Cool Mac Gear• iPod Video • iPod nano • iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Garageband |
Last week, in response to my comment that I haven't yet found the OS X "killer app.," John Martellaro suggested that the Chimera browser, a Cocoa-based spinoff from the Mozilla project, might be a candidate for "killer app." designation. I had tried some of the early builds of Chimera last spring, but hadn't downloaded any of the more recent version upgrades, so I decided to take John's suggestion and have a looksee at the latest 0.6.0 build of Chimera. Well, I can't affirm that Chimera is the OS X "killer app," -- one that I simply can't get along without -- but I agree with John that it's pretty impressive. I haven't run any timed comparisons, but a seat-of-the-pants evaluation tells me that this is the fastest Mac browser I've ever used, significantly faster than either Mozilla or Netscape, and a lot more lively than Internet Explorer 5.2 on my dial up modem connection. It must be lightning on a broadband hookup. 
Page rendering is quite attractive as well, although Netscape and Mozilla are also nice in that department. However, scrolling, one on my biggest complaints in the OS X versions of Netscape/Mozilla, is significantly smoother and faster in Chimera, although the scroll speed is still quite sluggish. Chimera had no problem importing my Mozilla Bookmarks file, and I found its Preferences setup very convenient to use. One Chimera feature that will be popular with many users is the simple check box to block popup advertisements. 
Being a Cocoa application, Chimera naturally has a slide-out drawer. In this instance it displays Bookmarks, a convenient feature. However, I did encounter a few hiccups and glitches with Chimera, which is still beta software. I discovered that on some pages, Applelinks being a notable example, if I left the window open after going off line, this dialog box would persistently appear, and refuse to depart he even when I clicked the OK button. The only cure was to quit the program. 
Another gripe is that while Chimera commendably allows you to save Web pages as plain text, it does a very messy job of it, something that would preclude my use of this browser for a lot of my Web surfing. 
The browser ocasionally loses its composure on some pages, and didn't support one of the Web banking sites I use. I hope these issues can be successfully dealt with in future builds of Chimera, because this has the makings of a great browser. The speed is intoxicating, and its generally a pleasure to use. But a "killer app?" Not quite, although after three days of trying it out, I'm really going to miss Chimera when I'm back in OS 9.
New in Chimera 0.6.0 :
Bug fixes
Known issues
The following are some known problems in Chimera 0.6.
For more information, visit:
11/22 Column Echoes Many Complaints Dual Boot OS X Odyssey 208 - A Networking Anomaly... Hot Deals on OS9 OS 9 Remote Access ISP issues, MSN messanger issues Martin A. Totusek's comments From Rhett Charles, Martin Totusek made some comments about OSX "lite" and a bunch of other rubbish about OS9. Quite frankly I am pretty tired of all the whining about Mac's not booting into OS9 in the future. Doesn't Drive10 come on a bootable XCD? He makes it sound like Apple will be out of business within a month if they release computers without the ability to dual boot into a different OS (you can install Linux PPC). Well correct me if I'm wrong but my Windows 2000 machines don't need to dual boot and they seem to be making plenty of money, even if they are trash! (which is probabaly because they include that option) If Microsoft could actually make a decent OS they would most likely drop all of the other crap too. I think that with all of the advances that have been made with OSX there isn't really much reason to boot into 9 (which I think is garbage compared to X). Apple is doing some really great work and making great strides in OS development. Sure there are things I don't like (I actually uninstalled 10.2.2 for 10.2.1 because of problems) and I am sure they will fix them eventually but all of these reports from people who cry about no OS9 are just wasting Apple's time. Why don't you guys try a little positive reporting or suggesting instead of all the whining. I have a Dual 500 running OS10, I actually bought it PLANNING for OSX, and when it was released I tried it out. It wasn't perfect and I didn't use it for a production (video and graphics) OS until 10.1, when it hit 10.2 life was even better. Now I have a minimal install of OS9 and that is only because some junk still thinks it needs Classic. I also have a 5500/225 with OS8.6 on it. I would love to install OSX on it but it won't let me (or even my Mac Classic). Well I could whine and cry about it or I could just use it as it works (which has been OK) and buy another computer. Besides if I could even install it, it would run so SLOW it would make me MAD. I don't mean any disrespect but it gets a little old hearing from these people who think Apple needs to continue to make a bloated OS so that some users can run a new OS on thier outdated machines or continue to spend money and resources on an OS that has NO, let me repeat that, NO future! For what? So you can install it on a new computer and keep all of your old apps. Well if your old apps are so great and work just perfect for you, why would you buy a new computer anyway? It's not like they didn't warn you it was coming, I bought my computer in December of 2000, by the time they switch it will have been not only a couple of years, but the software I use has gone through so many upgrades it runs on OSX anyway. Some of it runs ONLY in OSX! Besides, with the money they save from not having to support OS9 maybe they (Apple) can lower prices on hardware, which is something we all want! I have been wanting to say something about this for a while, I have actually stopped coming here so often because it seems that all this site is for is bashing OSX and discussing the most exotic and clumsy layout of peripherals and how to add more. Sorry I went on so long but thanks for your time,
Rhett
Hi Rhett;
My only agenda here is that I want a computer platform that allows me to get my work done quickly, efficiently, and with a minimum of hassle. I have no bias for or against either OS 9 or OS X. I am evaluating and reporting on my respective experiences with them objectively.
As long as OS 9 does a better job for me than OS X, I will continue to say so, and elaborate as to why. You may perceive this as "whining." It is not. It is a real world account of what is actually happening.
OS X is gradually improving (with, as you note, a possible regression with 10.2.2, which I haven't installed), but for a whole constellation of performance and reliability reasons, some of which are related to third-party, mission critical software, it's simply not yet ready to displace OS 9 for my purposes.
I am also ready to concede that a 500 MHz Pismo is not an adequate platform for doing production work in OS X. That's part of my point as well, but not all of it. For the foreseeable future, I would want OS 9 boot capability on a 1.25 GHz Power Mac.
For me, a computer is a tool; a means to an end; not an end in itself. When OS X is a better tool than OS 9, I'll happily say so, but so far it isn't.
Charles Re: Dual Booting? From Rhett Charles, Thanks for the reply. I apologize if my initial post sounded a little over the top, but sometimes it really bothers me. I never had much luck with OS9. It did OK for most things, but it crashed all the time. Even after tons of extension configuring it seemed to just be one BIG problem, especially with all of the ATI Radeon (very poor) drivers. So every time I would update some software (like Cleaner 5, ATI, Toast, Matrox RTMac etc...) I would have to start all over and spend days reconfiguring my machine. Well since OSX came along I wouldn't have to worry about these problems nearly as often (except for the poor Apple updates) and even though it was slower than OS9 for some things, it made up for it by giving me MUCH easier networking with PC's (I develop for a company that has a user base on PC's, so I have to test on them) and a MUCH more stable working environment. I have learned to keep a full backup of my OS (with carbon copy cloner) and to be much more leery of upgrading items coming from Apple (sorry but they have bitten me more than anyone). I have also learned that because I work with Mac's and PC's every day, I really hate Windoze (though they do surf the web much faster) and I want Apple to gain as much influence as possible. I think that OSX is the answer to this and I am willing to give up the seemingly few Classic apps if it will help with forward migration. Why don't we (as the collective Mac community) put more pressure on the software vendors to work on OSX application development and less pressure on Apple to keep 9 alive? I have very few (Pagemaker is the only thing I can think of right now and I am dropping it for InDesign) applications that need Classic, and the Vendor's that get to OSX first are the one's I switched to. Sorry but you snooze you loose. I wish more people would adopt Adobe InDesign just to show Quark what happens to companies that sit on their hands. It's not like EVERYONE in the WORLD didn't know that OSX was coming, they had PLENTY of time to work on apps for it. I am not sure what kind of programs you use (although I have heard mention of some ViaVoice I believe) but maybe there are some others in OSX you could try instead. I believe, like you, that this is just a tool. It has worked so wonderfully for me, compared to OS9, albeit a little slower at times (but not many) that it is sometimes hard for me to imagine why anyone would want to stay in OS9.
I can understand where you may be coming from but some people do really seem to be just whining because they will have to upgrade all of their software. It is probably too old by now anyway if they are looking for a new machine. I also think that it is pretty greedy that most companies are charging for OSX upgrades without much really NEW features. Terran updated Cleaner 5 to OSX for FREE! (and it was much faster and had some extras) I think that was the coolest thing I have ever seen and now they have me as a customer for life (and I am only 31). I feel like I can trust them now.
Well I certainly appreciate the discussion with you, and I really do enjoy the web site 99% of the time, I just had to get that off my chest. I hope you don't take offense (not that I think you would) to my criticism and I look forward to your continued column. Rhett p.s. You had some discussion a little bit back about whether journalists should pull the punches when reporting on Apple, well I say "hell no!" Hold their feet to the fire, but at least be fair about it.
Hi again Rhett;
I think my record uptime in OS 9 is 15 days with out a restart (all 8-12 hour workdays with lots of apps. open), and I typically go 4-5 days without restarting. However. if I had had the problems you relate with OS 9 stability, I would be embracing OS X gladly and not looking back. I've noted that it seems graphics professionals like yourself (ironically, given Apple's strong identification with high-end graphics) have had the most trouble with OS 9 crash-proneness. The only graphics program I use too many significant extent it is ancient Color It! 4.1, which I find runs great in everything from my dinosaur 1993 Mac LC 520 (25 MHz '030) to Classic Mode in OS 10.2.1. It is very stable, and crashes are exceedingly rare. It's also fast, and does pretty much everything I need to do with graphics. I am looking forward to the promised OS X native port.
I digress. Just as a note of clarification, I am not requesting or advocating that Apple's spend another cent on OS 9 development. I'm quite happy with it the way it is. I just want to continue to have the option of booting into it for as long as possible. I fully acknowledge that if Apple goes to a different CPU chip or new motherboard architecture, we can't expect them to spend time and money on engineering backwards compatibility for OS 9, but I do object to arbitrary disabling of OS 9 bootability in carryover machines in which there is no inherent technical impediment to continuing it.
Charles 11/22 Column Echoes Many Complaints From Allan Dear Charles, After struggling for a month or so with a problem similar to the one you describe in your November 22 column˜a nonfunctioning connection the internet in OS X. I checked out various popular forums and was surprised to note that hundreds a people have raised concerns about the same issue. I left the following message on a few of the boards, but the only useful suggestion was that I switch to another ISP: I've got an iMac G3, with 192MB RAM and recently moved from OS 9 to OS X 10.2.1. That's when I began to have big problems getting my dial-up connection to function as well as it did before. Getting connected in the first place is a cinch, but most of the time, after I've been working for 2-10 minutes, my IE 5 2.2 browser suddenly hangs: the progress bar stalls and the beachball keeps spinning until a message pops up to tell me that "the specified server cannot be located." When I look at the status bars on my Internet Connect window, the Send bar shows signals trying to push through, but the Receive bar is a dead blank. Then, if I try to send mail: "Your smtp server cannot be contacted on port 25." Or if I try to get mail: "Your pop server on port 110 timed out." You'd think I'd been disconnected, BUT my Internet Connect window and my modem icon both tell me I'm still connected and both are still ticking off my connection time. If I pick up my phone, there's that unmistakable internet hum. I've set my Network TCP/IP and PPP Options exactly according to the instructions of my ISP (Galaxy, a small, local company)˜Connect Automatically, TCP Header Compression, Verbose Loggin, and I even have it Prompt me every 5 minutes. One thing I did a few days ago seems to have helped: I opened the Network window and created a "New Location" and filled it with precisely the same information that I already had in the "automatic" location that you get when you set up your system for the first time. Now when I get "hung up," I just toggle from the location I'm on to the other one, the modem disconnects, redials, and I'm set for an uninterrupted session. It's as if I were somehow resetting the modem, all without restarting my iMac, which is a great timesaver. If any readers of your column suggest a solution to you, I'd appreciate it if you'd make it widely known. Apple hasn't responded to a single one of the many complaints posted on its own discussion site. Allan J. Curran
Hi Allan;
What you describe is pretty much exactly what I've been experiencing this week with this "borrowed" ISP acount I've been using. One interesting point is that it never happened with my regular ISP (which I hope will be accessable again soon). Beats me why, but it doesn't appear to be an issue with OS 9.
Charles
From Philip Day Actually Charles, I'm going to stick my neck way out here and suggest whats actually happening. You've run into a problem in OS X and rebooting and running in OS 9 has solved your problem, so you want the OS 9 option. shame on you ;-) why am I saying this? You've heard this before: " I sent an email to a friend on a Mac from my PC and he couldn't read the attachment. That shows that Macs can't read email from a PC " Actually of course, this shows that the PC user sent a Word attachment to a Mac user that had only Appleworks or an old Word. The compatibility issue is not one of platform but of application. The same would have happened if the PC Word user had sent the attachment to a PC user using WordPerfect. "All mass murderers drank milk as children. therafore drinking milk as a child will make you a mass murderer" Same bad logic/extrapolation Your problem isn't an OS version problem. You somehow managed to mess up your OS X environment and it doesn't do Internet properly anymore. You booted into a DIFFERENT OS environment ( OS 9) and the problems are gone. Like the above examples, you assumed that in some way, " the OS ( OS X) has some compatibility problems or glitches" Probably not - try this In OS X, create a new user with different password/name. etc Now set up that user with your correct Internet settings and log on. You've now logged on into a DIFFERENT OS ( a new OS X ) environment. I'll lay high odds that everything will work fine. Don't confuse the environment/current user with the OS I keep a separate user account set up just for this testing purpose - it's also faster to log out and in as the other user than to reboot. I'll leave fixing the old account or moving data to the new account up to you ;-) ( It's actually very easy )
Hi Philip;
Notwithstanding your solipsismic examples, my contention remains that this is another OS X flakiness problem. My account configuration is fine. I didn't change anything, and it worked again after I rebooted. The settings are correct. It works happily for a time and then goes wonky again.
It's quite conceivable that something may be screwed up in my general OS X installation, and indeed I suspect that to be the probable cause. That was my *point.* In my experience (ten years of heavy use), this sort of glitch has been exceedingly rare in the Classic OS, which is admirably low maintenance.
OS X, in my experience so far (one year of light to moderate use) has been anything but low maintenance.
Charles OS X Odyssey 208 - A Networking Anomaly... From David Johnson Hi Charles, I don’t have to agree with your opinions to respect them. And even when I don’t agree with what you write I often leave having gleaned something. This time though I was left with one big, “huh?” It sounded like your connection was dropped by your substitute ISP. If your connection was working and you didn’t change anything on your Mac it’s almost always on the ISP end. Sounds almost like an AOL kick to me. Frankly, I don’t see any connections to OS 9’s reliability over OS X. That dropped connection could have happened even if you were originally using OS 9. I’ve seen that happen many times in OS 9 and you presented no arguments otherwise. I also don’t see how booting into another OS is faster than logging out and then back to clear a glitch. Especially compared to the many instances of Classic Mac reboots. I do have to agree with you that Classic Mac “just works.” When it works. David Johnson
Hi David;
It was not a dropped connection (viz: Allan Curran's letter above). I tried logging off and dialing up again three times before booting back into OS 9. Each time the modem connected, but nothing further would work.
When I booted from OS 9 and dialed into the same ISP account all was well. I went back to OS X and it worked fine again all day; then Friday evening the connection cut out again spontaneously and the modem got stuck in "disconnect" mode. I tried logging out/in twice, but that didn't fix it. It took a restart. Since then it's been working normally.
I don't believe it's the ISP's fault. I've been using it since Tuesday in OS 9 and have had no problems.
Like I said, I don't know what it is, but I'm pretty sure it's some OS X glitch. At this writing, it has been working fine through about 20 dialups since I restarted, but the problem has not been identified.
Charles
Hot Deals on OS9
Hi Charles, Sorry I can't remember which batch of letters that the person was looking for a deal on OS9. I ran across this; "Apple OS 9.1 Full Install CD OEM Gray. Compatible with iBook, PowerBook, iMac, PowerMac model that has a G3 processor stock OR has a G3 or G4 Upgrade installed. (APLOS9CDL) more info... $49.95" on OWCs site while checking the specials out. Here is the link; http://eshop.macsales.com/Specials/Specials.cfm Hope this helps.
seeya
Thanks; I expect that it will.
Charles From Eric Matthieu Hi Charles, You mentioned in Oddyssey 208 that, "In OS 9, you have to enter new settings in the Remote Access Control Panel each time you switch dial up numbers." Not true! You CAN create multiple settings in Remote Access (great for anyone who travels with a PBook and needs to change numbers on the fly). When you have the Remote Access CP open, choose Configurations from the File menu. Now click on Duplicate and name the copied configuration whatever you like. Make it active, and you can edit all your settings - while leaving your other configurations intact. You can now select which one you want to use through the control panel or toggle via the control strip if you prefer. (This also is true of Remote Access in OS 8.6, but I'm not sure of any previous versions.) Hope you find this useful. Eric
Hi Eric;
You learn something new every day.
Thanks for the heads up. Wish I had known about this years ago.
It's not something you would discover by accident, but it works. :-)
Charles ISP issues, MSN messanger issues From anonymous Charles, Check my site: http://www.macmaps.com/Smart.net_MacOSX.html For tips on properly setting up Mac OS X for dialup internet. Also check http://thelist.internet.com and http://www.findanisp.com/ to see if there are other ISPs you may not know about that service your calling area. There are national ISPs that service practically everywhere. Try reinstalling MSN Messanger off your Microsoft Office CD, or remove the plist file related to MSN Messsanger in your Users/user/Library folder.
All else fails these clients are available that support MSN messnager instant messages under X, and you don't have to use Microsoft's: http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=8933&db=mac and if you haven't upgraded you should see about getting Messanger 3.0: http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=14983&db=mac This is in response to your article: http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/11/20021122123114.shtml
Sincerely,
Hi A,
Thanks, It's been working fine again in OS X all weekend. I didn't change anything. Just restarted.
I'm in the backwoods of rural Nova Scotia, Canada. I know for a fact that there are only two ISPs that serve this area. I've discussed it with several supposedly "national" ISP suppliers, like Sprint and ATT, and they don't service this far out in the boonies (we're 50 miles from the nearest small town).
I don't have a MS Office CD -- don't use Office, try to boycott MS products as much as possible, but I'm using the latest (at least as of two weeks ago) downloads of Messenger.
Charles From Bill Chin Mr. Martin A Totusek writes:
Ok. Deep breath here. Mac OS X is Mac OS. If you doubt that, take a good look at OPENSTEP 4.2 for Mach, and I mean from an expert point of view. Further, it was Mr. Jobs and Mr. Tevanian (among others) that decided to continue releasing Classic Mac OS versions when they came on board in 1997. If Mr. Jobs and Mr. Tevanian are truly "more than actively hostile(!) to [Classic] Mac OS" then you would never have seen any version of Mac OS 9. They would have ported OPENSTEP 4.2 for Mach to PowerPC, did some upgrades, and we will now be running OPENSTEP 6.x. Matter of fact, this could have been done in 1998, and Mac OS X Server 1.x is pretty much just that except with a half shoe-horned in Classic Platinum Mac OS theme. But did you see Mr. Jobs and Mr. Tevanian advocate at the time that Mac OS X Server 1.x should replace Mac OS 9 on every shipping Macintosh? No. This is a transition, and after years, one would reasonably expect that we will reach a point where we are reaching the other side of that transition. There are those of us that think this transition has gone on for far too long and the compromises made to accommodate Classic Mac OS quirks have been already too much.
If Apple doesn't put all of its eggs in the Mac OS X basket, it might as well fold up now. It does not have the cash, revenue, or software engineers to continue to split its work. Apple has to continue to sell products and Mac OS 9 as a software platform will not even tread water. If the 64 bit transition is at hand, does Mr. Totusek really expect Apple to go through the millions of lines of code in Mac OS 9 to make it 64 bit clean? Does he expect Apple to spend the millions of dollars to continue to write Mac OS classic system enablers for every new hardware platform generation? Does he expect Apple to spend the millions of dollars to bring new technologies like Bluetooth and iSync to Mac OS 9? Then, instead of complaining about Mac OS X, Mr. Totusek can complain about the demise of Apple.
..Bill Chin
The OS X Odyssey archives may be accessed here: Note: Letters to Moore's Mailbag may or may not be published at the editor's discretion. Correspondents' email addresses will NOT be published unless the correspondent specifically requests publication. Letters may be edited for length and/or context. Opinions expressed in postings to Moore's MailBag are those of the respective correspondents and not necessarily shared or endorsed by the Editor and/or Applelinks management. If you would prefer that your message not appear in Moore's Mailbag, we would still like to hear from you. Just clearly mark your message "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," and it will not be published. CM
Page: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
|
Cool Mac Gear• iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Keyboard Skins • Garageband
| ||||||
|
| ||||||||
