effects that largely involve the dock, like window minimizing, application start-up bouncing, magnification, etc. if that is what you refer to, each and every one of those things can be turned off. however, they do serve as very important UI keys for people migrating to the OS X platform. The genie effect shows the user exactly where the window they just reduced went, making it easier to get back to, the bouncing icons show the user what app(s) are launching, and the magnification effect makes it easier to discern where the user is on the Dock, as well as more clearly displaying the icon as the mouse over it (this is to help those people who reduce there Dock to a very minimal size, IMHO).

If however, you refer to other Aqua fanciness, then maybe you're putting the blame in the wrong place. If you mean live window resizing and drop shadows, and antialiased text, and scroll speeds, those are not problems with Aqua per se, but with Quartz and how it uses the CPU as opposed to the GPU. With optimizations and better integration to video cards, these things will become all but transparent. However, I will say that on older systems these things are a problem and a hinderance to the adoption of OS X right now.

Last, but not least, we come to the whole 1.0 vs. 10.0 thing. In one respect you are right, the way Apple has labeled the OS may lead some to believe it is simply a progression of the previous Mac OS, but, it is not. OS X is definitely a new operating system, it is definitely a 1.0 release, and for that, it is damn good at what it does, slow or not. In any event, Apple has not in anyway, besides it's version number, "marketed" OS X as being something other than a brand new OS (implying by default that it is a 1.0 release).

Now, while there are a number of people who believe OS X should have been released as beta 2, and a few people who will argue until they're blue in the face that OS X is not what Apple promised us, the truth is, that it is a final 1.0 release, and while it may be yet deficient in some areas, it is everything and more that was expected from Apple. And, it has the room to grow. But, simply because it is numbered in a way to keep it in line with the rest of Apple's OS history does not make it anything more than a 1.0 release, and, by the same token, does not mean that OS X should inherit, by default, every valuable thing that has taken 20 years to get into version 9.

Speaking of which, I made the comment about seperating version 8 and 9 because they didn't belong together, and that was not in reference to their feature sets, but in terms of performance. Performance being the ultimate issue underlying your poll choices. if you honestly believe that OS 8 was not a dog in comparison to OS 9 in this regard than I am humbled. Further, you make assertions about the transition to PPC machines being smooth, and that moving from System 7 to OS 8 was easy and hassle free, I would argue that it was anything but that. in point of fact, i think if you go back and poll the people that were around for those transitions, you'll find glaring similarities to what is going on now. but, that is just my recollection of those events... I could be wrong!

Ciao!
 

erdunbar

Registered
Hi plaid pajamas, Eric here (ergo er):

Originally posted by plaidpjs

erdunbar,

I appreciate all of your points, but I think they aren't as heady as you make them out to be, IMHO.

As for the minimalist, approach, I too favor it. I hate the god awful clutter that accumulates on almost every windows desktop I have ever seen or used. but, for me, i have no problem making OS X and Aqua almost invisible on my standard start-up desktop. With one exception, I have gotten incredibly fond of running DesktopConsole at start-up and it pretty much stays up on my screen at all times.

It's amusing but that's what is beautiful about OS 8/9 (& even Windoze) to me. I can drop a file on an icon on the desktop. My desktop is always cluttered with icons. Aliases to my often used apps fill the top left corner of my screen in a *set* arrangement. When I don't want to add new icons to my desktop but do want to access URLs or unusual programmes I use pop-up windows (same principle as the @#$@$ dock... not convenient for every-day stuff but acceptable for rarely used items).

Originally posted by plaidpjs



Otherwise, there is one small button on the left side of my screen for PocketDock, and my Dock on the right side/top. It's super clean and I love that about OS X, it's something I could never really achieve in 9.1 (Control Strip and the drive icons always got in the way, right along with a Desktop printer and other clutter that just needed to be there (i.e. dropstuff, expander, diskcopy, etc.).

Again, it's funny, but that's what I use the most about 8/9: my beloved control strip has been ditched in favour of the dock. Big and clumsy (size is addressed below) in favour of small and inconspicuous.

Most of these 8/9 functionalities will be provided by third-parties if Apple does not do so, but,

Originally posted by plaidpjs



Also, the idea that the Dock is equivalent to or derivative of the Windows Taskbar and Start menu is obscene. {snip} The Dock is customizable and Applications based, the only time windows take up room is if you minimize them. Further, from a UI standpoint, icons are easier to identify and manipulate then are truncated text messages, which is what the windows taskbar devolves too when you have four or more open windows.

Not homologous (same origin, implies nothing of function), but analogous (different origin, but implies similarity of function... using evolutionary biology terms... the dolphin's flipper is homologous to the human arm & the fin of a fish is analogous to the dolphin's flipper). They're both at the bottom of the screen, both list ungodly amounts of info and both hide (though, I prefer the taskbar to the dock + I've got good eyes and I like as much screen real estate as I can get).

Hmmm. It's the behaviour & all-in-one purpose of the dock that's a problem. I've *always* despised pop-up windows (hiding the taskbar in Windows is a nice bonus since it's ugly (same applies to dock), but having it accidentally reappear when you move your mouse down is a pain, and NOT having it appear when you want it to is also a pain (dock suffers from both problems)). I'm not a fan of big icons (& yes, I know you can down-size but they just aren't recognisable at that size... not to mention there's no way to type in 32x32 to ensure your OS 8/9 icons appear properly).



