a switch campaign of a different kind: why people are ... · owc has the fastest firewire drives on...

Search|Email Us About MFI Advanced Search

OWC has the FASTEST FireWire Drives on the Market! 52X FW CDRWs from $149 80GB FireWire HDs from $199, Top Rated - Top Performance!

Today's Featured Article

Friday, July 11 2003 @ 08:35 AM PDTLate-Breakers

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make the Mac OS X shift happenWhile Apple fights to nab Windows switchers with a series of marketing blitzes, it is also trying dilligently to lure reluctant Mac OS 9 veterans to Mac OS X. The following is an assessment (based on hundreds of reader submissions) of why millions of users are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what Apple needs to do to make Mac OS X a "must-have" platform.

Troubleshooting

Many users feel more comfortable troubleshooting a Mac OS 9 system, and who can argue? Mac OS X has been a public product for only 3 years.

That said, there is a tendency to exaggerate Mac OS X pitfalls based purely on a lack of familiarity. Tales of the "grey screen of death," starting from scratch with a fresh installations, and losing entire volumes inexplicably have scared a lot of users into steering clear of Mac OS X, but issues this severe have equally devastating counterparts in Mac OS 9.

Hopping back over the fence, claims of Mac OS X's stability superiority over Mac OS 9 are also blown out of proportion.

If you have a clean, lean and well-oiled Mac OS 9 installation with all of the latest third-party application patches, system failures can become very scarce.

"My knowledge of UNIX is limited. My 15 years of experience with the classic Mac OS, however, is vast, and I understand Mac OS 9."Reader Quote:

While it is perhaps a bit unfair to compare maintenance release frequency between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, the six relatively rapid revisions to Mac OS X 10.2 have each caused a set of crippling problems for different segments of the Mac community. The arguably broader customization options in Mac OS X, combined with a likewise arguably greater lack of understanding by the user base, have been root causes.

Publishing

What's Related

Links:Topic

Late-Breakers

Categories:BusinessNetworking/Administrator

Developers:Apple

Products:Apple Mac OS 9.2.2Apple Mac OS X

Story OptionsMail Story to a Friend

| | TechTracker Network VersionTracker Developers |

OWC has the FASTEST

13/7/2003 10:54 AMMacFixIt - A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make the Mac OS X shift happen

of 23http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20030711083554250#comments

The most significant bane of Mac OS X's acceptance has no doubt been the publishing industry. Mac OS 9 has served many a service bureau and graphics house with years of powerful production. Thousands of dollars invested in legacy hardware and software make switchers reluctant.

"Printing in Mac OS X10.2.6 is weak at best. I have to install each and every printer I want to use just as if I am in Windows, most PPD features are not supported as they are in OS 9. When I print, I am forced to use Page Setup to choose my printer configuration, and then go to Print where the options become available again. Mac OS X is too Windows-like for my taste in this regard. One setup over-rides the other and I don't get output as expected with double checking everything multiple times."

Reader Quote:

Many users simply cannot afford to replace their systems, which run extremely well and efficiently under Mac OS 9.2. And the sizeable cost of some Mac OS X application flavors – QuarkXpress 6.0 carries a US$900 tag – is also intimidating. So, for most users, upgrading to Mac OS X has been a significantly more expensive than the marketed $129 price tag.

"Well, we're in a corporate (media/press) environment with numerous machines running Mac OS 9. Upgrading even a few applications on such a large scale (500+ in my specific area) would be costly. We could continue to run the old version of Quark in Classic but there's some redraw issues and there's a few customizable Quark XTensions to consider."

Reader Quote:

"I have been desperate to get on Mac OS X, but I am hindered by economics. I work for the State of California, and my request for software upgrades this year was denied. My current computer is going on 3.5 years now. This fall I am planning to request a new machine, which would force the transition to OS X, but with the State budget the way it is I'm not holding my breath. At home I am still using a (modestly upgraded) PowerTower Pro, which cannot run OS X. I have been talking about a new computer for the last four years, but the money just isn't there."

Reader Quote:

"I'm 72 years old and on a limited income: all my software is OS 9 compatible; and I don't have the time (or ability) to learn another OS. Besides, OS 9.2.2 works well for me. Artist"

Reader Quote:

Performance/Resource requirements

The interface performance of Mac OS X's Finder, improving by leaps and bounds in Panther, still cannot match the lightning-quick reflexes of a well-kept Mac OS 9



installation running on the latest compatible hardware.

"Speed! I'm running G4 500 DP, running mostly Photoshop 7.0.1 and other digital capturing software. Under Mac OS X, there's a definite lag in the interface, which slows things down and is most irritating. Things like using the cloning tool, brushes etc., have a "pause" or slight delay between mouse clicks and response. Under OS 9, it's instant."

Reader Quote:

Resource requirements can also be significantly lower with a standard Mac OS X installation, a definite consideration for those looking for a full system that can be stored on smaller removable media.

"My OS 9 iMac, with FileMaker, BBedit, Smile, Fetch, AppleWorks, etc. can be backed up onto a single CD. The hard drive has 790 MB of data in 7,000 files. My Mac OS X 10.2.6 G4, with a similar complement of applications, contains over 45,000 files and 1,300 MB of data. It has support for languages I don't use, printers I don't own, modems I don't have, etc. Bloated beast! I use a 1.3 GB magneto-optical drive for backup -- I wouldn't consider backing up onto CDs."

Reader Quote:

Resentment of Apple's forcing the switch

Many users simply resent what they see as Apple forceful prodding into a new environment. Some readers point out that while Wintel hardware has a shorter life-span than Mac hardware on many fronts, Microsoft still actively supports and develops for a number of operating systems simultaneously: Windows 95, 98, ME, Platinum, XP, etc

"I'm unhappy that Apple is now preventing its computers from even being able to boot into OS 9. Jobs and Apple may think they're doing us a favor by forcing us to switch, but I don't like the idea of having my arm twisted."

Reader Quote:

What will make readers switch

Mac OS X is apparently still waiting for its "killer app" that will make OS 9 fence sitters upgrade in droves. Apple's tasty iApps, which are only being actively developed for Mac OS X, may be part of that strategy:

"I edit videos for fun, and I like the look of iDVD 3 and other OSX-only software, such as Soap. I may have to bite the bullet."Reader Quote:

Panther, at least, answers many prayers for interface niceties. Better open/save dialog boxes, something other than the obtrusive column view, and other throwbacks to Mac OS 9 are garnering Classic Mac users' attention.

Also, the delivery of Exchange support in the latest version of Microsoft's Entourage will allow a number of corporate-based Mac OS 9 boxes to make the switch.

