Why would someone not upgrade?

Why wouldn't you upgrade.

  • Lack of native apps for OSX.

  • Not familiar with the new GUI.

  • Prefer OS9 over OSX for other reasons.

  • Use Windows or other X86 OS.

  • Don't know.

Results are only viewable after voting.


Not a Moderator
Just wondering what reasons would keep someone from using OSX?


Besides not having all of the applications I want (or even the few I need), the main stumbling block is the lack of support fo my existing hardware.

For me this is mostly my Epson 900N network printer.

WE NEED DRIVERS! ... not in July... and certainly not in September. NOW!


Old Rhapsody User
I would say that the same thing that stopped most current Mac OS X users from using Mac OS X Server when it came out two years ago (where was this site two years ago?), only to a much lesser degree. I can't believe that the "Server" in the name was the reason so many didn't get it when it came out, and the price tag ($499.00) wasn't that bad compared to what Steve was charging for OPENSTEP User and Developer Tools ($799.00 and $4999.00 respectively). It is basicly the applications barrier. The new OS wouldn't use any of the users current investment in software and a suitable version or replace of that software doesn't exist. As Apple came close to releasing Rhapsody they realized that there wasn't enough native apps, and the Blue Box environment was not going to cut it with the old ones. Mac OS X Server is more Mac-like in form and function than Mac OS X is, but thanks to Carbon, some of the old important apps are starting to appear on Mac OS X.

Honestly, and I truly hate to say this, when Microsoft releases Office 2001 for Mac OS X, there is going to be a flood of new users. It is just the way things are.


Simply Daemonic
One of my friends got office 2001, and he had office 98.
I seriously CANNOT see why anyone would shell out so much money for an office suite when it is not really needed! Most (if not all) can be accomplished by the 98 version that he already had.

Human nature never ceases to amaze me.



Originally posted by jdog
Just wondering what reasons would keep someone from using OSX?
Why upgrade to OS X? I just installed it for have an overview of X. now I have deleted OS X.

If the software want to used the full new tech in X, it must be rewritten in Ojective-C. Ojective-C is not portable to other platform. Although Apple said that it will save 90% work, big developer won't just develope its software for X. they also develope theirs for other platform. Also, if I am right, the main software developer will always use carbon to develope their software.

all carbonized software also can run under 9.x. I don't think adobe, microsoft, corel, and ... will used cocoa tech to develope their software although they all stated that they will develope the software for X.


Simply Daemonic
I think that once faster machines, and a faster OS X ship, people will use cocoa more than carbon because they can simply get more juice out of it. I think big companies like Adobe will be going to cocoa soon due to the fact that anyone who uses their programs does have newer machine (if they want to upgrade) and thus there will be no prob. ANd most people will already have OS X by the time adobe rolls out with Photoshop 7 or any pther product they cocoaize.

Personally I stil have OS X on mine even though I dont use it that often. I use it to code for my assignments and play around with programming more than anyting.



Why would anyone not move over to OSX?

1) Not enough native apps
2) Can't make it connect to the Internet (Oh yes, I have tried just about everything!)
3) I still love the Apple Menu and the dock isn't a substitute (I've already had a long disco about this on the site - I'm not convinced by the 'you don't need it' argument - actually, I do).
4) It won't access any of my peripherals, printer, CD-RW, scanner or external hard disk.

Isn't that enough reasons?

It's very depressing, I had such high hopes and now I might be forced to buy a PC, when support for OS 9 finally dies.

Are there more who think like me out there?

I'm running a beige G3 with 196 M of memory and a processor upgraded to 450 Mhz



Simply Daemonic
Well, overlooking the bad grammar (Isn't those enought reasons should be aren't those enough reasons, agreement of nouns), You have *some* valid points.

1) Native apps --> which will be rectified eventually. Even the original mac did not have enough native apps and I am sure that Apple II users also said the same thing then

2) Lack of drivers. Yes that is true, but OS X is a brand spankin' new OS on the PPC platform, *only* 2 months old. Support will come sooner rather than later because OS X is the future.

3) INternet, I have been able to connect with my 56k modem. How do you try to get online? With the Public Beta I had probs which were fixed when I used specific server name addresses, but now I dont need em any more. As a matter of fact OS X doesnt even ask for em.