Then there's the "Aqua" fanciness, here I'm not sure what your are referring to, but I'm guessing you must mean the visual effects that largely involve the dock, like window minimizing {snip} who reduce there Dock to a very minimal size, IMHO).

Umm. Aqua fanciness? I think I mean the overly graphiced nature of the OS. It *looks* nice but detracts from its use IMO. Large icons look nice, but they take up a lot of real-estate. Small icons are more functional size-wise but they aren't recognisable. Downsizing the dock is useless. I need an application switcher alone, not an app launcher *as well*. It confuses me having to filter out unopened apps sitting there.

What I will want when a *real* non-beta version of OSX gets released is the ability to completely turn off the dock, and to make the new Apple menu a sub-menu of the old Apple menu (sort of like a "Settings" folder)... it's a useless menu as it stands). If I wasn't addicted to the Mac GUI I would've jumped ship to Windows long ago. It's a stable OS, it's got a half-decent interface, and *lots* and *lots* of software. What always kept me away from Windoze is that the integration of software-hardware and software-software was weak (look at how customized a typical Mac is vs. a Wintel PC). If Apple continues to offer that with OS X I'll continue to pay the premium to stay away from Wintel.



If however, you refer to other Aqua fanciness, then maybe you're putting the blame in the wrong place. If you mean live window resizing and drop shadows, and antialiased text, and scroll speeds, those are not problems with Aqua per se, but with Quartz and how it uses the CPU as opposed to the GPU.{snip}.

Last, but not least, we come to the whole 1.0 vs. 10.0 thing{snip} it is definitely a 1.0 release, and for that, it is damn good at what it does, slow or not. In any event, Apple has not in anyway, besides it's version number, "marketed" OS X as being something other than a brand new OS (implying by default that it is a 1.0 release).

Now, while there are a number of people who believe OS X should have been released as beta 2 {snip} And, it has the room to grow. But, simply because it is numbered in a way to keep it in line with the rest of Apple's OS history does not make it anything more than a 1.0 release, and, by the same token, does not mean that OS X should inherit, by default, every valuable thing that has taken 20 years to get into version 9.

There are definitely different problems. With the underlying code and not just the interface. The Finder behaviour is bizzare, and buggy compared to existing competition (Windoze explorer & OS 8/9 Finder). Try typing the first letter of a file that is offscreen. The name highlights but does not scroll the window to it. If there was ever an indication of beta status that is it. This is not a product worthy of non-beta (final) status. When you still have easily fixed bugs like that running around a company ought not be marketing it as final.

Anyway, Apple still has a long way to go before they convince me to switch to using it as a tool (rather than playing with it as a toy).



Speaking of which, I made the comment about separating version 8 and 9 because they didn't belong together, and that was not in reference to their feature sets, but in terms of performance.{snip} transition to PPC machines being smooth, and that moving from System 7 to OS 8 was easy and hassle free, I would argue that it was anything but that. in point of fact, i think if you go back and poll the people that were around for those transitions, you'll find glaring similarities to what is going on now. but, that is just my recollection of those events... I could be wrong!

re: 8 vs 9 & 8 = dog. I *like* OS 9 more than OS 8.0-8.6 but I wouldn't consider it that much better in overall functionality. 8.1 seems a little clunky vs. 9.0.4 but it's not that much different.

In terms of interfaces and performances I have used nearly *every* version of Mac OS under the sun (ok, so I didn't sample *all* versions... only Finder1.0/System0.97 (Mac 128), Fin5.3/Sys3.2 (512), System 6.0.4, 6.05 & 6.07, 7.0 & 7.01, 7.1, 7.52 & 7.53 & 7.53 Update 2 (Plus & Prodigy SE 68020 16MHz & 7.1-8.1 on Quadra 700); 8.0, 8.1, 8.51, 8.6, 9.0.4 (iMac Rev A & 9.0.4, OS X Beta & 10.0 on B&W/450) (I skipped System 4, 6.0-6.03, 7.6x, 8.5, 9.0). I use OS 9.04 on a B&W/450 and my office-mate uses 8.6 on an iMac DV SE. Both are equivalent in functionality. You can do the same with both, but he is limited by 64 MBs of RAM, not the OS.

As for the transitions: I never had serious problems with transitions, and was never called upon to help people with major transition-related problems. The only version incompatibility problems I've run into is that newer software wouldn't run on older machines/OSes. And, I would argue the transition to PPC was *unexpectedly* smooth. Old software from back in the ice-age still ran on the first PPC version of the OS. I even managed to get some of the games from 1984 to run on PPCs at the time. The transition from 6.x to 7.0 was a little rougher because it was an entirely new underlying mechanism to access the interface (though, interface-wise there was little difference), but old software still worked.

I'm not entirely sure why I wrote this (procrastinating). We have different takes on the OS. My beef is with the interface. Yours [seems] (please excuse my taking the liberty to speak for you) to be with my assertion that it is a version 10.0 OS and not a 1.0 OS. Semantics. Whatever we argue here will be pointless in the grand scheme of things. Apple will do what Apple will do, regardless of what I wish they would or would not do. They're not a publicly run, owned and operated company, so are not required to operate for the public good. They're owned by private interests whose only interest is to generate $$$, so they can do whatever they please ;)

Anyway, I'm not even sure what's in this response anymore so I apologise for the quality of today's post.

Eric
 
Top