Cool Mac Gear

Odyssey X The Opinion

From dxtr

Hi Charles,

Great reading today!!

First you are torn up for explaining that you might have been a little hasty in your first reaction to the death of an old and trusted friend, OS9 dot whatever. Bad Charles! Then you are chastised by a Staff Writer from the web site that brought us the iWalk (twice) and has advertising that promises to "Flush the Fat Away" in blinking red letters as the most prominent feature on their home page. Bad Bad Charles!! If you keep this up some one will anonymously tell you that all those speed tests that you cite are wrong and you can cure all your problems with a program that cleans up the waste left by the web server program included in OS X. Wait a minute that happened too. BAD BAD BAD CHARLES!!!

I would like to see you at least go to 10.1.5 as it was a great improvement over .4 but I can live with it as long as I get to read the anguish displayed by the people here on As The X Turns. I also enjoyed your mini review of iCab but it doesn't work in X 2.1 or maybe it does, you'll never know if I nuanced the truth or not.

seeya
dxtr

p.s. Had to look up nuanced to see if it really was a word.

Hi dxtr;

:-)))

Thanks for providing me with a title for today's Odyssey

10.2.1 broke iCab? Arrrgh!

Charles

Re: OS X Oddysey

From James Robinson

Hi,

I'd like to say, as someone for whom OS X has been a bracing breath of fresh air since 10.0, that I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I really don't think your critics have any idea.

I see your situation almost as mine in reverse: I'm a programmer. I like UNIX. I have been dreaming of a Mac with a UNIX command line for years. OS 9 didn't suck, or I wouldn't have used it, but I used it fairly casually. My few efforts in programming it were horrifying - imagine rebooting from hard freezes 5 or 6 times every ten minutes until you find a missing * somewhere in your code - so I tended to shy away from that. Aside from that, with some very careful grooming, I could get 30 day uptimes out of OS 9 on a regular basis (usually, until Netscape 4 crashed it). It wasn't bad. But I couldn't really use it to do any of the things I was really interested in, and when I tried I was either rewarded with crashes, or with the way OS 9 behaves when one application is using a lot of resources: horribly.

OS X has opened a world of possibilities. About a month after I started using it, I was so totally settled in that I felt like I'd been using it for years. When I had to boot into OS 9, it felt alien and it looked strange. I kept sending the mouse down for a Dock that wasn't there. I do so much more on OS X than OS 9 that it's not funny. So, in an odd way, I have some sympathy for your position: I know how it feels to go from one to the other and experience a revelation.

There are a lot of people - you, a lot of the correspondents in your column, and a lot of people in MacInTouch and elsewhere - who are berating Apple for releasing machines that don't boot 9 too soon, because they have real-world requirements that OS X cannot satisfy yet. I feel for people in this position. But it's precisely to get those solutions on to OS X that Apple has to cut off OS 9. In the case of drivers - a common complaint - the device driver model in OS X is fundamentally different from OS 9, which means that drivers have to be written from scratch, which means that a lot of companies are dragging their heels. As long as OS 9 is a viable option, they won't port to OS X. Once their customers are screaming at them, they will. This is an altogether wretched state of affairs, but I submit that despite the very real ugliness and grief this will cause for a while, there are no better options for Apple. Fortunately, Macs last a long time, so if you have a recently late-model machine you can continue to use it. Any driver problems should be sorted out by the time the machine has to be replaced, and the applications that it would cost so much to replace should have had major version upgrades, which would make the jump over more palatable.

And remember (this is for your readers more than for you): If you want OS X to have a feature, or satisfy some need, send feedback to <http://www. apple.com/macosx/feedback>! Apple has more channels open to listen to their users than I've ever seen in 16 years as a Mac user. Let them know what you need, or they'll probably never guess on their own (it would never have occurred to me, for example, to think of supporting two mice at once!).

Thanks,
James

Hi James;

Thanks for the calm and thoughtful assessment of the topic. I'm delighted that OS X is working well for you. As you suggest, different strokes...

My underlying contention all along has been "the best tool for the job." OS X is obviously the best tool for what you do with computers by a wide margin, and that's great.

On the other hand, OS 9 is still the best tool for what I do with computers, also by a substantial margin. I've got no beef with people who like OS X better. I just get a bit testy about being told that I'm some sort of recidivist for sticking with the best tool for my purposes until OS X improves to the point where it is the best tool for me (which I fully expect it will).

Charles

Apple's failure to address disability access in OS X

From Kevin Shaffer

Hello, Charles!