4) Apple menu...oh the apple menu. For you it might be important, but I do stress this point. IT IS A PREFERENCE. Sorry for the caps, just wanted to make it clear. Even when I used a mac plus with OS 6.0.8 I never used the Apple Menu for anything more than acessing the chooser, the control panels and the one app that I cannot remember the name of. As a matter of fact, the machine that I use now has aliases on the apple menu of every single app on this machine, but I do not use it. I dont like it. You and a few others like it, other dislike it, I dont really care for it. The fact remains that this is a preference, and there are other places to discuss this. I must have missed your thread, if you want to make another one we can have a discussion about it.

The idea tha you *have to be forced* to buy a PC when OS9 isnt supported any more is preposterous. It just is, sorry. IT means that you are no willing to change over, to learn something new. I guess that you will be enjoying your new PC with windows 3.11 rather than windows XP.



Why would I not upgrade?/What is a barrier to upgrading?
#1 GUI is sloppy for a commercial grade product (see my other thread with a poll)
#2 GUI is too graphiced (fonts too big, fonts not customizable, pictures too large)
#3 GUI is too slow, even on a half-decent PPC (G3/450 192 MB RAM, 16 MB video card)
#4 the dock: it tries to fuse the Apple menu, launcher, application switcher and command-tab all into one -- unsuccessfully
#4.5 no application menu/switcher, no control strip provided by Apple (yet)

#5 lack of customizable Apple menu -- My current menu: chooser & control panel are at top (so the entire new "Apple menu" is in two items in my old one), calculator, note pad (A MUST FOR ME IN APPLE MENU), recent applications and my "Hidden" applications (apps not used often enough to warrant a space on my desktop, but still important enough that I don't want to bother using command-F). However, when I didn't have 1152*870 screen size I didn't have enough desktop space and had a lot more items in the Apple menu (which will have to happen again in OS X since everything in OS X is oversized, especially fonts).

#5.5 the dock is too small -- there's no way to take 15 apps, put them in the dock for launching (like the Apple menu) AND not get confused as to which one is open.
#6 anti-aliasing of fonts under size 18 is really difficult on the eyes, especially when combined with the funny striped background (need to have the option to turn off anti-aliasing under size 18, as in OS 8/9).
#7 multiple-users are a pain in the behind for a single-user computer (& the obsession with security is a pain... I want NO passwords on my computer!!!... I'm computer savvy enough to know when I have a telnet or FTP server running... plus, I don't like to have PWDs when I run an FTP server anyway).

#8, 9, 10, 11, 12: response times are AWEFUL!!!

When will/would I upgrade?
#1 When the GUI works for me
#2 When there's software I *need* &/or want that will not run on OS 9, and it's not time to buy a new computer

(if it were time to replace & #1 were not met I would have to consider Windoze if it still had a more refined GUI than OS X)

What is not a barrier to upgrading?
#1 RAM -- got enough, cheap to add new
#2 software -- Classic is OK for emulation, and I've always been an early adopter of new software
#3 stability
#4 native software -- it'll appear

Why would I want to upgrade?
#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 STABILITY -- it is rock-solid stable... the only non-menu restart was with command-control-power BY ACCIDENT when I was trying to quit a programme (I assumed Windoze three-finger salute but remembered right after I heard the bong that it was command-option-escape (with a sinking feeling of being stupid))

#9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 MULTITASKING -- again, rock-solid stable

#16 access to *nix apps with a recompile

I really, really want to be able to access 1-16 but do not have need for a scientific *nix app for which I can't get a similar one under OS 9/Virtual PC Windoze 98.



One last reason for not upgrading to OS X: Kensington hasn't made available MouseWorks for OS X for download ;) My TurboMouse 4 button ADB is critical to me being able to carry out every-day tasks (since I have my buttons programmed to do a wide variety of tasks... command-click in internet explorer and the finder to scroll a window's contents like the hand in graphics programs). Not to mention that Apple's mouse OS X control panel doesn't provide a good speed multiplier!!!


