Nokia phones only from AT&T
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
While 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.
Reader Quote: "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."
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
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.
Reader Quote: "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."
{MacFixIt_StoryBox}
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.
Reader Quote: "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"
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.
Reader Quote: "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."
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.
Reader Quote: "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."
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
Reader Quote: "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."
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:
Reader Quote: "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."
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.
Reader Quote: "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 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.
Reader Quote: "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?"
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
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:- UMAX Astra 2200: Drivers lacking
- 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."
- 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 Reader Quote: "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."
- 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. Reader Quote: "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)."
- Emagic's Audiowerk 2 PCI card will not work with CoreAudio in OSX without distortion.
- Reader Quote: 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."
- Specialized Software: barcode printing; legacy minicomputers with Classic Mac OS gateway software;
- Reader Quote: "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"
- 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 paper
- National 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.
- Reader Quote: "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."
- The Acrobat plug-in, PitStop Professional by Enfocus, is not yet available for Mac OS X.
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.
OS X is a tremendous improvement over 9. I used 9 for 3 years and was
frustrated by daily crashes. I have been using X (only app in Classic is
Pagemaker) for about 1 month and have yet to experience a system
crash. Only 2 force quits have occurred and they were both my doing. It
might be a bit slower than 9, however, my work flow is much more
efficent. The coming of Panther convinces me I'm on the right path here.
The learning curve on X was not hard. Plenty of info out there about
how to best work with the system. Funny how "change" can be so
challenging to some and not to others. Life....!
Mac OS X is the future. Let go of OS 9.
The claim that OS X is more stable than OS 9 is not an exaggeration.
I installed OS X on a clients server three months ago, and it has NEVER
crashed. I installed it on my wife's G4/400 five months ago and it has
NEVER crashed.
It does not matter how well you fine tune your OS 9 system, you cannot
get that kind of stability with it.
Amen.
I also bought two Macs in 1984 and used System 1.0/Finder 1.0.
But classic Mac OS is dead. Wistful nostalgia doesn't get work done the
way OSX does. Any comparison of stability is absurd even though I
thought for awhile I'd died and gone to heaven when 9.1 finally shipped.
I deleted Classic from my new PB G4 12" because it not only won't boot
into OS9 but I have no use for it in Classic either.
The technology, software and hardware, is a part of the past. There are
better ways now and the technology isn't that expensive. I recall that in
the early 1980's the average photojournalist hauled around a bag of
photo gear that ran $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 in cost. Some auto
mechanics are known to have more than $10,000.00 invested in their
personal shop box.
Reasonable upgrade costs every two to three years with Macs, their OS,
and software are a tradition for good reason. There's usually a better
way around the corner and griping because someone is locked into
ancient legacy technology doesn't hold water in a world where Office X,
Photoshop 7, and GoLive 6 are native to OSX.
Take a look at Version Tracker on a daily basis. The number of OSX
posts, new or updates, is mind boggling. I've never seen anything like
that level of productivity for the Mac. Anyone into video or design (other
than Quark freaks who now have their software available when they
probably should have switched to InDesign a year ago) in this day and
age is going to get eaten alive in the market place with some of the low
tech, outdated stuff described.
I wasn't thrilled with switching to OSX. I was that happy in moving from
System 6 to 7. Times change. *Overall* and for the most part they get
better. They always have. There has always been an active community
of those writing both the OS and applications software for the Mac. OSX
is no different other than the fact it is a quantum leap for the better.
Stability and multitasking capabilities alone make this a no brainer. All
the nitpicking little comments about this or that being a hair slower, etc.
don't even approach the times saving from the stability and multitasking
advantages alone. And there are many others. Look at the scientfic
software, for example, that has never been available for the Mac or
which is now returning to the platform with OSX.
Many of the people who's workflow is so critical with OS9 would likely be
just as well off with System 8: low tech, low productivity, and a
competitive market that's leaving them behind.
Rant ends. :)
While it's true that being careful what 3rd party OS extensions you run helps the stability of any OS I am still blown away by the improved reliability of OS X over OS 9 and earlier Mac OS releases. I've run EVERY release of OS X since 10.0 (every point release, every security update) and I've NEVER had a kernal panic, never had it crash on me once in 2 1/2 years. In the 10.0.x days there were a few Finder issues and with 10.2 I've learnt to avoid using the Finder's FTP feature as solid hangs requiring restarts often occur with it, but aside from that X is a solid as a rock. No matter how careful I was with previous Mac OS's and extensions I never achieved anthing like that level of reliability.