As a casual reader of some Mac user internet columns and an occasional contributor to some forums under alias, I find the idiotic 'facist mentality' of the Political Correct pro-X attitudes very unthoughtful... very non-productive, and mean.

After all, you have expressed yourself adequately on numerous occasions and left no stone unturned in your purposes and needs in hardware and software for your job.

I have little need for OS X but have it in one of my machines; the 10.1.5 version alongside OS 9.2.2; and have no urge to compare the two because they are different and as none has reached a stage of ultimate perfection, there will never really be a 'better.' But, I also have OS 10.2 sitting in the mailing carton...

I would want more assurances than some mudslingers say-so before I dump that into my perfectly running iMac400DV (with only 512 MB of RAM and a 30 GB HDD...)

Besides, I own Macintosh computers to have a little fun and try different things on each of those that I still have; keeping in mind that I've owned some 40 machines in the past 5 or 6 years and only have three now.

I have restored many and donated them to Salvation Army stores in small towns, and some of the better ones to the senior centers in two locations; figuring they may see some use and not be sold in a fund raiser, some had extras added. I figure if some of our seniors want to email their family and friends, and can learn how on a donated Mac (especially when they are at some distance) there is no harm in helping them, anonymously.

I see it as great a crime against those who have disabilities to be harrassed by the uncaring and unsensitive as it is to find a business with the doors too heavy for some slightly built woman to open, or limiting access to those with the right color shirt... Apple and other manufacturers should be compelled by the best and most noble of human motivations to make available computing access options.

In your, and many other people's case, there is a gulf of difference between the mass-market appeal of a shiney new toy and the necessity of making a living with technology.

Good luck and the best of health to you. --KS.

[PS: I live in a small AK town; an at this moment am using a PowerMac 8500/120 with 112 MB RAM, two SCSI HDDs totally 10.5 GB, OS 9.2.2 on the primary drive (Old World Supported, via the free patch) and just put OS 9.1 into the second, larger drive... And the dialup is slow, but improving!]

Hi Kevin;

Thanks for "getting it." I admire your altruistic efforts in fixing and donating older Macs to good causes.

Charles

Scrolling in X

From John Martellaro

Ref: http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/09/20020923130533.shtml

So just exactly how *is* Michael Snider scrolling in Mac OS X? I tried using the scroll wheel on my Logitech two button mouse, and guess what? Using the wheel seems to work the fastest. Is this what he was referring to?

John Martellaro

OS9 vs. OSX

From Alex M

You said:

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?"

This isn't surprising. Bill Gates himself said something similar - he said, upon the release of Windows95, that Windows 3.11 sucks (today), even though it didn't suck yesterday. I still remember the cries of "Foul!" from those who had become experts with Program Manager and *.PIF files and saw the value of their knowledge plummet.

This in-with-the-new-out-with-the-old mindset is very common in the Wintel world, and we're seeing a lot of that between 9 and X users. A lot of the angst among 9 users is that they fear becoming like those who continued to use System 6 or those who chanted "Apple II forever!".

That's really not the fault of the pro-OSX crowd - Apple has made a business decision to not support OS9 in 2003 and it is up to each of us to respond. Something this strategic and fundamental to Apple's business model is unlikely to be reversed; I do believe that OS9 will continue to boot Macs that have not undergone significant hardware changes. Apple will simply no longer offer OS9 support for 2003 Macs; no tech support calls, no response from the local Mac Genius, nothing whatsoever. But I do believe the users will support each other and we will see workarounds appearing on the Mac web.

On the other hand, Apple would be wise to not put artificial roadblocks; the outcry and negative PR isn't going to do them any good, and someone will figure it out.

To paraphrase Joy's Law, the intelligence and creativity of the Mac universe outside 1 Infinite Loop is greater than the intelligence and creativity inside :-)

Alex

Hi Alex;

I pretty much agree with your assessment. It's not so much that some people prefer OS X -- more power to them. I'm glad they do. It's the vehemence of condemnation of OS 9 that I find strange.

Charles

Dispute your findings regarding drag scrolling

From Chas Redmond

Charles,

I would like to add fuel to the drag-scrolling fire. I too have OS 9 and X installed in different systems and this evening as a test I drag-scrolled the entire Odyssen 169, from the "OS X..." start to the "Protected by WPOISON" logo at the bottom. The results are inconsistent with what you have experienced, suggesting, perhaps, that the real problem is not the operating system but your choice of an application program. For the record, below are the statistics and results:

OS 9 system
Beige desktop G3/300 with 640 RAM running 9.2.2 with Internet Explorer 5.1.4 Added 128 Rage video card with Apple standard (ADB) beige pro keyboard and oldstyle oval beige mouse
time to scroll-drag entire Odyssey 169 file = 45 seconds

OS X system
iBook G3/600 with 384 ram running 10.2.1 with Internet explorer 5.2.1 nothing added but using Apple Pro Mouse in USB port time to scroll-drag entire Odyssey 169 file = 69 seconds

Both systems were tied into a Netgear 10/100 8-port hub tied into my Concentric/XO 1.6 mbps ADSL line. Both tests were performed immediately following each other at 10:30 pm this evening.

I would suggest there are other issues but the operating system is potentially not one of them. My experience, btw, is that the OS-X system on the iBook is just as responsive as the OS-9 system on the G3. This is true with the internet applications and the standard office/graphics standards. I've got Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, Bryce 5 and several other 9/X programs to be able to compare directly between the two OS's. AND, iBook with the G3/600 and internal 8meg ATI Rage 128 chip is three times faster running X-Plane 6 (native OS X version) than my beige G3/300 (native OS 9 version) with the same video card but more ram (ATI Rage 128 with 32 meg). The frame rate for X-Plane 6 on the iBook (OS X) is 18 fps, the frame rate for X-Plane on the beige G3 (OS 9) is less than 8. The same is virtually true for full-screen iTunes visual effects on both computers (nearly identical frame rates for totally different applications).

If it turns out that the problem IS with Text Edit Plus, I'd be willing to purchase BBEdit for you - it's available in both OS 9 and OS X versions and I can attest that it's lightning fast with scroll-dragging in either OS.

Like I said, more fuel for the fire.

Chas

Charles Roland Redmond 3rd
http://homepage.mac.com/credmond

Hi Chas;

I don't doubt that scrolling in some applications in OS X may be faster than in others, but even in your test with Explorer, it appears that OS 9 was about 35% faster.

I also would concede that Tex Edit Plus, which is the application I use most with either OS, may have worse scrolling performance than other text applications in OS X (this is just speculation -- I haven't run any bakeoffs).

Your kind offer re: BBEdit is more than generous, and I don't want to sound ungracious, but there is no other application that will do for me what TE+ does the way Tex Edit Plus does it. (BBEdit indeed comes closest, but I have BBEdit Lite, and have used the full version in the past, and don't like it as well as TE+. I've said for years that Tex Edit is one of the most significant reasons to use a Mac. Yesterday I reposted some comments from Tex Edit's author, Tom Bender, explaining why it's slower in OS X. It's lightning in OS 9.

The slower performance of TE+ in OS X alone wouldn't be a show-stopper for me. I reallu like the OS X version, especially with the new floating palette that isn't available in the OS X version. However, when combined with a bunch of other slowdowns, it is part of the cumulative problem, which includes the dual-mouse input issue; somewhat raggedy performance of the current OS X version of TypeIt4Me, which I also heavily depend on, in OS X; the sluggish Finder (which my be improved in Jaguar), the lack of an auto-scrolling utility equivalent to Scrollability in OS 9, etc.

Charles

Recent OS X Issues

From Thomas R. Bank

I read through the "Day the OS Died" column when it came out and have followed the fallout since then. Personally, I am still a bit confused by the outcry.

A little of my background for perspective. I have been an Apple user and staunch supporter since my first Apple ][ with a tape recorder for the storage drive. That went through several upgrades including a //e and then //gs. Out of college, my //gs continued to serve me well. The early Macs were around, but the money just was not there to upgrade. Then I got sucked into the PC world through my business life and became the default "computer guy" at work. Ironically this was mainly from my experience playing around with my series of Apple ][s rather than any actual PC experience. I was the only one willing to learn the machine and figure it out.

Unfortunately, computers ended up being such a frustration at work that the last thing I ever wanted to do was spend any time on one at home. My //gs got to the point where it was used less and less and I never bothered to upgrade to another home computer.

Three years ago I adopted a used Performa 6400 because I wanted to be able to e-mail from home, check out the Internet, do some word processing, and so forth without having to worry about having personal information on the computer at work. It was running OS 8 and was fairly slow and clunky compared to the machines at work -- not a surprise due to the years separating their release. However, I rediscovered the joy of a computer that actually worked with you rather than being an obstacle at every turn. I followed the information as OS X came out in beta, but knew that I needed a more finished OS and also that it stood little chance of running very well on my old Performa.

A year ago I picked up a refurb iMac DV SE 600Mhz machine along with a copy of OS X.1. I'll admit that I don't have the legacy software issues a lot of people have. My father is taking a much longer journey into OS X mostly because of issues in upgrading all of his software. I have been doing my best to learn the new OS and have been really pleased with it. I only wish that I had more time to devote, but my job still uses PCs and household tasks and other interests take their time as well.

So I will admit to two great differences of viewpoint from you in regard to OS X. First, I don't have a pile of software or hardware that I have to upgrade. Second, I don't have years of older Mac OS habits from which I have to retrain myself.

However, a few thoughts.

On the PC side of things, I am all too familiar with having to deal with a new OS. We spent a lot of time planning our upgrades. First, we were often forced into an upgrade to stay compatible with our clients and consultants. If we were using Program Version 6.0, we could work around things if a couple places we dealt with went to V7.0. However, if more than half were on V7.0 or a few were going to V8.0 we would have to move along no matter how pleased we were with V6.0. This in turn would usually mean an update to the OS as well since the PC side developers seem to adopt a new OS pretty quickly. Then, unless the hardware was less than a year old you usually ended up upgrading that as well because it was too much effort to make the old hardware work with the new OS. We were caught off guard by Win98 - we needed one new machine for a new employee and had been planning on upgrading another machine. Certain programs we used did not run on Win98 and we were running a peer-to-peer network instead of a dedicated server, so incorporating a Win98 machine in with the current Win95 machines was a mess. Being forced into an upgrade is not a pretty sight!

So the time that Apple has paralleled OS 9 & X seems fairly incredible to me. The fact that OS X can be made to work (and work well) on fairly old machines is also amazing. However, Apple, as a business, needs to move ahead. Supporting two different operating systems is a drain on resources. At some point they have to make the complete step to OS X. Instead of constantly working in two different directions, they have to consolidate resources and move ahead. They have done that and given fair enough notice.

Actually, one of my problems with OS X is when I am confronted with a program that has not been upgraded to OS X. "Just boot back into OS 9," I am told by the developers. I will admit that there are a few programs that I still have to run in Classic. Not many. Truthfully, I have little interest in "booting back into OS 9" at this point. First, I don't know OS 9 well enough to have any proficiency in it -- I can sort of understand how you feel about OS X there ;-). Second, everything else that I use is in OS X. That means that I have to boot into OS 9, use the program, save the file (or whatever), and then boot back into OS X to do the next step (or whatever else I want to do next). So, for me, the news of OS X boot only is good because that gives a clear sign of what direction things are headed in and I will hopefully not run into my own personal problem for much longer.

A final thought. Nearly two years ago, I changed jobs. As part of that change, I had to go from using one main program in my industry to another. Both are well rounded programs. Each has some nice features that the other does not, but 90% of it is essentially the same. Only problem is that you do things differently in each - similar end result, just different ways of getting to the same place. Two weeks of using the new program and I had most of it mastered. Another guy working here had to make the same switch. However, he was taking a class and still had to use the other program for the class. It took him significantly longer to make the switch because every time he went back to use the old program for his class he reaffirmed the old way of doing things.

I admit that you have to carefully weight the options before you make the switch. However, once you are ready, you pretty much have to jump in with both feet to be proficient.

Again, just my thoughts, for what they are worth.

Hi Thomas;

Thanks for sharing them. This debate/discussion thread initiated by the dual-boot termination announcement has been a lot of fun because it's really interesting to hear the widely varying perspectives of others on how they address the march of technological change both practically and philosophically.

Charles

Fwd: Your swipe at (?)

To: David Murray <redhawk34@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: cwmoore@applelinks.com

I read your letter at AppleLinks and I think you owe me a big apology, because you have seriously misrepresented my views.

First and foremost, I never espouse an "Apple knows best" mantra. If you read the material I write at The Mac Night Owl, you'll see I do take Apple to task on many fronts for lapses in Mac OS X and other areas. The site is searchable, so you should have no problems reading all the material.

Second, your comment about "The Mac OS X Little Black Book" still is way, way off. In fact, the book is an instruction manual, not a commentary, as I explained to you below (in a message to which you never responded). I do extol the virtues of Mac OS X, but I also provide a long troubleshooting chapter and extensive information on how to install, configure and fix problems, complete with notes and warnings. That's a far cry from your representation of what the book actually contains.

Despite your rabid defense of Mr. Moore, you fail to realize that my sole criticism has simply been his desire to comment on an operating version he has never used. He is not the only one that fits into this category, and not the only one to whom the article was directed, but you single him out. If he tries Jaguar, and hates it, fine. But has hasn't tried it. I have no other beef with him, and I consider him a friend.

Peace,
Gene

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

CM

Charles W. Moore