Not a Moderator
If the software want to used the full new tech in X, it must be rewritten in Ojective-C. Ojective-C is not portable to other platform. Although Apple said that it will save 90% work, big developer won't just develope its software for X. they also develope theirs for other platform. Also, if I am right, the main software developer will always use carbon to develope their software.
Do Windows developers still write applications that are compatible with Win 3.1? NO. It took more than 2 months for people who used 3.1 to migrate to 95, I suspect the same will happen with OSX.

I also agree that when a native version of MS Office comes out, a LOT of people will make the transition. I like using Word for my school work, the rest of the Office apps are useless to me (except maybe Excel, once and a while). I mean, Apple hasn't even released a non-beta, full-featured word processor yet.

Lke it or not (sorry OS9 lovers), given a little time, OSX will reveal itself as THE OS for Macs. OS9 will fade, much like Win 3.1 has.



Originally posted by jdog

Lke it or not (sorry OS9 lovers), given a little time, OSX will reveal itself as THE OS for Macs. OS9 will fade, much like Win 3.1 has.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that most objectors to OS X are not objecting because they want to stay with OS 9. It's because [in my case definitely], as it stands, it's a beta product with the typical problems of a beta, and has a rough interface. Had it been released as a late development stage beta (as it is) [some] people wouldn't be quite as irritated with OS X's quirks.

Yesterday I discovered a wonderful little application that adds the application switcher menu again in all its glory. Now someone needs to add the application switcher in its OS 9 compact form and behaviour (well, it would be a nice feature if it remembered its position between screen size changes (top right corner for me)). It's source has been made available under the GNU General Public License.


ASM 1.1.1
ASM (an acronym for Application Switcher Menu) is a small utility that adds a system-wide menu to the right side of the menu bar. This menu lists all of your open applications, so you can easily switch between them.

BTW There is still the problem with menu response times. Clicking on an OSX menu has a noticeable lag time (with Mac OS or System 1/2/3/4/6/7/8/9 simple menus appeared INSTANTLY on any computer... with OSX there's a distinct lag (enough that it doesn't APPEAR to be instantaneous) on a computer that's 100s of times faster than a Mac 128).

In all the fighting/arguing between OS X fans and people who like OS 8/9 features (I won't call them fans because it could simply be that features which provided productivity enhancements that are crucial to everyday operations were forgotten/eliminated/have yet to be added), it might be worth remembering that there are a *lot* of good, productivity enhancing features that are person specific.

The application switcher is a good person-specific example. Ever since Apple added it I've lived and died by it. When I encounter a computer without it I find it rather frustrating (and most people I know *do not* use the switcher much to my chagrin).

It sits inconspicuously at the top-right of my screen waiting for me to use it to either (a) switch, or (b) (even more important) accept a document for me and open it in the app chosen. The dock does do that but (a) it has redundant [unopened] icons, (b) LARGE icons (if they're small they're hard to launch... and zooming is another problem by itself), (d) sits at the bottom of the screen and can't be moved, and (e) you can accidentally open another app by clicking in the wrong place.

The dock may work for you, but, in its current incarnation, it does not for me!!! The concept is too limiting for my work habits.

Apple made another screwup in the beta which it promptly fixed: the menubar clock is in the best place it can be, in the menu bar where it is *always* visible (except for classic but you could probably fix that by playing with classic's control panels) (for those of you who didn't play with DP4 or OS X Public Beta... the clock became a dock-based application which meant that (a) it was not always in the same place (as the dock grew or shrank), and (b) if you hid the dock you wouldn't know what time it was, or (c) it would float on the screen wasting real-estate).

BTW one comment to the "take a time to learn the new OS" crowd: we all have different ways of working (& yes, there is a learning curve which needs to be followed). It's best to provide options and allow people to choose those which make them *feel* most comfortable (more important than anything... I can do something on Windoze AS efficiently and quickly as on Mac OS 8/9 but I feel more at home on my Mac). As a budding educator I've come to the realisation that what may be the most efficient method is certainly not always the most effective. People have different styles of learning. Similarly, they have different styles of working. When I write an essay, I can use a computer *very* efficiently to whip up 500 words in half an hour: efficient? Yes! Can someone with pen-and-paper and my typing speed come close to me in efficiency. With difficulty since they have to transfer the writing to computer *and* write the essay. But, what is effective for some (word processing) may not be for others who prefer to write on paper first, and word process (is this the first documented use of word process as a verb ;) later.

