Cool Mac Gear

I was into dual-booting long before OS X ever came on the scene. For example, even my ancient, 1988 Mac Plus is set up with two hard drive partitions so I can't boot into either System 6.08 (speed) or System 7.0 (Internet support). Over the years, all of my Macs have had at least two versions at of the Mac OS X installed on separate hard drive partitions.

I dislike the hassle and slowness of booting from CDs, and at a bare minimum, having two bootable systems on your hard drive is a convenient troubleshooting and diagnostic tool, as well as a ready backup if you're system develops problems (all systems do from time to time) and you want to fix it at a convenient time rather than interrupting production. Consequently, my affinity for OS X/OS 9 dual-booting is not just affection for OS 9 -- it's more the best of both worlds -- two really distinct operating systems running on the same hard drive and able to access the same files. Dual-booting nirvana. Which is one reason why I am dismayed at Apple's decision to terminate OS X/OS 9 dual-booting next month.

Of course, not everyone is of this this school of thought. In a letter below, Azrul Kevin Abdullah relates how he has purged all traces of OS X from his 550 MHz TiBook's hard drive. My son, on the other hand, kept OS 9 around on the hard drive of his 333 MHz Lombard PowerBook only until there was OS X support for his old SCSI CD-burner, at which point out went 9. However, I figured he would at least reinstall OS 9 when he sold the 'Book earlier this month.

Not so. Over Christmas, the Lombard's new odor phoned me. She was staying with friends and having difficulty configuring the PowerBook for dial-up Internet connection (she has DSL at home). I walked her through the steps in the OS X Network pane, but for some reason, the modem still refused to connect. Frustrated, I suggested she reboot into OS 9. Unfortunately, when she opened the startup disk pane, there was no sign of an OS 9 icon. I gave her the telephone number of where my son was staying....

I brought this up with him in a conversation yesterday.

"Why didn't you install OS 9 for that poor girl?"

"She said she preferred OSX."

"That's all well and good, but Classic Mode is still sometimes indispensible, and especially for someone who doesn't know a lot about computers, it's very handy to have OS 9 around as a backup. "

"OS 9 is old and obsolete. "

So there you have it. I suspect that this debate is one of those dialectical polarities that defies resolution. People just think differently about it. Me, I'm still for choice.

Before I sign off today's column, I ran into another annoying OS X glitch on the weekend. I was trying to send an email with a moderately large attachment (450k), when Internet Connect spontaneously decided to disconnect in mid-transfer. However, it got stuck in a "Disconnect" closed loop, and wouldn't exit or reset. I tried Force Quitting the PPP Monitor utility that I use, but to no avail. I next tried logging out, which was a pain, because I was busy and had a lot of applications running, documents open, and Classic Mode started up. However, when I logged back in again, the "Disconnect" script was still maddeningly looping in the menu bar.

In the end, it took a complete restart to reset the modem, after which things returned to normal, and I was able to send the email and attachment without further incident. Beats me what the problem was, but this sort of hangup doesn't happen in OS 9.

Re: Should You Have To Work To Like An Operating System?

From Luca Rescigno

Excellent article! I sort of feel the same way, but I still really like OS X. I've used computers since I first played with my mom's IIcx in 1989, but I've only really been "into" them since April of this year when I got a PowerBook G3/233/512k from my dad. Since I haven't really been a computer hobbyist for very long, I am more capable of handling the change.

One thing I miss, though, is the true Location Manager from OS 9 (and the control strip in general). I like being able to change my QuickTime connection speed, network settings, email settings, and whatever else I want when I go home. I do a lot of traveling between my home and my dorm, and being able to have a quick and easy Location Manager would be nice. Apparently Apple thinks that the only part of the Location Manager that anyone used was the networking aspect, so that's the only part they left. They also allow you to make a pop up list of SMTP servers to use, which helps, but it's not enough. As for the control strip, I think they're trying to work around it by putting items in the menu bar and/or dock, but it's not enough. Again, they've only left the stuff that they think people use - monitor settings, volume, battery life. I agree that those are the ones I use the most, but it's nice to have everything in one place. The energy saver and file sharing were also useful, but they are absent in OS X.

I've gotten around the lack of a true Applications/Apple menu by making a special Applications folder in my home folder. I put my most used apps in there so as not to clutter my dock (which only has a browser, Mail, AIM, iTunes, and System Prefs in it).

Anyway, thanks for the great article.

Hi Luca;

Don't get me wrong. I like OS X too. I just don't think it should be considered above constructive criticism. ;-)

Those WallStreet G3/233/512ks are great machines. I thoroughly enjoyed mine for 3 1/2 years. It died suddenly last summer, but my son, who recently sold his Lombard, is going to try and revive it.

Charles

Should You Have To Work To Like An Operating System?

From James Rae Smith

Hello Charles

In your reply to my (perhaps slightly impertinent) feedback you posed the question "Should You Have To Work To Like An Operating System?" and if so why. Interestingly few of the replies answered this directly and the implication behind your question is that OS 9 is much closer to the natural way we think and work, which is what we mean when we say some particular software or GUI is "intuitive". I first came to the Mac from the command prompt world of DOS, although I had also experienced some clunky and slow PC GUIs. The MacOS was a revelation, but I still had to learn my way around it, but to me from the word go the most important time saver was not having to learn a whole new slew of commands for each app - command + P, Z, W, O, etc would work in every one. When switching over to OSX, I eventually realised that this was almost as big a switch, and consequently I would have to make a blind leap and not look back, if I was to make it work. Maybe it is an even bigger one, as I had no GUI habits to unlearn when I switched from a CLI interface. For a month or so OSX was hard work, and rather unsettling, I felt like a circus highwire performer who has had his safety net removed. Even now I do not feel as at home, when problems arise, as many of those OSX utilities baffle me with complexities, choices and general geekery; and there are also times when I feel as though I have had some very old patched but comfortable shoes taken from me and am getting more than the occasional blister from some shiny new boots.

But would I switch back? Hell no - the truth of it is that now OSX feels more intuitive and smooth to me than OS 9, so I suppose I have adapted my working habits to the new OS. I hide documents and applications much more now and consequently do not really miss windowshade, I store less on my desktop, and most of what I do store is in a "Downloads" folder set to list view, so items moving on my desktop is no irritation. I have all the applications I use open all the time, and I use multitasking much more than I would ever have imagined under OS 9. This to me is now my natural way of working, and I would find it hard (and immensely annoying) to have to return to OS 9 and its limitations, setting memory for individual apps, constant watching your extensions folder, crashing apps bringing down the whole OS etc. So empirically, my experience would suggest that perhaps the classic Mac OS has less of a monopoly on intuitive interfaces and working methods than us Mac fans liked to claim in the past, and perhaps intuitive can occasionally just mean "what you are used to". To be honest I actually find it incredible that at this stage of OSX's evolution, that there are still a significant number of intelligent honourable people such as yourself who do not yet "get it" that OSX is just such an enormous improvement over OS 9. It just shows how very hard it is to get people to change computing habits, which on a wider note also bodes ill for the success of Apple's switcher campaign.

I believe the Mac platform must look to the future or it is nothing. If you want to be secure, to have technologies only when proven, and an evolutionary unthreatening computing environment Bill Gates is there smiling and ready to welcome you to his Windows world. Me I prefer OSX even with (and perhaps a tiny bit because of) its slightly rough edges. That is why I am also disappointed that despite being urged to many times by myself and others you haven't given LaunchBar a spin, because it too is a new idea, rather than an old one polished up and retreaded. Personally I now no longer use it, but it is a really interesting piece of software that might well suit your preferred work habits and particular physical problems. Anyway if I don't like now, you probably will!

All the best
James

Hi James;

I agree that OS X has many virtues, and is indubitably the future of the Mac platform. That's why I initiated this column, and have worked hard to get up to speed in OS X.

Perhaps my experience in OS 9 has been extraordinarily felicitous, since I have not been plagued with frequent crashes, memory issues (the default settings have almost always been fine), or mucking about with the Extensions Folder (I just go through it after a system install and turn about half the stuff off).