Apps Getting Worse?

Killer apps aside, many readers complain that some applications are actually getting worse in their Mac OS X revisions, thanks to quick and dirty development cycles, combined with a lack of true expertise with Cocoa and Carbon at some software companies.

"My main tool of choice is Adobe Illustrator. I have yet to hear or read anything complimentary about Illustrator under OSX. Words like ‘slow' and ‘pig' and even ‘buggy' seem to prevail. True, this probably has nothing to do with Mac OS X, but do I really want to upgrade just so I can suffer with a slow, buggy

Reader Quote:



Here is a partial list of the applications and system components once available in Mac OS 9 that have seem to have no viable counterparts in Mac OS X:

app?"

Inertia, or "It's all I need"

Perhaps most important to the sluggish transition is inertia. Users can do what they need to do just fine in OS 9 - as they see it - and hence have no compelling urge to upgrade. They don't want to have their daily routine disrupted by what they see as a non-essential hassle.

"Office98 does all I need and more so far as document generation and editing goes. Graphic Converter, PrintToPDF, MacGSView, LabView, Netscape7.02, and a few other thingies get everything done I could want. A USB card connects me to a brand-new Canon printer (among other things). So why should I switch -- especially when I'd need to buy a new Mac just to support Mac OS X?"

Reader Quote:

Thoughtful readers are evaluating the upgrade to determine whether it adds necessary functionality. Actual workflow and overall performance improvements, rather than flashy interface effects and solid OS underpinnings are driving the decision to stay put.

Missing Applications/Functionality/drivers

UMAX Astra 2200: Drivers lackingAdobe Streamline. Reader Quote "We have been forced to set up 1 (and only 1) OS 9 workstation running Adobe Streamline alone. Since there is no OS X equivalent, we are forced to do this until either Adobe releases Streamline for OS X or they bundle that feature into a future release of Illustrator."Finale, a music notation program, is the main one. A Mac OS X version is scheduled for release this summer.AutoPage XT (priced at just under US$1000 for a single workstation -- starts at $7,500 for a house license) still is only compatible with QuarkXpress 4.0 – a Mac OS 9 only product.SCSI support "I run a Ultra UL2 SCSI RAID with Seagate Cheetah drives for my scratch disk. Under 9, I'm able to partition it with SoftRAID, and get incredible speed and dependability. Under X with XRAID, the thing slows down to a crawl, and I can't partition it as well. I'll acknowledge that it's hard to bench test drives under Mac OS X, but time testing the SCSI XRAID along with the internal ATA drives, the latter beats the pants off SCSI RAID under X, which doesn't make sense."

Reader Quote:

Apple LaserWriter LS (QuickDraw, serial) is supported under Mac OS 9 but not under OS X.In Control is an outliner with column) for time management and conceptual text analysis. Reader Quote "Nothing adequate in OS X -- including Omni Outliner which I have but rarely use."Motu's digital performer music production software. The Mac OS X release does not yet support third party audio plug-ins.Mac OS X does not support Apple's Audio-Visual Personality Card for the beige G3, requiring a reboot into OS 9 if it is to be used for importing audio or video, or for exporting video.Can't locate a print driver for an Epson dot matrix printer, there are still people in this world who need to print multi-part forms.Fittingly Sew and Dress Shop. "The Windows versions have been upgraded, but the Mac versions haven't changed in 5 years or more. These programs let me enter measurements and print out patterns that fit (for sewing)."

Reader Quote:

Emagic's Audiowerk 2 PCI card will not work with CoreAudio in OSX



without distortion. I will probably keep a Mac OS 9 machine around for a long

time, for many Photoshop 6 plug-ins that I own from smaller vendors who may never update their plug-ins to work under Mac OS X."

Reader Quote:

Specialized Software: barcode printing; legacy minicomputers with Classic Mac OS gateway software;Claris Emailer, the only mail client that can get mail from IMAP, POP3, and AOL accounts in one unified inbox – out of the box.

"For years I've been working in a few small, fast applications. I program engineering simulations, mostly of ammonia-water mixtures for which there has only recently been an accurate equation of state. I have a lot of code in True Basic"

Reader Quote:

Then there are drawing programs. I don't do bitmaps, and Illustrator is relatively inconvenient and expensive. What's more, the OS X environment has a ways to go before PDF, admittedly a superior format, becomes as universal and convenient as PICT. Not all applications even allow you to place a PDF image, and very few will let you take it apart and edit it, as all QuickDraw drawing programs would (well, AppleWorks 6 has a bug which often prevents this... but 5 worked).Epson roll paper printing. While Epson is finally rolling out OS X drivers that support borderless printing, they have yet to release OS X native versions of their bundled applications (Epson Film Factory) that allow continuous printing of multiple images, without gaps, on roll paperNational Instruments (NI) LabVIEW. Although the firm has just released LabVIEW 7 express, native to OS-X, it does not have any PCI-bus GPIB driver support or PCMCIA GPIB driver support. In other words you can't use your existing PCI or PCIMCIA hardware.

"I'm a photographer with both a Sony (UPD 50) and a Kodak (8660) Thermal Dye Sublimation printers. Neither of these two companies has updated their drivers to work with OS X. Kodak a few months ago suggested they might be revisiting the issue. It's bizarre as the 8660 is the currently shipping machine and has been for about 3 years. This is the midrange model and both offerings in the higher and lower cost have Mac OS X drivers"

Reader Quote:

"Macromedia's application, Fontographer, will not run on OS X and I can never leave that tool behind me. Never. If you're in the graphic design or advertising and printing businesses, you need Fontographer. Its the only way I know of to correctly repair, revise and revamp a font and then generate the matching printer and bitmapped fonts to exactly the point size(s) that you need. This all happened at the touch of a couple of buttons. Even produces perfect Windows fonts from a Mac for those unfortunate clients that insist on using PCs in their offices."

Reader Quote:

The Acrobat plug-in, PitStop Professional by Enfocus, is not yet available for Mac OS X.

| 64 comments |

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make the Mac OS X shift happen

Create New Accountor change display preferences Post a New Comment Oldest FirstThreaded Refresh

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:10 AM PDTduve

Having started with Mac OS ver. 1 some 18 years ago and now running 10.2.6, I found that using any version of the Mac OS will have few problems if people don't download and install too many 3rd party utilities. Anything that makes changes to the system is a



potential problem. I expect to upgrade to 10.3 when it becomes available.

[ ]Reply to This

- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:56 AM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make Hawaiian Starman

- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 12:25 PM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make richlove


A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make Eriol


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:19 AM PDTmdouma46

"Here is a partial list of the applications and system components once available in Mac OS 9 that have seem to have no viable counterparts

"????in

Mac OS 9

[ ]Reply to This

- Authored by:on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 01:47 PM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make Tom Kirshbaum

Publishing change

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:22 AM PDTalexhoward

I am the Mac support guy for about 30 users at a medium sized newspaper. I and seven photographers are the only people using OS 10. The big reason has been Quark, followed by a industry specific ad tracking datbase app called Roundhouse. The two reasons we haven't upgraded were Roundhouse and cash. That vendor is updating by the end of the year. Heck I couldn't run anything newer than 9.0.4 with that til last year because there were not ODBC drivers available to connect to the database. Even though we've bought the upgrade to Quark 5 (in aniticpation of being screwed on the upgrade price to 6), we still can't run it because of Roundhouse. All of this has to do with money. We're in the business of advertising and sinking the cash into upgrading a 21 user license is the first thing that gets cut from budget discussions. Our oldest machines used by artists are B&W G3/400s. This is my second year of trying to get them upgraded so that we don't end up where we were 4 years ago when I first started trying to run Photoshop 5 and Quark 4 on PowerMac 8100/80s.

We're in a recession (still), and the first thing cut out of a businesses budget is advertising. That's where we make all our money and that is the whole ball of wax. I've got OS 10 running on photographer's laptops (from a G3 400 bronze keyboard to a six month old iBook) just fine, with Photoshop 7 and no one is complaining about speed. The only complaint I get is that they can't see the company addressbook (running on our Exchange server) with Mail.app, which is no more than a minor hassle.

It is not Apple's fault that developers can't get off their asses and update their programs. More and more of the programs we used under OS 9 are being replaced by open source projects and free apps under OS 10.

I was scared of OS 10 when I first saw it, but I took the plunge just before 10.1 and after about two weeks of poking around and reading Macfixit and MacOSXHints.com, I couldn't understand what I was afraid



of. And when I saw about 4 new free, awesome applications a day being released on VT, I became a fan. Oh and encountering only 3 total system crashes (2 hardware related, 1 network related) in 8 months helped too (and I'm not exaggerating there).

If you can do what you need to do on your machine running OS 9 and you don't care about the apps you're missing out on, then fine, stay where you are. No one said you couldn't. I've got 18 designers running G3 and G4 400s with Quark 4 under OS 9, running Outlook 2001 who are just fine. They're used to Quark crashing and their system locking up and needing to reboot once or twice a day. That's their world and they are happy with it. The publishing industry fears change and only does it when they have to. When they finally wear out those G3s or when Roundhouse comes out and is OS 10 only (which I've been told it will be), then we'll have to bite the bullet and finally get current. We have always been pretty much 3 years behind and I don't expect that to ever change, especially in this economy.

[ ]Reply to ThisA Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make the Mac OS X shift happen

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:24 AM PDTmdouma46

"Adobe Streamline. Reader Quote "We have been forced to set up 1 (and only 1) OS 9 workstation running Adobe Streamline alone. Since there is no OS X equivalent, we are forced to do this until either Adobe releases Streamline for OS X or they bundle that feature into a future release of Illustrator."

Hello?! Anyone heard of the ? You know, that thing that lets you run OS 9-only applications from within OS X?! Last time I checked, Streamline worked just fine in Classic.

Classic environment

[ ]Reply to This



Ron LSome folks will never switch

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:53 AM PDTMacOO7

In some cases there are folks whose motto is, These people will never switch no matter what Apple does. Apple

needs to concentrate on widening it's revenue streams (i.e. iPod, Music Store) and improving the OS X experience and moving in new directions (i.e. multimedia). Those who don't keep up will be left behind, but then that's the way of things.

the old ways are the best ways!

[ ]Reply to This - Authored by: on Friday,

July 11 2003 @ 02:26 PM PDTSome folks will never switch ljocampo

- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 10:04 PM PDTSome folks will never switch Swift

- Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 09:43 AM PDTNo attack intended MacOO7

- Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 05:02 PM PDTNo attack intended Swift


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 10:10 AM PDTRon Jenkins

I installed System X but took it off. I may change to System X when I am forced to buy some killer app that runs only in X. More likely, if I have to buy a new version



of X, plus upgrade many applications, plus learn a new operating system on an old computer, I might as well join the masses and get a PC. I have owned many Macs starting with a Plus, but now see little "added value" in the Mac. Never thought I would say that! The only advantage I see is that the Mac is attacked MUCH less by virus, worms, and mischief.

[ ]Reply to This

- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 10:56 AM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make DJaltboy


A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make strange_days

- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 03:02 PM PDT"System" X? markflo


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 10:41 AM PDTgregz1

I use two G3's and a dual processor G4 at work, all on OS 9.2.2. They are rock solid, stable, and do everything I want them to do. My department uses 2 Macs with OS X for teaching purposes. With those, I feel I have no control over the machine, the OS is less intuitive, and must be fussed with. One of the reasons I've touted Macs to my Windoze friends is that they just work with no muss and no fuss. OS X, however, seems to take as much attention as Windows.

[ ]Reply to This


A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make tombab


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 10:45 AM PDTkennedye

I think there will always be things that do not survive the transition to OS X, just as there were applications that failed to make the jump from System 6 to System 7, or from the 68K machines to the PowerPCs. As always, one must evaluate one's needs according to, well, one's needs.

For me, personally, OS X works so well and supports so much of what I need and do that I could never go back to OS 9. Others, including people at work, aren't in the same position, and as part of our support staff, I am committed to supporting those users as long as they require it.

As an aside, it is my understanding, after talking with Apple reps coming to visit our workplace, that the OS 9-capable G4 towers are not going to be available for much longer, so if you need a 9-capable machine, now is the time to pick one up.

[ ]Reply to ThisA Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 11:07 AM PDTsethkaye

The inhouse Creative Department in which I work has 7 Macs, from a 9600 to a Mirrored Drive Door G4, all running OS9.2.2. The cost of upgrading all our software to run under OSX is too cost prohibitive to even consider, not to mention the performance hit we'll take on the older



machines if we upgraded the OS on that hardware. This is not to mention the software and specific Quark XTensions we use every day that developers are iffy at best about upgrading.

I'm using and loving OSX and everything it has to offer at home, and I'm a proponent of its features and usability, but until the software my company need s no longer runs on OS9, that'll most likely be when we switch.


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 11:19 AM PDTlloyd1981

The party with only 45,000 files is getting off easy. I have stopped at 10.1.5 and before installing a reasonable number of programs on the 10 boot partition, Drive 10 reported over 135,000 files. Fortunately, Monolingual got rid of all foreign language files. Now, I only have a group of Oriental fonts to deal with. And about 110,000 files.

I print too many different types of documents using printers that were not cheap to begin with, and two of them are not USB and in spite of Epson's claim their serial converter would work, it does not. And there goes PressReady in 10. For me, OS X is simply a toy right now; perhaps I'll make the move when I can afford another 6 grand or so in machines and software and OS X will REALLY print like 9.x does.

[ ]Reply to This

- Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 12:26 PM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make petersconsult

- Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 05:18 PM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make Swift


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 11:26 AM PDTDavid Honor

I am a commercial photograper associated with a large production studio in Chicago. All our Macs (50) are running OS9 with a directive from the head of production NOT to use OSX, although several machines have both systems installed.Problems with print drivers, compatability between client systems and ours, and just plain "bugginess" have kept OSX completely out of the picture in our workflow.I would also estimate that 90% of our clients only run OS9 and I am including major size ad agencies (no names please).Mac has alienated our industry to a great extent due to the strong push to faze out OS9 and the graphics industry was the bedrock for Mac use. The self righteous stance by Mac tech support and sales that OS9 is "outdated" is way out of place.Fact is, based on My personel experience with OSX, that OSX is great if you want to surf the net, download and share snapshots, and load up your IPOD with tons of music. For production work that is bullet-proof and stable....OS9 still is the way to go.

[ ]Reply to This- Authored

by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 12:09 PM PDTIf I hear one more person say "for production work"...

wfolta



- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 12:54 PM PDTIf I hear one more person say DJaltboy


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 11:45 AM PDTDownward

Lack of LabView support for OSX is more serious than just preventing us from switching to OSX. Our company is entirely Mac based and about half our desktops are now running OSX. We make a field portable instrument which we control using a either a PowerBook or, under protest, a PC Notebook running a LabView program. Since new PowerBooks can no longer boot into OS9 and since LabView does not support PCI and PCMCIA boards under OSX, we will no longer be able to supply instruments with a PowerBook controller. We are being dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, into the clutches of the Wintel empire as we are forced to use PCs for future product development. Would it really have been so hard to provide a Classic Environment for dedicated applications (standalone use) which could take over the computer and have access to the hardware buses?

[ ]Reply to This - Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @

12:46 PM PDTLabVIEW on X Makosuke


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 12:05 PM PDTthekurt

Good for the "Stubborn Mac Bastards"! No one enjoys having an operating system bearing hundreds of thousands of tiny little files shoved up their noses?!

Remember the very first Macintosh commercial? Sticking with OS9 is throwing the hammer.

Rebel! Errr time for medication . . .

[ ]Reply to ThisI Love it, Wife Hates It

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 12:32 PM PDTDeliduka

I have been running OS X over a year now and love it. I recently got a 17" Powerbook and so I retired my G4 down to the computer my boys will now use to play games on. Since putting the system downstairs several of the games they used to run won't run in classic and when I reboot into OS 9 the sound doesn't work. (never got around to debugging it)

My wife is mad because I setup multiple users, one for the boys and one for her as an admin. I told her they need to play their games in their user so they don't mess up the system (like they've done under the old OS 9 computer). Well, sometimes due to permissions the programs don't always work, or she tries to install a new program and it won't install because they don't have permission to do that. (this is where 10.3 user switching will come in quite handy)

So, in the end, she's mad and hates OS X because everything for her is much more complicated. I'm sad and hurt that she doesn't like my beloved OS. ;-)

[ ]Reply to ThisApple's Not Forcing You To Upgrade

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 01:01 PM PDTMakosuke

I find it rather unfortunate that there's a perception that Apple is intentionally removing the ability to boot 9 to force people to upgrade.



First, it's not a matter of "flipping the bit", as some seem to think. Yes, you could probably get a DP1.42 to boot in 9, but there are pieces of hardware that simply don't have OS9 drivers, and so would not work (onboard ATA6, I believe, was one).

Now, Apple *could* release a patch to OS9 to support new hardware, but look at it from their perspective: Hardware support is not a bug free and instant process, it takes a lot of work. They want to concentrate on OSX. They're just not going to spend the money to add support for new hardware to an OS that's now 3 years old, anymore than System 6 supported Macs released 3 years after it shipped.

As far as I know (though I could be mistaken) the situation is similar with MS OSes; people might make drivers available for older OSes, but MS doesn't, and doesn't care. MS doesn't make the hardware, so you just don't notice.

Finally, look at the G5s: Adding support for an entirely new chip architecture, SATA, USB2, and FW800, plus all the cooling fanciness, into OS9 is what you would call non trivial. So whether Apple could've given folks a hand with running the last round of G4s, this should be a moot point very soon for anybody being reasonable.


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 01:32 PM PDTiGreg

For all of OS X's benefits, such asmulti-tasking, that trouble-shooting can be hard in X. OS 9 isdefinitely superior and more user-friendly when it comes totrouble-shooting.

While I have been using OS X almost full-time for a very long time now,I wish Apple would end the OS X experiment and go back to improving OS9.

Also, after three years, Apple still can not get voice, video, and filetransfers to work well in OS X. I used to be able to talk to my brotherand others over AIM and transfer files easily. Now under OS X it is sobad that we do not even try anymore.

Since I purchased the new iMac G4 I am not happy that I can not bootinto 9 and use the classic AIM fully anymore (it doesn't fully work inClassic). Since I got back my G3 iMac from servicing I have wiped thedrive and plan to install OS 9. It allows booting into 9, even if Iinstall X. My current inclination is to install only OS 9 and leave Xoff of it.----Greg [email protected] 17" G4, 1GHz, OS 10.2.6768 MB RAM

[ ]Reply to This - Authored by: on Saturday, July

12 2003 @ 01:30 PM PDTMacOS 9 easier to debug? wfolta


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 01:39 PM PDTlambda



Also among the missing-support for my LaserWriter Plus. Switching to X would require buying a new printer. But my LW Plus works like new. Bah!


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 01:54 PM PDTSurgeDude

MS no longer activly supports Win95 as is stated. And they are phasing out 98 support along I belive with ME support and NT4. They are moving to all Win2000/NT support meaning XP, Win2000, ect. That is exactly what Apple is doing. Though I have no problem with people who stick with OS9 becouse of economics or look and feel I really wish people would stop blaming Apple for supporting OSX only. All Macs in the last 6 years can run it. Apple only can afford so much R&D and while X is getting better very quickly OS7,8,9 barely progressed all....and in some ways they regressed in terms of stability. Apple still offers the basics for OS9 also, Appleworks, Quicktime, and such so its not like OS9 users are left with nothing.

[ ]Reply to ThisApple is kiiling itself with OS X mistakes.

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 02:20 PM PDTblueskymining

OS X is a mess! It's neither a traditional Mac "System" OS nor is it ANYTHING like UNIX! I've used UNIX and BSD versions for longer than I want to remember. UNIX does NOT fragment like OS X does just starting up, launching an app and shutting down. Just run Tech Tool Pro and take a look at the mess the Directory is and the amount of fragmentation. ANYONE who is a UNIX engineer will take one look at OS X and have a good laugh at Apple's claims of Kinship! It is vaguely UNIX, with a heavy tilt towards cutesy GUI.

All the blame for this mess can be traced to the cludgy and nearly nonfunctioal NeXT OS Jobs never got anyone to accept in the early 90's. It never worked at all.

I really have to believe that Jobs has "Forced" this OS X crap on us Mac users as a vindications of NeXT.

What's worse is that Apple's continued "monkeying around" with OS X and new version that runs slower and slower on older systems has totally alienated the Mac masses! Look at the user numbers! A small fraction has upgraded from 10.1.x to 10.2.x because it's slow as a pig, every point release has a handful of bugs and 10.2 wiped out a slew of apps that worked under 10.1.x! Apple is killing itself with this idiotic new OS X every 18 months.

OS 8/9.x is no panacea by any means, but it it far easier to fix and maintain to extremely good operation.

At our Publication, our "work" Mac's still run OS 9.2.2, some with 10.1.5 and only two with 10.2.6 (one 700MHz iBook runs so slow with 10.2.6, no one wants to use it!)

We have virtually little problem with the Windows XP Pro systems we have, routine maint. is simple and they are reliable. I hate to say it, but MS is starting to get it right and Apple is loosing it.

[ ]Reply to This

- Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 10:41 AM PDT

RE: Apple is kiiling itself with OSX mistakes. PSmith




Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 02:31 PM PDTljocampo

Most of the hold-overs to OS X are closet PC users anyway. If they can't keep up with innovation then let them eat cake. Apple should forget them because they'll never have a good word for progress. And OS X 10.2.6 and Panther is progress. Thank you Apple! OH and btw OS X is very stable if you don't try to change it, like so many wanna-be OS X hackers.


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 02:32 PM PDTremo

> Claris Emailer, the only mail client that can get mail from IMAP, POP3, > and AOL accounts in one unified inbox – out of the box.

Uhm...Claris Emailer doesn't have IMAP support...


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 02:36 PM PDTrroberts

I find it hard to get upset by all this. I support Windas and Macs. M$ has the same issues getting people off old OS's. I routinely see business PCs running W95. I occaisionally see an old Mac running 7.6 as well.

Large numbers of people will continue to run their old Macs on old OSes until they fail to boot. That's normal and nothing to be concerned about.

For my art clients (mostly Quark users) they have stable OS 9 G4's (some B&W G3's) and aren't moving until forced to by a dead Mac. For them the bad news is that development of OS 9 has stopped, but the good news is that development of OS 9 has stopped and it's stable (at least as stable as you could expect).

Eventually, they'll order a G5 and make the move. There's no reason to go pushing them any faster than they're willing to go. They have deadlines to meet and the Mac is just a tool for them. Chill, the migration will happen in good time.

[ ]Reply to This



crarkoA Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 02:58 PM PDTdanwhopper

3 issues:

1) Creating an OSX CD 'Boot Disk' seems to remain some kind of mystic art. Can it be done?

2) VERY poor support for 3-1/2" floppies is one issue. I still need to transport/mail/etc. a single file & Sony Mavica camers still use these as a storage medium...

3) Maintainance/Repair utilities currently relegated to the 'command line' really must be made accessable from the GIU interface of the Finder and made useable by the proletariet (us).



NOTE: When I did switch one of my computers to OSX - it cost me an additional almost $3,000 to upgrade the software I use every day. My Umax Astra 4000 scanner still doesn't work with OSX.

Software companies seem reluctant to invest programming resources for a computing environment [OSX, OSX v1, OSX v1.1, OSX v1.2, etc., etc., OSX 2, and more ect...] that don't hold still long enough for them to recoup their investment. I can understand that it's difficult to write software for a moving target of an operating system/hardware platform.

Dan

[ ]Reply to This


A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make tombab

- Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 05:52 PM PDTComplaining jbelkin

- Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 05:29 AM PDT

A Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make rglaser


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 05:14 PM PDTApplal

I can agree that anyone in any line of work will find no reason to upgrade until there is a true need. If it works, don't fix it! That just makes sense.

However, having provided Mac support to my community schools and neighborhood on a volunteer basis for a decade, as well as running my own Mac network for our home computers (5 in all), I can honestly say that I got very comfortable troubleshooting OS9.x (and earlier versions) because I got to do it quite a bit. Even at home I only had X on my G4.

As time went on and X evolved to its current state, I began to dislike my continuing frequent trips to the kids computer room to fix something on their iMacs. Finally I tried out OSX on one of the iMacs (rev D) and I was pleased with the results. Between the Classic environment and apps that went native in X, we lost nothing. Within a week I made the switch on the other 2 iMacs (one, a rev A!) and have never looked back. The kids have everything they want with way less trouble. Uptime is into the 6 month range right now, with only an occassional restart due to software installation requirements.It cost me less than 200.00 for the ram upgrades to do ALL three iMacs up to 384 meg.

For myself, I work at home on a dual 1G MDD with Photoshop, Macromedia Dreamweaver and Fireworks, as well as the iLife apps. I've never been happier with my Mac or the operating system as I am with OSX.It just works.

Went over to a freinds house the other day to help with his OS9 system, and felt like I was working with something outdated. I brought him over to play around with my X system and he was impressed. He too, had been "holding out" but once he got a little hands on he was sold. He went out and purchased OSX that night!

Haven't heard from him since. He's either dead or happy.It's natural to resist change, but it will come, and Apple is preparing the



future for us.

[ ]Reply to ThisI've already switched - but I don't have to like it

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 07:37 PM PDTscotts13

I use OS X on my everyday computer - I do Mac tech support, and for better or worse, Apple is committed to X - so I have to know it.

But what could they do to make me happy about it? A few things - mostly not taking away what we already had.

I don't WANT an OS that has thousands of hidden and/or cryptically named files. I don't WANT an OS that requires me to type ANYTHING at a command prompt - that's not a Mac. You know what I tell customers? If they have to use Terminal, it means Apple hasn't finished that feature yet.

I don't WANT gratuitous changes to the most developed user interface ever. There is nothing in X that wasn't done easier and faster in OS 9 - ever try to move a couple of hundred files from one folder to another in X? That's a LOT of beachball time - it was instantaneous in 9. Dock? If you like trying to hit a moving target, fine - or do you have enough screen space to leave hiding off, and have the top AND bottom of the screen taken up with command lists?

After three years the permanent on-screen blurring still gives me fits - even on a rather large Apple LCD display. Booting back into 9 is like a soothing bottle of Visine.

Printing just doesn't work. I have all supported hardware (no easy task). Sometimes jobs print; sometimes they don't. Sometimes the printer I want stays selected; sometimes not. Sometimes the Print Center quits after a job; but usually not.

I also don't particularly like having to repair permissions after every install or other minor change. Yesterday the root directory was locked. Why? Who knows? And all this Unix permissions nonsense benefits us how? Do YOU have several users logged into your G4 with remote terminals?

To me it's clear Apple thought they were taking the easy way out after their in-house OS project failed. It's also clear they made the wrong choice. Sadly, we all have to live with it now. But I don't have to like it.


Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 09:16 PM PDTjohnq

"Mac OS 9"?

What's "Mac OS 9"?

Never heard of it.

Oh, do you mean that thing that Classic uses?

Just kidding.

But I seriously haven't used Mac OS 9 in many, many months, using Mac OS X exclusively (and no Classic either!). Mac OS X does absolutely



everything I've asked of it both for professional work and personal usage.

No upgrade is cheap or easy or flawless, and let's face it, this is more of a migration. Mac OS X's problems are addressed by Apple more often than not and regularly, meanwhile shareware adds to the experience in the same way it did for Mac OS 7,8,9. No System is perfect or complete. Actually Mac OS X is the elast barebones Mac OS yet, with tons of freebies. I've needed to buy far less 3rd party apps to get added functionality in Mac OS X than in I did in Mac OS 9.

I see a G5 and Panther in my future. Meanwhile the iBook gets my stuff done in style and ease-of-use, if not raw power and the iPod get's me through VERY busy and productive workdays.

Crashes? Mac OS 9? Windows? What's that...

[ ]Reply to ThisIf you're stuck on OS 9 and old hardware, stay there

Authored by: on Friday, July 11 2003 @ 11:06 PM PDTssobek

No one's asking you to give up your ancient UMAX scanners and ADB ports, your Beige G3s and extension conflicts. If OS 9/old hardware is what you want, stay there. But don't expect Apple to stay there with you!

Should Apple support peripherals that connected to Macs running OS 6? No. Apple needs to make money and move on, and it couldn't do that with OS 9 (which is in *no* way a modern operating system, nor would it ever be one). Apple will not be able to survive if new Mac users don't use OS X. You can't expect the latest iMacs to boot into it -- Apple officially killed it off, in case you forgot.

It's wonderful that you love OS 9. Stay there. Apple can't stay there with you!


Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 06:30 AM PDTperry

One thing that bugs me most about OS X is that there is no support for Outlook Express (my favorite e-mail program)....unless I'm just blind and can't find it. I could use Entourage, but don't particularly like that program. Any idea when we might expect Outlook Express for OS X?

[ ]Reply to ThisWhy people are sticking with Mac OS 9

Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 09:45 AM PDTHaroldCO

Apple's HyperCard I use daily on my G4 with OS 9.2.2 - - OS X is useless until a HyperCard X version arrives.


Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 10:11 AM PDThowwow



My dept deals with on-air broadcast design, the hard/software mainy are the Avid systems, and Macs using After Effects,Photoshop and Illustrator.We are still on OS 9; And as much as we want to switch to X, we are not just limited by the budget we have (to upgrade all exisiting software), but we are also limited by the limited software, mainly 3rd party plug- ins etc for AE; Also over at the Avid side, except for the new products they just announced (Adrenelaine, etc) that will run native on X, the current systems we have, Media Composer on 9, Symphony on Windows, it is going to take a great deal of resources to move to X, and a lot of (tech) support from Avid. There is also the net integration with the company's intranet and internet issues that we have to deal with our IT dept, and they have already stated that they are "not really OS X savvy"... So I guess we stay put at 9...

[ ]Reply to ThisJaguar has been nothing but trouble [LONG RANT]

Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 10:38 AM PDTC. P. Williams

I was excited by the prospect of the Jaguar release. I had purchased a dual processor Quicksilver with the intention of taking advantage of OS X's multiprocessing capabilities, and the descriptions I read of 10.2 made it sound as if the new OS had finally come of age. So I preordered from Apple Japan's online store, and was pleased when arrived.

Unfortunately, I have not done a day's worth of paying work since I started installing OS X. (That's partly my fault, since I had decided that I wanted a pure OS X system with no Classic.)

First there was the Mail app. I have been using Eudora for several years, and have decided I don't like it any more. Apple's Jaguar adverts, which detailed improvements to the Mail app, made it sound like a viable alternative, and I took them at their word. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

When I tried to use Mail's import function to import my mail from Eudora, it did a VERY poor job. It was unable to recognize the fact that Eudora saves incoming mail in the original encodings, and Japanese mail (which I receive a lot of) can come in several varieties. The result was a lot of garbled or incomplete mail. (I get the feeling that the import function was not tested very extensively.)

So I tried an alternative method which I found described in Apple's knowledge base. I uploaded all my mail to an IMAP box, then downloaded it using Mail. That got the encodings right, but the list view now showed all my mail as having arrived at the date and time when I downloaded it from the IMAP box (rather than using the dates from the headers). This made the Mail app unusable, as I make it my practice to sort my mail by date in the list view.

I called Apple Japan's help desk about this. They weren't aware of either of these problems until I told them about them. After they confirmed the existence of these problems with Apple USA, they called back with their advice: "Wait until the next major update, we'll fix them then."

So I had to spend a couple weeks trying out alternative mail clients, and finally ended up paying for a copy of PowerMail. These were the first "hidden costs" of my switch



to OS X.

At last I was ready to start using OS X for real. Or so I thought. I reinstalled the system clean, then applied the latest updates. Unfortunately for me, the latest update was 10.2.4. And I was using a Quicksilver dual processor box! All of a sudden my computer started resetting to 1940 each time I started up the machine!

Stupid me, I didn't think to check Macfixit. I assumed the clock battery had died. It was strange, since the machine was not THAT old. But I had sent it out for repairs at one point, and I figured maybe whoever repaired my machine had accidentally replaced my battery with a new one. So I went into town and bought a new battery, and replaced it, and of course it did not help.

Then I checked Macfixit, and learned that Apple's latest update had introduced what has to be the stupidest OS bug I've ever heard tell of!

I called Apple Japan's hotline about this, too. Once again, they claimed they had never heard of it until I informed them of it. (Thanks, Macfixit, for helping me give Apple Japan some important information about their product!)

So I waited until 10.2.5 was released. That seemed to work better. I suppose I could have been using OS X for work since the release 10.2.5, except for one problem. While I was trying to switch over to OS X I had become swamped with work (I'm a professional translator), and I could no longer put it off (after all, I can't buy Apple products if I don't get paid by my customers).

So I have been working for the past few months on my backup machine, a TiBook 800 running OS 9. My main machine sits on my desk, a pretty Quicksilver paperweight with the software half-installed. (To be honest, it is unfair to call it a paperweight. I do use this machine, which cost me upwards of three thousand dollars, to play music from time to time. iTunes is a lovely piece of software.)

So if Apple wants to know why I haven't switched yet, the answer is simple. Switching hasn't been cost-effective (my attempt at switching involved hidden costs to the tune of a few thousand dollars, if lost work time is included), and Apple's poor quality control is to blame.

iApps are great, but they ain't worth beans if the OS don't work. And that's the truth.

[ ]Reply to This - Authored

by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 10:48 AM PDTJaguar has been nothing but trouble [LONG RANT]

C. P. WilliamsA Switch campaign of a different kind: Why people are sticking with Mac OS 9, and what will make

Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 11:15 AM PDTMacsure

First, thanks to MacFixit for this fairly comprehensive overview. It's sure generated a host of (mostly) useful cases arguing on one side or the other.

But that's what made me think a little longer / harder about the basic



issues: Primarily, what happens when a company makes major changes (hoping to improve)it's product appeal.

The comparison I'm most familiar with is the automobile (vs computers & op systems). In that case, we see car companies started really innovating in the 1920s, then in roughly 10 year cycles, the process repeated and evolved until (about) the 1980s.

For owners of car mfg. companies, it proved a perilous process. Many car companies came out with really improved and "sexy" products, but almost ALL ended up as absorbed into Ford and GM or simply vanished because they lacked the resources to "fight the big guys" who mostly overpowered in the publicity & advertising area.

Today, Apple finds itself in the role of the comparatively tiny competitor which innovates BECAUSE it can't really compete with the MS-created "vision" of what a mass market computer is -- in the minds of customers. Remember the key to successful auto sales: Sell the SIZZLE, not the STEAK.

So Apple's position is tenuous, though it still can be said to have the better product. We who would prefer Macs over Wintel machines are also left in a very tenuous position -- similar to those who preferred Packard Motor Cars over cars made by the Big Three auto makers.

Finally, the valid complaints or desires of those posting on this forum illustrate another danger: Apple has fragmented it's already tiny customer base.

The sad fact is, Mr. Jobs' and Mr. Wozniak's ORIGINAL idea of making computers a mass market product has been diverted and diluted. It's as if Henry Ford had started out with his famous declaration, (that he'd make cars ANYONE could afford), but then decided it was better to just make novel improvements and be satisfied with a 3% market share.

And don't mistake the rapid turnover in computer enhancements for something "new" -- it is a faster cycle, but compared to the 10 year cycle in the auto industry, that puts us in the 1930s at best. We have NO idea what "computers" will be like in 10 or 20 years. It remains a question only whether or not Apple will end up a minor footnote in this "future history."

So indeed, Apple's "Switch" campaign may have much different consequences than we can foresee.


Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 11:52 AM PDTBoxKite

Balderdash!! I've been a Mac owner since 1986 and am a full-time Macintosh tech.

OS X is so much more stable than OS 9 there can be no comparison. In my experience, the most stable pre-OS X Mac OS was OS 8.6. I've seen Mac's running OS 9 with no 3rd party software, no peripherals and all Apple-branded RAM freeze for no apparent reason, sometimes chronically. Having to manually manage extensions and memory in OS 9 is beyond antiquated. Not to mention OS 9's horrible-to-non-existent multi-tasking and lack of kernel-level support for multiple processors.

"Hopping back over the fence, claims of Mac OS X's stability superiority over Mac OS 9 are also blown out of proportion."



I have also found that Classic mode launches faster and is more stable than booting directly into OS 9. If Classic crashes, it doesn't take down the whole system and recovery time is faster since it launches faster. Extensions conflict troubleshooting is much easier in Classic mode.

If something flat out will not run in Classic or you've got older hardware, I can understand the need to stay in OS 9. But if you've got a newer Mac and you can use Classic, load that puppy up with RAM and watch OS X fly. If this old dog can learn new tricks, so can you, unless you're determined to be a masochist. And yes, I understand it isn't that easy for a large house with many seats. Start a pilot program now. You'll reap big rewards and have a smoother transition in the long run.

I also think OS X is easier to use than OS 9 (*gasp*). One small example: Rendezvous vs AppleTalk. Rendezvous rocks. It's multihoming, requires no configuration, finds other devices by itself and doesn't choke your network with so much "chatter." I could fill pages with the advantages of OS X...and save them as PDF files with a couple of mouse clicks in OS X...

[ ]Reply to ThisTimeLogger -- plus general concerns

Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 11:52 AM PDTTom Altman

(1) MacFixIt -- Great idea to host and encourage this discussion! Should help Apple and developers respond appropriately to their "why are people not switching?" concerns.

(2) I'm almost embarrassed to admit how old my "killer app" is -- it's "TimeLogger," from the long-departed Coral Research. It's a time tracking program, but not of a kind I've ever seen elsewhere. I'm not a business person tracking time by project or customer for billing back to them. I simply need to know how much of my computer use time is for business and how much for personal use to support tax deductibility of the business stuff. TimeLogger is a combination extension/control panel app -- i.e., heavily tied into the system -- that automatically pops up whenever I launch a new application or create a new document. It quickly lets me characterize the usage among five or so categories I created, then goes away and does all its tracking in the background, not requiring me to ever start or stop the timer. I never actually launch the application manually except at the end of the year to run a report characterizing my computer usage during the previous year. This is indispensable functionality for me. I've never even found an OS 9 replacement, despite looking extensively for several years once Coral Research disappeared and left TimeLogger unsupported -- much less one in OS X.

(3) Like many others, having cut my computer teeth on the traditional Mac operating system, starting with the first one in 1984, I'm naturally uncomfortable envisioning the headaches and learning associated with a change to a substantially new operating system. Hearing enough about people's headaches with permissions, etc. -- and knowing those are important in an office but would be of no value for me in my home use -- I'm simply in no hurry to invest the considerable



time and effort in converting. And there's the obvious awareness that other applications and utilities will break in the process, that some may not be replaceable, that some connected hardware may have to be replaced, etc. In short, the pain is guaranteed, while the benefits cannot be.

(4) Having said that, I'm not a hopeless OS 9 die-hard. And I must admit that Apple is working hard to make OS X more attractive. We're all lured by different bait, but the new Music Store has certainly caught my attention. I'm very disappointed it's limited to OS X users -- and question that logic, as one would think the goal was to quickly make that service as widely used as possible -- but must admit it's a lure tempting me toward OS X. But it'll take still more lures to get me to move, as I envision a lot of trouble and nuisance in making the change, with my gigabytes of applications and data sure to contain some that can't make the trip and knowing it'll take hours and dollars to find out which ones and how much.

[ ]Reply to ThisAnother reason--Never mentioned

Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 12:46 PM PDTpetersconsult

I am a consultant for many labs and graphics houses. I am trying very hard to get everyone on Jaguar (and then Panther), because I think it's the best OS ever, period, and for those who have Classic-only apps, you'd be surprised how well they actaully run in Classic.

That said, THE ONE criticism that I can't do anything about, THE ONE reason that keeps entire university laboratories and departments from switching, THE ONE thing that OS 9 users can laugh at all day, is that #$@&%* SPINNING BEACH BALL!

No matter what I say, they're right, OS X is unresponsive as hell!!That is not to say that it is slow. Indeed, I always try to tell them that OS X is faster overall, you can launch apps simultaneously and they load just as fast...,but it just doesn't 'snap to it' as OS 9 did. And when it comes down to it, they're right, and Apple needs to make more progress on making X 'snappier' (some progress has been made, but not enough).

When tales of the spinning beach ball are gone, people will migrate.

Cheers all,Peter.

[ ]Reply to Thisox is the flagship with 9 as support

Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 12:59 PM PDTdavidlaska

x is the best in everything it does. I can,t knock it for what it can,t do that 9 does, that,s not fair. (note, I don,t have firewire and usb on my wallstreet) I will use ox only when I don,t have to use 9 to fill in the blanks (mainly for legacy scsi and serial port hardware and software that did not migrate). I spend as much as possible in x and use 9 in classic mode (swift reboots for those classic unstable apps.)if needed. Booting into 9 is my last choise. There is to many factors for me to pass a blanket judgement on this matter, besides I try to stick with x when I can. I feel secure in x with classic to back me up. So I have not made a complete switch. But why not say 9 as we know it is gone, absorbed into x as another feature of x. Morse code is



outdated long ago but thought in the navy until recently. Maybe in fifty years switching to x rom 9 would be painless and natural.


Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 01:25 PM PDTAppleZilla

I switched in February of 2002 and was working in it 90% of the time on the same day. Within a few months, I had Photoshop and scanner drivers for X. Oh, and I booted Quark oh so fast.

Here's a clue for OS9 users. Pretend that OS9 is neither made nor supported anymore. (Which it isn't) If OSX is your only choice (which it is), you'll adapt quickly.

I love never crashing. Well...maybe once every couple of months. Feels like never.


Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 02:05 PM PDTonno

So now that it works great it is no longer supported. Sure there is still legacy software that might never get ported over, but Apple has been fixing issues at a fast and furious pace, and its good for us users when Apple feels like it is in a difficult spot, for they try real hard to keep us happy. Sure the transition will take a while longer before it is as smooth as it use to be in the single-tasking old OS, but when the time comes, the experience of the new OS will be better than we could ever dream about -- it already is in many respects, something I'm all too aware of whenever I sit down behind a computer running 9.

I guess most people forgot or are not old enough to know what a pain the classic mac was when it came to all kinds of things, like remember corrupt fonts? Crash city!


Authored by: on Saturday, July 12 2003 @ 03:59 PM PDTMarkle

I applaud MFI for having the integrity and even a certain amount of courage for publishing this article. I don't recall seeing a major player in the Mac universe pause in recent times to acknowledge and refect on the fact that THREE YEARS into the OS X era, adoption of it has stalled.

Three years is a LONG time in the computer world. The Mac has existed since 1984. Apple has been struggling to turn a pre-existing OS, NeXTStep, into OS X for SIX years. And of course it's been a public release for three. The history of the Mac and X is WAY too long for people to still be making the excuse for X that it's new, and we should be fair enough to give it time.

Most significantly, and being the point of this article, 75% to 80% of Mac users have not migrated to the new platform. No matter what reason, excuse, or justification people may have for this, the fact that this is the case after 3 years tells us--unavoidably--that OS X and Apple are in REAL



trouble.

<< Apple will not be able to survive if new Mac users don't use OS X. >>

Apple is a business, not a charity. No one has to use OS X out of a sense of obligation if it doesn't work for them.

<< You can't expect the latest iMacs to boot into it -- Apple officially killed it off, in case you forgot. >>

Yes, who can ever forget the sneer on Steve Jobs' face when he brought a coffin on stage and declared dead probably the best computer OS--certainly the best user interface--ever made. And the one, "in case you forgot," that the majority of us are still using. But YES--we CAN expect the latest iMacs to boot into the Mac OS. What we can't necessarily expect is for Jobs to allow us to do it. How many sales will 2.x% market share Apple lose just because of that?

<< Here's a clue for OS9 users. Pretend that OS9 is neither made nor supported anymore. (Which it isn't) If OSX is your only choice (which it is), you'll adapt quickly. >>

Here's another "clue"--why stop there? Pretend that the Mac had never been made. Pretend that the GUI had never been invented. Pretend that your only choice is glowing green blocky characters on a black screen. Pretend that your only choice is DOS. You'll adapt quickly. And, boy, will you be happy when anything even RESEMBLING a GUI comes along!

The Mac OS could have been updated with modern features. But internal problems at Apple got in the way, and the rest you know. It's a sad thing. The OS X disaster did not have to happen.

Markle

[ ]Reply to This

Problems with MacFixIt?Send .email here

Home | MFI Pro | Search | Forums | Reports | Archives | Library | Email | About | Ads | Links |

Copyright © 1996-2002 TechTracker, Inc. All rights reserved. TechTracker, TechTracker Pro, TechTracker Desktop, VersionTracker.com, MacFixIt,and their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of TechTracker, Inc



a switch campaign of a different kind: why people are ... · owc has the fastest firewire drives on...

Documents