L8r, Rico.


Simply Daemonic
Yes it IS different because windows 3.1 sucked when compared to windows 95,

the problem with OS X vs OS 9 is that people are more familiar with OS 9 that is why they are staying with it, or want to make OS X more like, because they are familiar with it and they dont want something new.


Not a Moderator
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
Yes it IS different because windows 3.1 sucked when compared to windows 95.
To me, there is no comparison to OS9 vs OSX. I do not like to use OS9, its ugly and feels like a toy OS to me. While I do agree with erdunbar, it was probably released prematurily, I am used to the linux world were EVERYTHING (at least GUI related) is a beta product. At least we can count on Apple (and only Apple) to continue to provide us with updates to the OS, unlike the Linux world (were you are relying on thousands of people to update the varous elements of your desktop).

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.


Simply Daemonic
I tried linux...did not like it much.
I can use it but I dont like it :p Of course I like linux more than I like windows ;)



I don't like the statement that os9 = win3.1 and os x =win95
osx is only used the UNIX kernel, all other GUI is from os9. win3.1 is based on Commandline DOS and just add very few graphics. win3.1 is 16bit and os 9 is 32bit

os 9 = win95 is better. and os x = winME. The best graphics with the worse kernel. UNIX kernel is very bad. I only like the Preemtive and Memory protected tech. I don't like UNIX kernel. It is very confusing.


UNIX kernel makes MAC lag up to 20 years. Every Mac use have to learn UNIX, which is from the 20-year-before knowledge. To me, my knowledge of Mac in OS 9 can't lag after 5 years and I know nothing about UNIX kernel except the commandline is similar with DOS. Only the commandline is known.


I feel tired now to quarrel whether OS X is good. I will pay attention to it whether it can gain the rate of win95 after 1 year.


Simply Daemonic
I would feel *much* better if we did not compare mac to win .. butif we had to make a comparison, a more valid comparision is this

Windows XP = a bad immitation of Mac OS X LOL



Imagine you have a screen full of open apps. In my case that might be Word, Protools, Outlook Express, Picture viewer, etc., etc.. Now you want to open another one.

Under OS 9 one click on the Apple Menu takes you straight to your new application. Can that be done in OSX? I think not. Or at least only by cluttering your desk with aliases.

So why would I want to do away with this convenience? It may be a 'preference' to Admiral AK - but to me it is a straightforward and efficient way of working.

No doubt there are many ways in which OSX is more logical than OS9. But it isn't more user-friendly. There's more to ergonomics than logic!

Oh and I forgot to mention another reason for not changing OS. I haven't the time - or the patience - to become a Unix geek and frankly don't see why I should have to.

My computer is a tool, not an end in itself.

PS Sorry about the grammar Admiral - nice to know someone still cares about these things!


Simply Daemonic
He he :)
Well the Apple Menu is an preference of both you and me Myke.
Personally I spend most of my time in OS 9, and the reason is the lack of native apps.

You might be wondering my the apple menu is a preference. Well, Apple designd the Apple Menu to be able to accept aliases (or the real things) so the Apple menu can be an applocation launcher (like you have done), it can be a movie, picture, document, internet and/or network launcher. It is up to the user. I don't think that this was the intent of apple when it made it (to have it as a "start menu"), but throughout the years that's what it has become.

Personally I have my favorite applications assigned to the F-keys. so that I can press F1, F2, F3, F4 etc and without even moving my mouse I can launch my favorite app. This is the way I do it, which is different from your way, which is OK, and very normal (I would be very afraid if everyone did everything the exact same way I do it).

In OS X apple has provided the dock to launch and monito apps. Yes I do believe that the dock has some basic flaws like for example it tries to do too much. I use the dock as a quicklaunch for my most common items, and for my second most common I have put the aliases in my favorites folder. (which is under the apple menu I think).

I think a computer is a big hunk of clay that you have to mold. Most users just use it as a hunk of clay, others make it into a vase, or a cup, or a bowl or a whatever. It depends on one's needs and experties, and of course preferences :)

It's good to have options so everyone can be pleased (well almost everyone, there will always exist oddballs out there LOL :p)