I did the initial upgrade from OS 9 to X 10.0 on a Firewire PB G3 and was amazed by how smooth and trouble-free it was. Every upgrade since has been equally trouble-free. Compare that with the Easter I lost trying to recover from a failed WinNT 4.0 to Win2000 upgrade last year!
There was an issue with 10.1 and 10.2 where the PB would not boot if my USB hub was plugged in (it worked fine if plugged in after booting) but that stopped happening when I switched to a new 800 MHz iBook last year. Apps still sometimes crash and burn, but OS X just keeps on going!
well that's all well and good for you all, but i have installed and subsequently removed at least 3 (or is it 4?) different versions of OSX, hoping each time that this next upgrade would transform this plodding excruciatingly slow - extrememely unstable Edsel back into something resembling my lightning fast, totally customized, unique Deuce Coupe street racer.
ok stretched automobile metaphors aside. i found the first two or three incarnations of OSX that i installed to be unacceptably slow - and i'm talking SLOOOOW - Finder hangs of 4-5 minutes while trying to open the preference panels, etc. and stable? not on your life - i guess its true that the OS didnt crash so very often (altho i certainly did - and MORE OFTEN then my OS 9 system) but i found that i was constantly experiencing data loss from crashing apps - how i grew to hate that Console screen! with the advent of 10.2.x i really hoped that some of these problems would be ironed out. and for about a month things were looking up. then - yes, the dreaded grey screen of death - i couldnt boot my machine into OS X no matter how many times i tried to repair or restore system software from my system disk - half the time i couldnt even get the thing to boot from the system CD! if it hadnt been for the fact that i was still using my OS 9 system as my primary system my data loss would have been incalculable. as it was that was it for me, i had had enough of 5 (5!!) Font folders, inability to read bitmap fonts (as a Flash web designer this was the final nail in the coffin...), the horrible annoying open and save column view dialogs (a truly terrible implementation of a not so terrible idea!!!), the completely NON-CUSTOMIZIBLE interface, the ****** blurry - yes BLURRY - not "ANTI-ALIASED" not "SMOOTH" but BLURRY! system font display, the huge bloated mass of Uzbekestanianian/Arzerbhizianianese language modules hidden inside of packages making them a royal pain to find and remove, not to mention the 10,000 printer drivers (why? couldnt they have just given us a disk and let us install what we needed?) for that matter the installer left a lot to be desired - why cant i tell it i dont need my computer to speak write and read 38 languages? and that i only need 3 - 3! - printer drivers... and while i'm at it - why in God's holy name is there NO UNINSTALLER! i have to go around and sift through the three different prefs folders to make sure i dont throw anything away i might want if i were to ever reinstall OS X (looking less and less likely). its been 3 weeks and i'm still discovering odd little invisible folders taking up 200-300 MBs of space...
its time someone said it - the emperor has no ****** clothes.
as for me, for the moment i'll stick with the my totally customizable interface (folders that look like mason jars?, color scheme - neon blue and yellow finder? just a mouse click away), my stable and speedy Finder - no spinning beach balls in my Finder Steve, and of course all that expensive non-OS X compatable software that still works oh so well for me...
it seems to me that if Apple would have done things just a little bit differently we could have all had our cake and ate it too... instead they're alienating their most loyal customers, pissing on us and telling us its raining - we're smarter than that...
regards,
a disgruntled customer.
Well, after 3 weeks of hell installing Panther and a lot more time on my XP boxes, I almost have it working. My scsi card is still a problem and I have to boot into 10.2 to use it. I am still working to fix that.
This is my take on the whole problem. OSX is great if you have a rather limited workflow and don't require tons of power or multi-platform capabilities. For the average user, it has lots of advantages. Imovie, itunes, ical, iphoto etc etc. Even for power users it is fine as long as the scope of your work remains limited and you work out the software bugs.
Once you pass a certain threshold of needs, (millions of files, thousands of fonts, hundreds of emails a day, terabytes of data, and high end periferals) your problems become more complex.It is also difficult to customize the user experience without getting 3rd party extensions.
I used to be a total no Windows man but my views have changed. XP Pro and MacOSX are both powerful and viable OS's, it just depends on your workflow or needs and experience. I need to have both and that is just fine.I prefer Mac for some things and Windows for others. I have accepted the fact that both Apple and Microsoft are marketing machines and you shouldn't believe all of what they tell us.
Whine, Whine, Whine....I'm so sick of hearing OS 9 users complain, that
OS X is different or that some 4 year old printer or scanner doesn't work
anymore in OS X. I've using the mac since the SE and I work in
publishing and I think OS X was the best thing Apple could do to keep
Apple going. Guess what people, technology is a busness..if you haven't
bought new hardware in 4 years why should Apple or any manufacturer
care what you think, your not doing anything for them. If you don't like
OS X or are too lazy to learn a new OS, then please do us all a favor and
switch to Windows.
available in Mac OS 9 that have seem to have no viable counterparts
<b>in Mac OS 9</b>"????
Add to the list of items that keeps me booting in System 9:
1) I still can?t get a driver for my Epson Expression 636 scanner.
VueScan doesn?t do it for me.
2) Retrospect won?t work with DVD-RAM in OSX 10.2-10.6. Dantz
has been promising a fix ever since Jaguar came out, but we?re still
waiting. With the advent of X, Dantz seems to have lost interest in
the Mac platform.
3) The most convenient storage/retrieval system I?ve ever seen,
Captivate!, runs in Classic, but you must be in Classic first for the
hot keys to work, which vitiates the convenience of this wonderful
program. There are a number of new X programs which offer some
of its functions, but none of them has the automation/convenience.
4) Spell Checker for X works, sort of, but it can?t paste corrections to
a document without removing the formatting, which makes it pretty
much useless. I actually must make all the corrections to the
document (in Appleworks, for example) by hand. According to the
programmer, there is no way to fix this in OS X. I?ve been shopping
for a quill pen.
5) QuicKeys, even in its latest version, is half as good as its 9
counterpart, requiring all sorts of workarounds to get it to do
anything useful at all.
6) AppleWorks 6 is full of bugs. Fortunately, I can run AW 5 in
System 9.
7) I have three printers from different manufacturers. The X drivers
for all three are sadly deficient compared to the old ones. Epson
says they are ?working? on all their X drivers. Any decade now they
may actually come through.
8) The dock is a feeble and annoying replacement for the Apple
menu. Fortunately, there are hacks to fix this. Add another few
hours and a few bucks. Come to think of it, multiply this by several,
to account for all the workarounds I?ve had to seek out and install
just to approach the utility I took for granted in 9.
9) The lag time on nearly all keyboard actions (three seconds for a
Print dialog to come up, for example, seven seconds to launch apps
that used to launch instantaneously) adds ten minutes a day to my
work load when I use X. Why don?t I get a faster computer? See
below.
10) I estimate I spend twenty minutes a day reading lists (like
MacFixit) only to keep up with all the latest bugs and workarounds
for X, the new X versions of software, and X-corrective utilities. I
never had to do this before.
11) I don?t get full system freezes or crashes (no kernel panics yet),
but I?d say I get more program crashes now than all crashes
combined in 9. For me, 9 is the more dependable, stable platform. I
know this isn?t true for everyone.
Ah, progress. Has X really been around for nearly two and a half
years? Hard to believe. I?m committed to the switch by now, but,
having spent thousands of dollars and who knows how many man-
months of work, I have yet to see a single advantage to X. I?ve been
ready to buy a new computer for a year, but I?m stuck with my old
AGP 400. I couldn?t buy a wind tunnel because of the noise; now I
can?t buy a new G4 or G5 because I must be able to boot in 9,
which I use as much as X.
Overall, I regret having started down that long, crooked road to X.
Apple was so busy pushing the failed NeXT interface on us that
they forgot about their loyal customers. That?s why so many people
are hunkered down in 9. I wonder how many folks plan to move
directly from 9 to Windows when they are finally _really_ forced to
switch? I know a couple who have done so already.
It?s sad, isn?t it? ?The computer for the rest of us? didn?t sell many
Macs, but it sold a ton of PCs because the last thing most people
want is to be different. Now OS X is supposed to attract users to the
Mac in droves, and its real effect is to divide the Mac loyalists, keep
me from buying a Mac, and drive others to Windows. With the
greatest products in the world, Apple keeps shooting itself in the
foot.
>1) I still can?t get a driver for my Epson Expression 636
>scanner. VueScan doesn?t do it for me.
I bought a new scanner that is supported by VueScan (and since then Canon released OS X drivers for it anyway, though VueScan's better), they're cheap as chips nowdays.
>2) Retrospect won?t work with DVD-RAM in OSX 10.2-10.6.
>Dantz has been promising a fix ever since Jaguar came out,
>but we?re still waiting. With the advent of X, Dantz seems
>to have lost interest in the Mac platform.
I don't have a DVD burner so can't hep I'm afraid but Retrospect works fine with both my internal and external CDRW drives, they are constantly updating their drivers it seems to me.
3) and 4) I have no comments on as I don't use them.
>5) QuicKeys, even in its latest version, is half as good as
>its 9 counterpart, requiring all sorts of workarounds to
>get it to do anything useful at all.
I was never a fan of QuicKeys so I don't miss it in OS X at all. With AS for OS X now pretty mature what is the point of it?
>6) AppleWorks 6 is full of bugs. Fortunately, I can run AW
>5 in System 9.
I use AW 6 (mainly the WP module) every day and I have no major issues with it - it's no more buggy than previous releases.
>7) I have three printers from different manufacturers. The
>X drivers for all three are sadly deficient compared to the
>old ones. Epson says they are ?working? on all their X
>drivers. Any decade now they may actually come through.
How are they deficient? I've used both Epson and HP inkjets with OS X and they work just fine. Initially the HP driver shipped with the 3820 did not install on 10.2 but there was a fixed version on HP's web site. Since then no problems.
>8) The dock is a feeble and annoying replacement for the
>Apple menu. Fortunately, there are hacks to fix this. Add
>another few hours and a few bucks. Come to think of it,
>multiply this by several, to account for all the
>workarounds I?ve had to seek out and install just to
>approach the utility I took for granted in 9.
I've come to really like the dock, it's way better than the mess of Apple menu, process menu, etc. that had grown up around OS 6-9. Launching apps and switching to already running apps is all done the same way from the same place, it's wonderfully consistent compared to OS 9. You can put frequently accessed folders there too. I've recently added LaunchBar which is useful sometimes, but the dock is much better than many initally claimed. It's different to OS 9 but that's not a bad thing.
>9) The lag time on nearly all keyboard actions (three
>seconds for a Print dialog to come up, for example, seven
>seconds to launch apps that used to launch instantaneously)
>adds ten minutes a day to my work load when I use X. Why
>don?t I get a faster computer?
I didn't get those sort of keyboard and print dialog delays even when running OS X on a 400MHz G3 PB! Each release of OS X is faster tha the one before, feed it's hunger for RAM and performance is usually fine. Most slow app launch times are app problems - e.g. even Mozilla 1.4/NS 7.1 now launch much faster than earlier versions, and Safari and Camino are faster to load than any browser on OS 9.
>10) I estimate I spend twenty minutes a day reading lists
>(like MacFixit) only to keep up with all the latest bugs
>and workarounds for X, the new X versions of software, and
>X-corrective utilities. I never had to do this before.
I don't, it just works for me - almost 100% of the time. The main thing to realise is that OS X will NEVER work "just like OS 9", nor should it. Don't waste your time looking for utilities to make X look/work like 9. X does many things differently, and most of them are improvements over OS 9 once you get used to them and understand why they were changed. Major exceptions - fsck'ing file extensions and some things like labels for example (coming in 10.3 thank God).
>11) I don?t get full system freezes or crashes (no kernel
>panics yet), but I?d say I get more program crashes now
>than all crashes combined in 9. For me, 9 is the more
>dependable, stable platform. I know this isn?t true for
>everyone.
It's certainly not true for me, most X apps I use are now very solid (I can't recall when AW 6.2.7 or Mozilla last crashed for example), they were flakey a couple of years ago in the 10.0.x days. I've never had a kernal panic or OS crash in 2 1/2 years of running OS X, I never want to see OS 9 again!
> RE:
> Add to the list of items that keeps me booting in System 9:
> 4) Spell Checker for X works, sort of, but it can?t paste
> corrections to
> a document without removing the formatting, which makes it pretty
> much useless.
I use SpellCatcher all the time in Microsoft Entourage and Word
(choosing it over Office's built-in spelling tools). It inserts with
formatting just fine! I also use it with BBEdit, Tex-Edit Plus, and
DreamWeaver; it works in all of them. If your problems are occurring in
AppleWorks, it sounds like the problem may be with AW.
> 5) QuicKeys, even in its latest version, is half as good as its 9
> counterpart, requiring all sorts of workarounds to get it to do
> anything useful at all.
>
But there are so many alternatives, many better: Keyboard Maestro and
iKey come to mind.
> 8) The dock is a feeble and annoying replacement for the
> Apple menu. Fortunately, there are hacks to fix this. Add
> another few hours and a few bucks. Come to think of it,
> multiply this by several, to account for all the
> workarounds I?ve had to seek out and install just to
> approach the utility I took for granted in 9.
The Dock grows on me; I use it more now than I did at first. And, like
you, I've added several alternative ways of launching and such: several
contextual menu things, Default Folder, Ittec, MaxMenus...but I love the
proliferation of alternatives, frankly. The Dock is perfectly adequate for
beginning users; it's us efficiency freaks who want more. And more is
available. I don't think Apple has to supply everything.
>
> 9) The lag time on nearly all keyboard actions (three
> seconds for a Print dialog to come up, for example, seven
> seconds to launch apps that used to launch instantaneously)
> adds ten minutes a day to my work load when I use X. Why
> don't I get a faster computer? See below.
I see lag time on some things, not on others. I agree, this area needs
work, and I think (hope) Panther will address it.
>
> 10) I estimate I spend twenty minutes a day reading lists (like
> MacFixit) only to keep up with all the latest bugs and workarounds
> for X, the new X versions of software, and X-corrective
> utilities. I never had to do this before.
>
I think I spend less time trouble-shooting and reading up on problems
now than I did under 9. YMMV
> 11) I don?t get full system freezes or crashes (no kernel panics
> yet), but I?d say I get more program crashes now than all crashes
> combined in 9. For me, 9 is the more dependable, stable platform.
> I know this isn?t true for everyone.
>
Yes; not for me.
> Ah, progress. Has X really been around for nearly two and a half
> years? Hard to believe. I?m committed to the switch by now, but,
> having spent thousands of dollars and who knows how many man-
> months of work, I have yet to see a single advantage to X. I?ve
> been
> ready to buy a new computer for a year, but I?m stuck with my old
> AGP 400. I couldn?t buy a wind tunnel because of the noise; now I
> can?t buy a new G4 or G5 because I must be able to boot in 9,
> which I use as much as X.
>
I happily upgraded my computer for OS X (a flat-panel iMac). I've always
loved being at the bleeding edge of things. But I have to admit, the folks
in my home office (a non-profit) use OS 9 still, and I have not come up
with any compelling reasons yet why they have to upgrade to OS X,
which would mean upgrading about half their desktop machines. (Two
our of four.)
It's possible that iChat AV may do the trick; free long-distance
conversations, even with video, is something you cannot get on OS 9.
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 ***** 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.
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."
<p>
Hello?! Anyone heard of the <b>Classic environment</b>? 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.
If you try OS X 10.2.6 for at least one month you won't ever want to use
OS 9 again.
I own a professional design company and utilize Photoshop, Illustrator,
Acrobat, InDesign, GoLive and many other apps. They run so smoothly in
OS X that there really is no comparison to before.
Don't take my word for it... try it. I am no novice either as my <a
href="http://www.theimagecache.com"><b>website</b></a> should
attest.
As the cliche goes... nothing stays the same... if you're not moving
forward you'll be moving backwards. (At least contextually.)
best ways!</b> 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.
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.
Oh, my heart goes out to them. I think that Apple should always make it
possible to work with 9 at some level, but the people who do so should
resign themselves to the fact that the next great thing, and the thing after
that, won't run on 9. It's not an aggressive move by Apple. It's concentrating
their development spending on the future. Should Apple keep a dozen
engineers working on 7.5, and another dozen on 8.6, and 9.2.2, and so on?
No. It's a waste of good effort. But we don't have to attack the people who
hang on to the edge of the pool. Everybody gets nervous in front of the new.
For those who wish to hang on to OS 9 there will always be places to find
support. The "Low End Mac" web site is a perfect example. We can be
sympathetic all we want but that's not really going to help them. What
we need to do is point out the reality of the situtation to them in a
gracious manner and if they won't hear it we have to let it be. I'm sure
there are plenty of Apple II users out there who can keep them company.
;-)
- by swift2--2008 July 11, 2003 9:53 AM PDT
- <class="merchant"><span>>>>></span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by MacOO7</i></div></class><br />
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 8 pages (144 Comments)Yeah, I know. I wasn't really even responding to you, but to many other
people who attack people for their learned habits of mind. I've been through
this situation at work. The proprietary DOS program was written by the
Founder. After ten years, there were 40 or so expert users of this program
and it was bogging us down. Of course, it was full of kludges, but for a lot of
people, it's "better the devil you know." Then a brilliant programmer put
together a very good Windows version of the thing, that slices, dices and
walks the dog. Naturally, being the Mac guy, I learned the GUI thing quickly,
and soon was earning 15-20% more than I had been; it made you that much
faster. Still, it was resisted until finally the directive came down that we
would go with this in three months. It did take some doing, of course, but
now no one in the plant would go back. It's just something humans do.