What I resist most, I guess, is that this has to be a zero-sum game; that I have to dislike OS 9 in order to like OS X. I disbelieve that. I like them both. I find OS 9 more productively efficient to use because it is so dramatically faster for doing the stuff I do on a modestly powered machine by current standards, but I do appreciate the things OS X does better. If it did the mundane things faster, there would be no argument.

I'll try to get around to trying out LaunchBar. ;-)

Charles

Of operating systems and firmware

From: Azrul Kevin Abdullah

Hi Charles,

Just read some of your rants on OS X and I couldn't agree more. For all its strengths it just strikes me as an OS that is missing out substantially in some areas. Hell, when I installed it for the first time; I thought it was a beta! Even my trusted Orinoco card didn't work with it (it worked like a charm under os 9 of course).

Despite the protected memory and stability; the ergonomic issues like files never staying in one place were not pleasing at all. I maintain a library of images for my web creation and photography (I was a professional photographer for a period) and files appearing haphazardly in a window was just NOT on. Also, keystrokes to bring you to a filename in a hierarchical dialog box doesn't work either, whereas it worked fine in OS 9. For many graphic artists and web developers; this means wasted time consumed to just look for a file. this was under 10.1 and I'm not sure if 10.2 has sorted this out.

Then let's get down to faulty file permissions. if you create a regular user account and delete that user later; you as an administrator will NOT be able to delete that user's folder. Well, just login as root and you should be able to delete the folder right? Well, that's not so. Even root wasn't given permission to do so. I had to boot back to OS 9 to delete the folder! Also, if a superuser like root transfers folders between users, don't expect the permissions to be transferred with them. Honestly, it's a horror show. BTW, did you know that the online help stuff doesn't even tell users that root access exists or how to enable it? For many older Mac users; all of this is just going to lead to more confusion. After all, wasn't the Mac created as a machine of simplicity? OS X may be more stable than 9, but it sure as hell injected tons of complexity under its apparently elegant and 'user-friendly' skin.

I installed 10.1 and gave it a whirl earlier this year (and included the half a dozen or so updates from Apple). after the first two months its sluggish interface and inconsistent behaviour just drove me up the wall!

Moving back to 9.2.2 was a relief but not after having to delete about 80,000 files that OS X left behind on my hard disk! That doesn't include a motherload of hidden files! After some encouragement from my lawyer (who's incidentally also an authorised Mac reseller), I moved back to 10.1. Immediately, I complained again of the same nagging issues. even the login to Appletalk networks is horrendously SLOW. also after realising all the issues (and possible dangers of losing data) surrounding the file permissions; I decided to move back to OS9.

The story doesn't really end there... I decided that I'll move to 9.2.1 or 9.1 which was in my mind more stable than 9.2.2. After purchasing a copy of 9.2.1 (a standard boxed edition from an Applecentre), I attempted to boot from the CD only to receive a message when running the installer "This version of the installer cannot be used with this machine". Somewhow, if you look at Apple's os matrix; OS9.2.1 will work with a PowerBook G4 550. but I guess after some decent meddling from Apple's firmware engineers; any version of Mac os prior to 9.2.2 simply CANNOT be installed on my PowerBook. Ultimately, Apple is crowding users out from any activity that 'downgrades' the OS. Naturally, they want everyone to use OSX.

Current versions of Apple machines ship with Osx on separate CDs but OS 9 is no longer included on separate CDs. this is a mess since you dont't get to install some custom components like Worldscript. though most of the English speaking world would never bother with it, many Asian Mac users will since they would perform Chinese/Japanese character input with it.

A few weeks ago, I sold an eMac to a graphic artist (yeah i work with my lawyer to sell Macs!) and he was ranting over the phone over how he couldn't do Chinese character input in Illustrator. I had to bring a standard set of oS 9 CDs to manually install Worldscript on his new eMac. OS9 only comes as a disk image on the latest machines. no custom installation is possible.

Even at my ad agency, we aren't using OS X. Everyone is used to the traditional interface that Macs have always had. Even colour separators and other industry professionals still use OS 9. It's just way to costly to upgrade to OS X and to also replace everything with OS X native software. Anyhow, if it ain't broken, why fix it right?

I used to be a Mac columnist with an English daily in Malaysia and all my work was done either on my old WallStreet that had OS 8.6 on it or a trusty 6100/66 that ran 7.1. As old as they were, they never failed me. After moving to a new G4 PowerBook this year, I would say that until Motorola comes up with with faster chips; the ergonomic performance of OS X is dismal. After booting my new PB550 (512mb RAM) under OS X, it felt like my slothy PB 1400cs! I felt cheated in a sense since the performance trade-off (under OSX) was not acceptable and neither was the relative cost to performance.

Though Apple has given us the wonder of 'Classic Mode', I don't think this is the right approach since I don't want to keep two OSs on my machine. The time I'll make the switch is when Apple proves it can make OS X a de-facto operating system that's just as easy and responsive as OS9. I want the confidence to just boot up just ONE os and not retain any baggage.

I did write an email to Apple's office in Malaysia commenting on the many shortcomings surrounding OS X; no comments came back. I guess they already know what needs to be addressed. meanwhile, it's back to os 9.2.2 for work. I re-formatted my hard drive a few months ago and got rid of all traces of OS X on it. How does it feel like now? Well, it ain't as pretty as OS X but it's fast, it's intuitive and hell it works! Now that's what I call a Mac.

regards,
Azrul Kevin Abdullah

Hi Azrul;

I agree with the observations in your last two sentences, and with many of your other observations. However, I'm not as negatively disposed toward OS x as you seem to be. I want bootable access to OS 9 for the foreseeable future, but I'm going to keep plugging away with OS X, and I trust it will continue to improve.

Your 550 MHz TiBook has a Mobility Radeon AGP 4X graphics card with 16 MB of VRAM, so it will support Quartz Extreme, and you might well find that OS X performance unde 10.2.x is more satisfactory.

On the other hand, If you're perfectly happy in OS 9.2, I can easily appreciate that, and more power to you.

Charles

Re: OS X Assimilation

From Mike Vicente

Charles,

I just finished reading Odyssey 231. Fenton Jones mentioned text clippings and TextEdit. He found another difference compared to OS 9.

OS X supports drag and drop editing. However, you must click and hold for a second (the cursor changes to an arrow) before dragging. Probably another strike against OS X speedwise, but at least the feature exists.

Good luck with your decision on a new laptop. Like you, I prefer laptops. I just bought a GHz Titanium. It's fantastic! No slowdowns for me.

Mike

Hi Mike;

Another OS X Finder hesitation, I guess.

Congrats on the new TiBook. Wish I had the $$. A new iBook for me.

Charles

re: Clippings & TextEdit

From Mark Ronald Rushton

Charles,

In response to Fenton's issue with TextEdit and clippings, I was also feeling the frustration, until a fellow citizen of the EhMac forum (http://www.ehmac.ca) clued me in: it does work. All you need to do is hold down the mouse button for a second on the highlighted text - if memory serves, the text "goes bold" when it's read to be dragged away.

Happy New Year!

M.

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too, Mark.

Charles

Text clippings in OS X...

From Robert Emslie

Dear Charles,

In response to Fenton Jones' letter in OS X Oddysey 231, I can assure you that text clippings are alive and well in OS X, simply, dragging a selection of text presents different behaviours in Cocoa and Carbon applications. TextEdit is a Cocoa app, so here's the difference: select the portion of text you want as a text clipping, click, wait a couple of seconds, and drag aforementioned selection to the desktop... While you drag it, the selection of text will even be transparent (courtesy of Quartz) so no worry, Apple have preserved text clippings in TextEdit!

This differentiates from the Classic way for one main reason, it prevents the user from accidentally dragging text selections around within the same body of text (which happened to me the first times when text dragging was introduced to the Mac OS), simply put: clicking in text for cursor placing and click'n'dragging for text selection are one level of interaction, dragging pieces of text around is a level higher.

Seems to me that Apple have refined the concept from Classic behaviour, making things less confusing for basic users.

So long,
Robert Emslie

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

CM

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear