Cool Mac Gear

Graphire 2 in OS 10.2.1....

From Jason Swan

Hi Charles,

Been reading your site for a while, and have been amazed at your patience in dealing with the repetitive questions/accusations you have had flying at you for the last little while (i.e. people who say "two mice work fine for me in OS X so what's the problem" and people who slam your recent articles dealing with OS X while obviously not having read and appreciated the nuances of your stance). However I have been a little bit disappointed with the non-conservative bashing that you have indulged in briefly the other day (right after you complained about conservative bashing (hmmm --pot, meet kettle). Anyhoo, on to matters of more practical reality.

Sad to say, I do not have good news for you. I have a beige 266 G3 with OX 10.2.1 and I have a Graphire 2 (via add-on PCI USB card) and Kensington trackball (Turbo Mouse, via ADB) both connected. I can not drag an item with one mouse while clicking on it with the other -- nothing happens. The item is selected and can be dragged with the device that is doing the clicking, but the other device has no effect on the selected item. Didn't think at the time to see if I could click-n-drag two different objects at the same time.

So it does not look like a Graphire would be a solution to your goal of being able to select an item with one mouse and drag with the other.

Jason Swan

Hi Jason;

Thanks for reading. Non-conservative bashing? I like to think of it as constructive critical commentary. Some of my best friends are non-conservatives -- really. ;-)

Thanks for the report on the Graphire 2. It is as I suspected. The issue is with the OS x mouse drivers.

Charles

Jaguar and G3s

From Michael Snider

Hi Charles.

Two things, one probably reassuring to you and the other not.

First, in Odyssey 168 you wrote "My most likely next new Mac looks like an iBook, which is still a G3, so I'm not terribly optimistic about dramatic performance gains," and you and others have recently made similar statements suggesting that speed in OS X depends on a G4 processor.

Since I have both a 600 mHz iBook and an 800 mHz G4 iMac, I can testify (as have others who have written to you) that it just ain't so. I've run both machines with 10.1.5, 10.2, and 10.2.1, and, while the iMac has always been and still is faster, upgrading to 10.2 reduced the gap between the two: the iMac is now marginally faster than it was, but the iBook acts as if it's on amphetamines. Jaguar gives a major boost to G3 machines, even ones, such as my iBook, with video cards unsupported by Quartz Extreme.

Second, I have never understood, until today's Odyssey, why you found OS X so slow. I started using the public beta on a 350 mHz Key Lime iBook, and performance seemed darned near acceptable on that machine. But now I learn how you scroll--by dragging the cursor or using the scroll arrows. Both methods are, in fact, dog slow in all versions of OS X on all 3 machines and neither has improved much.

But why scroll that way? If it's only habit, it's a habit you can unlearn, and doing so will make you faster even in OS 9. If it's related to the disabilities which make multiple clickers important to you, then it will be a stumbling block to you but is NOT, as you have acknowledged, a general problem with OS X.

Good luck and peace to you.
Michael

Hi Michael;

I am encouraged by your report on Jaguar performance vis a vis G3 vs. G4. Being able to directly compare the results on both types side by side removes the element of subjective perception.

As for scrolling, I drag over text to highlight and copy it a LOT in the sort of work I do. For example, all of my Applelinks stories are prepared in one Tex Edit Plus document (often with email or press release information copied and pasted or dragged in from other applications or documents), converted to HTML, and then the body text highlighted (another long drag-scroll) and pasted into an html template with the Applelinks page info. Then that in turn gets scroll highlighted and dragged in to posting CGI fields (Title/Synopsis or TOC/article text) in a browser for posting. During preparation there is much scrolling up and down, often with the Home/End keys while the markup process is tidied up.

In OS 9, I also use a little third-party utility called Scrollability that auto scrolls when the cursor enters the top or bottom 10 % of the window. This saves a massive amount of wear and tear on my aching hands and arms, and the lack of a similar hack for OS X is a major impediment for me, although Scrollability happily works in OS 9 applications running in Classic Mode.

Cutting to the chase, this modus operandi is the fastest way to work that I've been able to devise for repetitious production chores, long before OS X was an issue, and with the multiple pointing devices I can really fly in OS 9 -- much faster than would be possible with a single mouse, even absent my physical restrictions. The fact that OS X doesn't support most of this, or potential equivalents, is a large factor in why I find OS X substantially slower to use than OS 9.

As you confirm, OS X really is "dog slow" performing the scrolling methods I use.

Charles

re: OSX "Hater"

From Dave Ip

Hi Charles:

I've been reading your various columns on Macopinion, Low End Mac, Applelinks, etc. for over two years now. Having read the "OSX hater" silliness of the past couple of weeks, I don't know what the fuss is all about. You've been relating your own personal experience for the way you work. Others may have a differing opinion/experience. You don't have Jaguar installed, but have provided well thought out inferences and links to others who have. What's the big deal? If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, right? I suppose it's a testament to the regard you're held in the Mac web community, that your opinions should cause such a fuss.

Personally, I'm not giving up 9 any time soon either. It would cost me well over $2000 to upgrade all the software I have to X native versions.

Hi Dave;

We're on the same page I guess, but many seem to be using another hymnal entirely. Thanks for getting what I've been trying to express.

I also agree that converting cold turkey to OS x native can be a wallet-flattening exercise if you have a lot of expensive proprietary software. Classic mode and the ability to boot back into OS9 when necessary mitigates that painful aspect of the transition somewhat. Another reason why the enthusiasm for pulling the plug on OS 9 is unseemly, IMHO.

Charles

Subjective opinions

From Jay Scheuerle

Hi Charles,

I admire your patience in dealing with the fervent X-men out there. You've been taken to task for your subjective opinions even though you qualify them as such. There is no amount of benchmarking that will make a machine feel faster. There is no amount of posts claiming "OSX screams" that will make it seem zippier to someone who thinks it's unresponsive. A single, unchangeable machine can have two people walk away with completely polar opinions about speed and usability, with both opinions valid.

Whether it actually speeds up or not, I hope that OSX soon "feels" fast enough to ALL of us soon.

Your well articulated and thought-out odyssey continues to be a ride that captures the everyday frustrations of dealing with an OS that is inconsistent across the board performance-wise. It's a real-life evaluation, which is something I do not sense coming from these journalists who receive a top-of-the-line iMac with OSX, run it for a week sending email and surfing the net, and then proclaim it to be the best computing experience they've ever had.

I've booted back into 9 perhaps 6 times since the spring. I know it's faster, but I don't want to be there. Clinging to the cutting edge may be a character flaw of the technologically infatuated, but vices aren't supposed to be good for you! Keep up the good work. - j

Please note my new email address: jayscheuerle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Apple's terminating all mac.com email accounts unless we pay an additional $50 ($100 next year) per year. That's two cases of good beer.....

Or nearly the price of the next OS X version upgrade. I've phased out use of my mac.com email accounts, which will evaporate in the purge next week.

Thanks for "getting" where I'm coming from. My self-mandated mission in this gig has always been to speak to the average Mac user, who is typically running a several years old machine with an eclectic hodgepodge of new and old software, and doesn't have the budget or time to stay completely contemporary in either hardware or software. I suppose I could coin the term "value-computing as a broad categorization. I certainly don't disparage those who want to live on the bleeding edge, but there is more to the Mac experience than that.

Charles

Re: Reflections on the Road Travelled

From David W. Murray

Dear Charles,

I have noticed one thread running through the controversy regarding 9 vs X, not just recently, but Ab Initio. That is, that much of the more vocal pro-X faction simply does not regard any view to the contrary to be valid. They come on like an inquisitor confronting a lapsed heretic. As such, they don't really engage your views in dialogue, but go Ad Hominem, "you're a Mac X Hater!," and worse.

Gene's diatribe took the mink-lined gabboon. There is an enormous amount of poor journalism to be found on the Mac web, if one wishes to tilt that particular windmill, but this is the first time I have notice Gene doing so. Odd, isn't it, that he should begin at the top, with one of the best Mac journalists, rather than further down the feeding chain. Admittedly, I tired of his cheerleading some time back, and have read less and less of his stuff. His "Little Black Book" was so full of gushing, "Isn't it wonderful" pap that I had to buy Pogue's book to get into how to actually use and modify the OS.

He and I went back and forth by email a few times, until I tired of it. I had pointed out that it is premature to disable the 9 boot capability, while there are mission-critical operations, such as printing custom paper sizes on my Epson 1160, which can not be done either in X or in Classic. Gene conceded the example, but then went on as if it hadn't happened, touting the "Apple knows best" mantra. I'm sorry, lack of mission-critical capability ENDS THE CONVERSATION!

In any case, I have never seen you to state a conclusion without stating your reasons for doing so. You have always placed your cards on the table. I have to conclude that your daring to present an opinion counter to his is what raised his ire. No one can be completely objective, but he could try harder.

Best,
DWM

Hi David;

Thanks for the thumbs-up. There does seem to be a Political Correctness element at work in this controversy.

Gene is entitled to express his opinions in any way he chooses, and whether or not I agree with him, I respect and defend his right to say what he thinks.

I was surprised by his thinly-veiled public attack on my journalistic integrity. I'm not mad, but I was disappointed.

There are some things I like better about OS 9, and there are some things I think are better with OS X. I like being able to use both, and hopefully I will be back in that mode more efficiently soon.

Charles

Odyssey 168 comment

From Todd Wachob

From today's Odyssey 168,

Lately, but other insinuation has cropped up -- to wit that as a Mac journalist, so to speak, unless I'm using the "latest and greatest" version of OS X, I should shut up about OS X issues. I find that attitude somewhat bizarre.

I've been following this all week and didn't realize the opposite side of the coin, so to speak, until I read this paragraph. And then I had a good laugh when I realized why I haven't followed any of the "New and Notable" links to Mac Night Owl: Gene has very little to say that interests me. In saying that, I'm making an assumption that all he is talking about is Jaguar, since his writing about anything prior to Jaguar would be hypocritical. I've decided not to purchase an upgrade from 10.1, but to wait until I replace the 500 mhz Pismo to move away from 10.1. And unless my "Tax for the Mathematically Inept" receipt... uh, lottery ticket... is a winner, that won't be for a few years. So if Gene only wants to write about Jaguar, I have no reason to visit his web site. Wow; what a logic reversal, huh? ;)

By the way, based on the OS 9 to OS X conversion numbers, I'd be willing to bet that the 10.1 to 10.2 conversion rate isn't that great. I don't recall seeing anywhere how many copies of 10.2 have been sold compared to 10.1 when it debuted, but I think the numbers will be in favor of continued 10.1 issue coverage.

Please keep the honest impressions coming. The Mac web needs realists now more than ever.

TW

Hi Todd;

A thought that has occurred to me many times while reading the vitriol that's being routinely spouted against OS 9 (and by extension people who still like and use OS 9) is: "If the old Mac OS is so awful, why in the world did these people ever become Mac users in the first place?"

Just asking.

There will, IMHO, be a place for writing about pre-Jaguar, pre-OS X topics for a long time to come, and I intend on doing so even after I am eventually switched to OS X for most of my computing.

Charles

Re: Odyssey 168

From Jon Brawn

Ouch! I've only ever known OS X. (I'm one of those switchers - I got sick to the back teeth of fixing our PC, so when it came time to replace it, I did. Properly). I've tried using OS 9 - I hate it! How can you get anything done? It's unstable, clunky, counter-intuitive. Nothings in the first place you look for it. Blagh!

We each have our own subjective views on things, and I truly enjoyed reading your Odyssey. I hadn't know about Applelinks until now - I'll keep an eye on it.

PS: There are some interesting typos in the on-line article - was it scanned an OCRed by any chance?

Regards,
Jon Brawn

Hi Jon;

For switchers like you, and folks who are cutting their computing teeth on the Mac, my blanket advice is to ignore OS 9 and concentrate on OS X. You have no residual equity in pre-OS X software and likely no X-unsupported legacy peripherals. I have no illusions that the Classic Mac OS era is on its way out. I'm just in no hurry to hasten it on its way.

Believe me; I can work a lot faster in OS 9 than OS X, but I've been using the Classic OS daily for 10 years, and know how to squeeze every bit of potential out of it and how to anticipate and work around its shortcomings. For those of us who have these learned skills, OS 9 is faster, at least for the sort of stuff I do. But they're not skills worth learning from scratch at this stage of the game.

Re: the typos, for the same reason I need multi-mouse-input support for production, I am heavily dependent on dictation software, which can be a treacherous helper in that it produces perfectly spelled non-sequitur mistranscriptions of dictated text. I'm a lousy proofreader at the best of times, and especially for stuff that's not misspelled.

Charles

Re: Alsoft Disk Warrior For OS X

From Marc Reed

Charles-

When I bought my copy of Disk Warrior 2.1 at the Macworld Expo in July I was told that v. 3.0 would be available " in a month or two" and that I was entitled to a free upgrade when this occurs.

In fact, a coupon was included to tell me how to obtain the upgrade for only the cost of shipping and handling.

This is to be a native version running in OS X.

I'm assuming that as close as they might have been to releasing it, that the release of 10.2 had them back to the drawing board for compatibility issues.

Marc Reed

Hi Marc;

As I noted, the article I saw said that it would be a few months yet, but it's coming.

Charles

Re: Would you care to share your machine specs?

From Michael Koren

Chas

Could it be that Tex-Edit-Plus X has some bad programming in it?

Michael

Hi Michael;

I'm not a programmer, so I have no real frame of reference to critique the quality of programming, however, I think Tom Bender is a good programmer dedicated to making Tex Edit Plus as good as it can be. He issues updated versions frequently.

In OS X Odyssey 106, Tom made some comments about OS X performance issues. Here are some relevant excerpts:

"Specifically, there are several common traps that need to be optimized. For example, when Tex-Edit launches, it calls an OS trap to build the hierarchical Font menu. Unfortunately, this is a LOT slower than the OS 9 version of the same trap.

"There are a couple of other issues: Menu drawing is one big one (there is NO WAY that those beautiful anti-aliased, drop-shadowed, semitransparent menus are going to draw as quickly as the boring old OS 9 menus). All the windows and dialogs take longer to create/draw for similar reason. Fortunately, some of this slowdown is offset by instant window updates (when you dismiss a double-buffered dialog, there is no lag at all) and a much improved file system.

"Will OS X ever be as fast as OS 9 on the same system? I doubt it. We pay a price for protected memory (every single doggone memory access has to be screened to make sure it's in the right place), and preemptive multitasking (the "smarter" the algorithm is that gets to decide which process gets the processor time, the more overhead...also, there is no such thing as getting 100% of the processor anymore--housekeeping chores must continue no matter what). Virtual memory is now clean, efficient, and more transparent, but it is still much slower than "real" memory."

Charles

The speed considerations of Jaguar

From anonymous

Charles,

Again this is third hand accounts. I suggest you actually install Jaguar on your machine before making pronouncements about how fast or slow it is.

Only then can you really judge. And upgrade to 10.2.1 as it was just released. And if there is something really slow about it, let me know and I can help you fix it. As I have spent the past year understanding how X optimizes itself and when it is not optimized building that FAQ.

If you didn't spend so much time switching between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X it probably wouldn't be as slow!

I find that leaving the machine on in X, letting it run overnight or using Macjanitor dramatically increases its speed. Switching operating systems too often does make it seem slower than it really is since you're always switching between operating systems and not spending time actually doing work! Boot times alone can make one lose patience if one is always switching. If there is some hardware you don't have that is Mac OS X supported, sell it on eBay and use http://guide.apple.com/ to find a comparable part that is X compatible.

Staying out of 9 is the key to enjoying X.

Whoever is saying to you Jaguar is slow is lying in their teeth or just echoing your inexperience with Jaguar quoting others. It is a self fulfilling myth. I have it running on a Walstreet with 192 MB of RAM, and a Flat Panel iMac. Speed is nothing but amazing on Jaguar. I haven't seen speed like this since System 6. Send me anyone who has Jaguar running slowly, and I'll show you someone who:

1. Hasn't run Disk Utility to make sure there aren't any directory problems.
2. Installs the operating system with less than 1 GB of hard disk to space.
3. Who isn't running the recommended amount of RAM of at least 160 MB. 4. May have run Norton Disk Doctor on the machine in the past and should wipe their hard disk clean if they did that, or run Alsoft Disk Warrior 2.1.1 before installing X. Mac OS X is very sensitive about poorly modified disk directories which is the problem that Norton gives.

Now as for speed issues regarding dialup modems, there is a modem updater from Apple's Asia website that addresses those issues: http://www.asia.apple.com/modemupdater/

I invite anyone to come to Rockville Maryland and I'll fix their Mac so it is up to speed, you know where to e-mail me. I am anonymous only for publication on the web, but will gladly fix anyone's speed issues with X.
http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

Hi A.

Thanks for the tips and the offer of support advice.

Until the infamous dual-mouse input bug has been squashed, I'm pretty well blocked for physical disability reasons from switching to OS X full time. I need OS 9 to get my work done quickly and with as little pain as I can manage,

However, regarding the four points you cite:

1. I installed OS X 10.1 last fall on a newly initialized and partitioned hard drive. 2. I have OS X installed on a 4 GB partition, with about 1.6 GB still free. 3. I have 640 MB of RAM
4. See my answer to #1

I don't switch between OSes frequently, and never when doing production work unless it's absolutely necessary to check a specific point out for a review or something. Until last month, I was using OS X on a separate computer from my production machine, and would go for months without booting that unit into OS 9.

Charles

Two statements

From Wayne Folta

From The Day MacOS Died:

"[MacOS X] doesn't do the job for me. I NEED OS 9 to get my work done efficiently. I have been dutifully learning OS X, and it has potential and many virtues, but it is slow (even on 800 MHZ G4s (see: http://www.macintouch.com/mosxreader10.2pt10.html) and often frustrating, and it just won't do everything I need it to do."

"This whole thng really sucks, folks. I don't want a Mac that won't run OS 9, at least at this point in time, and not for the foreseeable future."

From Odyssey 168:

"However, ***for the hardware I have and the sort of work I do with computers,*** OS 9 is still a better OS for me, and I don't apologize for making that affirmation."

"I think that my observations about using OS X but less than ideal machinery are very much of relevance, and hopefully interest to that very large cohort at least."

No one is asking you to apologize for making the Odyssey 168 affirmation. BUT, your Odyssey 168 affirmation is totally different from the Day MacOS Died affirmation. (Which you reaffirmed in the next day's column.)

Your Day MacOS Died rant makes statements about FUTURE versions of MacOS X on FUTURE Mac hardware. In Odyssey 168, you're trying to paint yourself as the poor, misunderstood fellow who was only talking about current (OLDER) hardware (and software). This is called revisionist history, and it's an excellent way to lose credibility.

The fact is, your MacOS Died column was wrong. It was plain wrong. You made an error in logic, extrapolating incorrectly, and then went off. The following day in another column, you admitted you'd gone off, but refused to change any statements. Now, you're trying to make out that you said something WAY milder than you actually said.

We all say things in moments of passion that we regret. The question I have for you is: will you admit that your current position is different from your original position, and will you admit that this is because your original position was flawed?

Hi Wayne;

I've just reread the cited passages from the two columns several times, and I fail to see any inconsistancy or contradiction. The "OS Died" affirmations were not the most carefully nuanced statements I've ever made, as I wrote that commentary at the spur of the moment, but upon revisiting them I don't see anything I want to retract. I was speaking explicitly of my own situation; OS X doesn't do the job for me yet; and I don't want a computer than can't boot OS 9 for the foreseeable future. I was expressing my personal opinion, and that opinion has not changed. The original statements were also qualified ("at this point in time"). The comments in Odyssey 168 expand somewhat on what I had said earlier, but again, I see no contradiction.

Charles

Remember My Comments to OS X Odyssey 1 through 6?

From Jack Campbell

HI Charles,

Well, here we are at OS X Odyssey 168. I don't know if you'll recall my several replies to your first 6 installments, but I was the fellow who included the snide, "I doubt that you will print my dissenting comments" remark. You see, I was accusing you of showing a recalcitrant stubbornness to do what I wanted you to do: totally immerse yourself in OSX. And I (wrongly) presumed you would be reluctant to publish alternate views.

After checking here from time to time over the Odyssey, especially upon reading your latest summary, I see you still have not bothered to take my advice by fully adopting the very operating system that you purport to be "reviewing." You openly admit to having 10.1.4 on your machine, and using that machine in OS X only infrequently.

All of us who have long since adopted Apple's current operating system can tell you that 10.1.5 was the first "got it right" release, and that 10.2 is the first, "this is the real deal" release. You sir, are "evaluating" obsolete software, and are then publishing your opinions of this non-current software to the world, as though you are actually using "OS X," which you are not.

A question, my friend: Do you use Mac OS 9.0 on any of your machines? No? And why not? I would guess your answer to be that the first iteration of OS 9 wasn't the best, and subsequent releases fixed a bevy of operating issues. In other words, OS 9 got better with later releases.

Today, when you refer to "OS 9," do you mean 9.0 or do you mean some later release, such as 9.1 or 9.2?

I am writing this to you on one of the several machines I own that have all been migrated, one dot release at a time, to Mac OS X 10.2.1. None of them have OS 9 or "Classic" installed. And, my favorite toy of the bunch happens to be my old Wallstreet 233MHz machine, as it proves to me just how truly amazing OS X 10.2 really is; installing Jaguar on that old machine gave it new life.

So, as when you first began your OS X Odyssey, I appreciate your effort. However, I do wish your reports were actually covering the software you claim to be reviewing. What you are doing is no better than if I were to write and publish a review of, say, a hard disk drive, and never focus on the fact that it happened to be a year-old model.

So... please start using the current version of OS X, which is presently 10.2.1, and at least your reports would be valid, rather than merely a trip into the irrelevant past. And, in the process, you'll also find that the bulk of the "slowness" issues about which you incessantly carp have been mightily tuned up, as well.

Take care,

Jack Campbell
Staff Writer
http://www.spymac.com

Charles

The OS X Odyssey archives may be accessed here:
http://www.applelinks.com/news/odyssey/

CM

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear