Cool Mac Gear

There was such a large response to my commentary on the state of OS X transitioning yesterday, that I'm dedicating an extra edition of the OS X Odyssey to them. Also see Odessey 334 today for more on the topic.

CM

Movement to OS X

From Jim Corti

Dear Charles,

You seem pretty level headed, where Manzione can be a little over zealous in his writing. (Particularly when he lost a battle with Apple over a machine, recently)

Please don't stop your comments on OSX with this column, May 30 or 29, whatever it is. You speak well and are pretty balanced in your views, so IMHO, you are a needed and welcome voice.

I switched over, and have some serious problems with the software upgrades, 10.2.5 and 10.2.6 to be specific. If I had known all of this would be happening, I would have found a way to just run 9.2.2 at all times via Classic. Which I was trying to do, when 10.2.5 popped on me.

I do, however, still love the elegance of OSX, when it is running right. (10.2.4, slow as it is, but still wonderful)

I just wish my Epson 875DCS and my HP 6300CSE had native OSX drivers, Pushing $1,000 or so, they are fairly recent, excellent peripherals that have no need to be trashed or relegated elsewhere.

There is no problem using them on any Windoze OS. Imagine that.

Please, keep talking about this OSX issue,

Jim Corti
Indian Ocean Mac User

Thanks for the comments, Jim. The issues you cite in particular are common ones.

OS 10.2.6 seems to be working reasonably well for me now after a rocky start, and I'm continuing to tweak and experiment.

Charles

Why Switch?

From Scott Smith

Hi Charles,

I have an original 233 iMac running OS 9.1. We live in Europe. I went to the States last summer and bought an iBook with OS X. Got David Pogue's "Jaguar The Missing Manual" and read it cover to cover. Enjoyed the learning experience.

I came back here and fired up my old 233. (My wife has taken possession of the iBook) After eight months of OS X, the fun of learning all that new stuff, I am now enjoying OS 9 much more than OS X. I like launching apps from the function keys, all the keyboard shortcuts, I like Outlook Express and IE better than Mail and Safari. What can I say? OS X still seems like a "immature" or "young" operating system where as OS 9 has lots of whistles and bells.

My 2¢

Scott Smith

Re: Odyssey 333: Switching to OS X

From James Robinson

Hi,

After reading Manzione's article and your commentary, I'm not sure that the proposed solutions come anywhere near the problem of boosting OS X adoption.

Between the facts that: Most people run the OS that shipped with their machines for the useful life of the machine; OS X runs tolerably to poorly on (some) hardware over two years old; every sale of a new Apple CPU is an adoption of OS X - isn't the obvious conclusion that hardware sales are the best way to drive OS X adoption? With most people uninterested in or ignorant of the possibility of OS upgrades, half of Americans on dialup (I doubt any country of any significant size has a much better percentage), and the possibility of a lukewarm first impression on their older hardware, what would a free download solve? Before this year, getting people to adopt OS X was a little dicier both because of the immaturity of the OS and because the hardware still shipped with and booted OS 9. That's no longer true, so OS X will continue to grow with sales.

As for the Apple Menu, et al: Apple had a chance to revisit and consolidate the interface with OS X that they will not have again for many years. The most important feature an Apple interface can have is new-user-friendliness. Whether it has all the advanced features that advanced users have come to lean on is, frankly, a secondary concern. First, you get the basic foundation right, then you add the fancy stuff. The OS 9 Apple Menu was a boon to those people who mastered its eccentricities and got used to working around its shortcomings (including a tendency to destabilize the OS, which is why I turned off almost all its advanced features and kept it in the state it shipped in). To new users, and to people uncomfortable with computers, it might as well not have existed. I taught my mom how to get around OS 9, and she did well enough and got use out of her Macs. I installed OS X when I judged it "mom-proof" (around 10.2.4) showed her around in about 10 minutes, and she's much happier now. She uses the machine to do a lot more than she ever did in OS 9. The Dock is an unambiguous improvement over the Apple Menu and/or aliases on the desktop. She much prefers using the machines, and I get far fewer phone calls. Both of her machines are 500MHz G3s with non-QE graphics capabilities and 256MB of RAM or less, so she isn't seeing OS X at its best, either. Nevertheless, it allows her to think about what she wants to do rather than how she's supposed to go about doing something, which is the whole point.

That, as far as I'm concerned, is proof that the OS X UI is an improvement (which is not to say that there is not ample room for further improvement!). The Mac is "the computer for the rest of us" first and foremost, and a computer for power users second. Power users, you recall, never failed to point out how much more powerful DOS was than that goofy, dumbed down GUI on the original Mac. And they were right, once you got so used to command-line arcana that they became comfortable and familiar. This is why you don't design GUIs with power users as a baseline. At least, not if you want anything recognizable as a Mac. :-)

Pros never hesitated to install all kinds of shareware programs to beef up and customize OS 9. They should not blink at continuing to do so. Better us than the novice users.

Thanks,
James

Hi James;

I have more than once made the observation myself that OS X is a better OS for newbies than the Classic Mac OS was.

One of the central points in my commentary (and I think John's as well) was that it's mainly Mac veterans who are digging their heels in with regard to switching. If you never used Classic, you don't know what you're missing (good and bad). My boilerplate advice to new Mac users of dual boot machines over the past couple of years has been to ignore OS 9 and become proficient in X.

But as I said, if Apple wants to speed up adoption by the installed base of pro and power users, then they need to give them more of what they want GUI wise, and somehow get OS X up to speed -- literally.

Charles

Big problem with OS X adoption

Tom Hofheinz

Charles,

Big problem, my problem, many others' problem...

I cannot afford to purchase any software except for superb little programs that cost up to $50 (mainly text editors). All of the big software programs on my computer (Dreamweaver, BBEdit, MS Office 2001, Acrobat, Photoshop) are licensed work copies or the fruits of excruciatingly painful personal past purchases. None of them work on OS X, as much as I would like to use that system.

My wife and I finally reached an agreement for me to spend $200 on a 400 mz. G3 card & RAM upgrade to my old PM 7300 at home. I have not yet negotiated a scanner.

On top of that, I am at least technically at the very bottom of the murky lower regions of the "upper middle class."

How can Apple sell OS X? Dig into their $4,000,000,000 cash hoard and aggressively ship major, mouth-watering software on those machines, even major upgrades. Make the deal last for six months or as long as it takes. It would make developers and customers very, very happy.

They'll sell machines alright, and Mac OS X at the same time.

They'd probably even sell one to me.

Tom Hofheinz

Mac OS 10.2.0 on a Blue & White G3

From Bruce Williamson

Charles,

I have been following your OS X Odyssey for quite awhile. I finally took the plunge over the weekend and installed 10.2.0 on my Blue & White 400 Mhz G3, with 192 MB of RAM. It has changed the way I work for good! Just the Bookmark feature in Safari is alone worth the upgrade. I'm also amazed at how well all of my OS 9 apps work in Classic. I regularly use Photoshop, GoLive, InDesign, Quicken 2001, Office 2001:mac, AppleWorks & Reunion—all of which I will eventually upgrade to their OS X versions, but right now do not feel any urgency in doing. In fact, some of these OS 9 apps seem to work faster!

I have also noticed that—although my connection speed here in my rural area in Northern California is still around 26,000—the actual speed of page download with certain sites (including AppleLinks) is DRAMATICALLY improved. For instance, I have a public library site I visit often that uses Java extensively and on OS 9 it was a royal pain of a wait from page to page, even using one of the Magic Modem scripts. Now the pages load almost as fast as they do on a broadband connection! Why that is I don't know, but I am very grateful.

The only problem I have had is upgrading. Each time I try to use a Mac OS X Combo Installer (10.2.6 & 10.2.3) my CD drive disappears and I get a series of repetitive dialog boxes. Everything else seems to work just fine. Go figure. This is annoying but not fatal and I have just gone back and reinstalled the original. If any of your readers have had these kind of problems with a B & W G3 and 10.2.x upgrades I would love to know if they found out how to solve the problem. There are a few new apps I'd like to use that require the higher upgrade versions but they aren't essential right now.

Bottom line for me on OS X? Everything is working well and I wish I hadn't waited. I have found VERY little to complain about or wish for. I am astounded at how fast and well everything works on a relatively slow machine with not that much memory. All I have to do tomorrow is get a Palm Connect USB Kit for the OS X version of Palm and I'm in business. I continue to value your experience as a trusted guide in this ongoing process!

Bruce Williamson

Hi Bruce;

Delighted to hear that the OS X transition is going so well for you. I think that the faster hard drives in desktop machines do make the speed issues in X that plague us portable fans less of a problem.

I too notice that the Classic applications I use regularly in Classic Mode work at least as fast or even quicker there as they do when running booted from OS 9.

I also concur with your observation about surfing speed. My guess is that the OS X versions of browsers are just faster, but it may have something to do with the way OS X addresses the Internet as well.

I don;t have any idea what the trouble you're having with the CDs is, but perhaps readers can help.

Charles

Mac Users And OS X

From Basilio Gonzalez

Hi Charles,

I think there are a couple of reasons why Mac users aren't using OS X. The first is the cost of software in terms of buying new software for OS X and in terms of losing the large investment in the software they currently own for OS 9. Sure, there's Classic but not all programs work correctly.

The second reason , based on the assumption that users of older computers will be so impressed by OS X that they will want to go out and buy a new Mac, is that buying a new computer, even one priced at $1000, is still a big expense. My wife, as an employee at UCLA, can get a great deal for a 15" PowerBook G4 1 GHz ($2000 with AppleCare) but there is no way I can justify buying it since I have 2 G3's that are getting the job done, which in of itself is another reason not to get a new computer.

I think what Apple should do is use car dealers as an example (after all a computer depreciates in value just as fast as a new car as soon as it is driven off the lot) and offer low interest financing (dare I say 0%) for at least a year. An AppleLoan is out of the question as I can't justify paying 10% for a computer loan while my savings account is earning less than 3%. Apple has offered same as cash financing for 6 months but paying $400 a month is too much to swallow (oh groan). I will say that if a low interest, 12-month loan were available this morning, I would be surfing the web on a brand new Powerbook in the evening.

B

Hi Basilio;

Have you considered leasing? The depreciation curve on computers is such that leasing one probably makes more sense than it does with a vehicle purchase. Cars take a big dive as soon as you drive them off the lot, but then plateau. Coimputers don't really have that humongous initial depreciation wallop, but the value erosion is more relentlessly progressive (or regressive). You don't build any equity in a lease, but equity in a three year old computer is not going to be a whole lot anyway, and some folks can use lease payments as a tax deduction.

Charles

Your Latest OS X Comments/Son of Pismo etc.

From Anonymous by request

Charles,

First off, I enjoy your site very much! You seem to know very well, the standing of your readers regarding their progression & conundrums in upgrading software and hardware. (but then your job is just that; addressing the infinite cycle. Cool spot to be in) Your recent articles have been very enlightening and great food for thought. It’s great to read honest & factual opinion, as opposed to sales hype from so many deep pocketed Apple enthusiasts.

I use a 333 Lombard and we have a 400 MHz iMac DV SE that my wife and daughter enjoy. My very first ever computer was a Performa 6100. In retrospect, Apple still uses the same bait & sales tactics. I had a terrible out-of-box experience, and nearly sent the machine back. Upon set-up, a cocky PC user came over to supposedly help me get up and running. He proceeded to have me click on every app & menu command to watch the Mac promptly freeze up, & then he had a good gloat. A few days later I found a Mac evangelist that told me I would do well if I “added more RAM” and added an L2 cache card. Well  $375? bucks later my 6100 was tip top; I eventually installed a NewerTech Card that was even better!

So now I too was a great evangelist for everything Apple. Meanwhile new goodies would come down the pike, but I was OK. Then I got quite intrigued with the Newton 2100. So much so, I talked a small company into buying 3 of them with various software, keyboard, cases... The works. Within 3 months the Newton product was killed. Along about now I was ready to update to a new G3. (wife & daughter had a 233 grape iMac, since sold, to upgrade to the DV SE) The rumour mills were churning about a new OS a little ways out and one would have to have a G3 chip for it to work properly. So I muster up what to me was a lot of money and buy the low end, at the time, Lombard, feeling great, and thinking I was set for a while and could utilize new OS advances. (During the great iMac introduction I was an Apple Retail rep at the local Sears too) I digress.  

Then the disappointment and major letdown hit...Mac OS X wasn’t going to run optimally on my 333 Lombard. I was majorly bummed, and what seemed like a series of letdowns, I just chilled for about 18 months. During that time I got a job at nights at a massive call center providing tech support for MSN customers. Boy that was a stressful gig. I bought a 733MHz Dell so I could try and learn the Windows world. The interesting experience with that product is that it acccepted all OS upgrades efficiently, easily and provided speed, enhancements and stability with each upgrade from ‘98 to ME to XP with no problems. I didn’t have to add RAM to make it work, although I did anyway. But the point, mirrors your view that one should be able to get good workable use, (with updates that improve) out of a machine for 5 years minimal.

Not with Apple though. The consumer line always needs more memory, out of the box and especially now with OS X.  From all the various posts and reviews and folks experiences. It seems OS X never did come out of beta mode, even today. This is very discouraging for someone wanting to adopt the latest and greatest. I’m now at the point where I am beginning to cave once again to the Apple hype machine. It’s design and software products (in theory) can make one feel great desire. Because now I find I do want to use OS X. But look at the machines I have. They say it works on my iMac, but at what sacrifice. It will load, but then what. No Quartz Extreme, no Altivec. Just a brand new product that cripples the systems they are said to support. (who needs a bouncing icon when you launch a program anyway) This is just what you and John Manzione are discussing and 75% of Mac users are contemplating. Where is the reward for loyalty or, if no concerns for ones’ consumers, then at least a product that is truly improved and genuinely &  pleasantly usable.

Now I’m obsessing over the conundrum once again... I want to use OS X. I don’t want to part with OS 9.1, cause it works great for me. So do I buy an Ibook & keep my Lombard a while longer like you. Do I put OS X on my iMac to doodle with it sluggishly. Then of course there is Panther and the new IBM chip. And as you say, if everyone thinks Panther is going to fix all the faults of Jaguar, they’re dreamin’. I think quite the opposite. Then G3 owners will really be stiffed I’m afraid. The little Al is very appealing, and then maybe just use our iMac for OS 9 although portability is crucial to me. Anyway, I could go on & on. Your site is great and LEM too, are my current hang-outs. It’s good to know I’m not alone. I hate it when all the OS X adopters assume we’re losers. Flaming every OS 9 user that can’t or won’t ante up for whatever (justifiable) reason. Personally, it’s a bloody expensive ride fraught with un-fulfillment . With Apple it’s become quite blatant as of late. OH well, I don’t think the average user studies it all quite as much as I do. Sometimes it seems the “Lemmings Ad” has come full circle.

Thanks for your great work Charles!

Sincerely
Anonymous by request

Hi ABR;

Thanks for your interesting anecdotes and observations. I think many veteran Mac users like yourself are in a similar quandary. I'm getting addicted to the *good* and in some cases *very cool* aspects of OS X, but I miss the speed, polish, responsiveness, flexibility, certain Finder featurees, and general user-friendliness of OS 9, so I'm torn, but I'm switched and unlikely to switch back. OS X runs decently quickly on my 700 MHz iBook with 16 MB od VRAM. Quartz Extreme seems to be the charm.

Charles

Re: Why Aren't More Mac Users Switching To OS X?

From Terry Sullivan

Personally I'm getting tired of all the moaning about Classic MacOS users not switching to MacOS-X.

Switching to MacOS-X isn't the problem, having to buy new hardware that can run it is the reason most people haven't switched.

I have a Mac 8600-200 that I bought just after Apple bought NeXT. This machine was the original development platform for Rapsody/MacOS-X. I bought it because I expected to be running the new Next based MacOS as soon as it came out.

Unfortunately, after many delays, Apple decided not to support my Mac when they rolled out MacOS-X. I actually bought the Beta version just to see if the "unsupported install" would work. It didn't, and that "feature" was gone in the final product any way. So I gave up till I could afford to get a new Mac.

I have that Mac now, a PB-17, but the old 8600-200 still limps along with a less than the lastest version of MacOS-9.

I would have switched. Apple wouldn't let me. I had to wait for funds. Apple had to wait an extra 2 years for my switch.

That's the REAL world story of most Mac users.

Terry Sullivan

Hi Terry;

I agree, although based on the performance of my UMAX S-900 200, which should be roughly equivalent to your 8600/200, I wouldn't consider running OS X on a machine that slow even if it were supported. Works pretty good in OS 9.1, though.

Charles

Moving to OS X

From Melvin Ah Ching

Just read your article, "Why Aren't More Mac Users Switching to OSX?"

Here are my reasons for my slow transition to OS X.

1. Pagemaker 6.5: All of my desktop publishing work is done with Pagemaker 6.5. I plan on using this app for a few more years or until the time my service bureau and printer stops supporting it. Currently both operations gladly accept Pagemaker 6.5 files along with InDesign (OS 9 & X) and Quark. I've been a long time user of Pagemaker and as long as it works I really don't want to change... plus it works on 2 of the computers I own... Powercenter 150 and Power Mac G4 733 Quicksilver.

2. My main client also uses Pagemaker and has several Macs, none of which are OSX ready except for his iBook which he recently bought, but promptly changed the default start up to OS 9.2. We work in a shared environment and send our Pagemaker files back and forth to each other.

3. Adobe has all but abandoned Pagemaker for InDesign. I do plan on upgrading to InDesign, but since none of my jobs require it, I am in no hurry to upgrade. We all have to decide when to do our upgrades and I prefer to do mine on my own timetable and not by the marketing calendar of Apple computer or any other software company.

4. I do run OS X about 60% of the time on my Power Mac G4. I recently upgraded to 10.2 and I am currently happy with it. Apple's iTunes and iPhoto are great apps to run on OS X. I also use OSX for building and maintaining various websites with Pagespinner 4.1.... Do most of my web surfing and emails with OSX now...

5. Still I have a lot of older Mac hardware that will run older OS's. Many people do and as long as the old stuff works, they probably have no compelling reasons to upgrade to new hardware and a new OS. I know a lot of writers who just use Word or Apple/ClarisWorks and are totally happy running these apps on their 2 to 10 year old Macs.... I prefer WriteNow 4.0 as my main word processer and happily run that on a number of older Macs.

I do recognize that OSX is Apple's future and it is here now. There are some great new apps that run on OSX which I know I will eventually get.. but on my own time. With the impending release of Panther, I will probably get that upgrade sooner than I did Jaguar (which I only bought in April)....

I am sure many other Mac users are on the slow track or even no track to the OSX path. We just simply upgrade on our own timetable and not on the marketing timetable perpetuated by Apple and the software vendors.

Aloha from Hawaii.
Mel

All good reasons, Mel.

I still do a lot of my word processing these days on a 117 MHz PowerBook 1400cs running OS 8.6.

Charles

Why I'm not switching yet

From Chris

Hi Charles!

There are a couple big reasons I'm not moving to OS X anytime soon. First and foremost I'm a musician, one of the 2 main groups (the other being Quark users) who are still waiting on X versions of a lot of the major recording/sequencing software.

Yes, Apple bought Emagic, and the forthcoming version of Logic is for OS X, but I standardized my system on Mark of the Unicorn stuff many years ago, am very comfortable with it, and have no desire to dump *everything* and start over from scratch with an unfamiliar app (never mind losing compatibility with all my old files). It just works the way it is. Which leads nicely to the second reason: the Mac stuff I have JUST WORKS. If I were using crappy PCs that died on a regular basis, then yeah, I'd be on that Endless Upgrade Treadmill, but Apple just makes ther stuff too damn good. My 2 primary systems work just fine (for the record: my main "do everything" machine is a Lombard 333 powerbook; my "music workstation" is a 7500 goosed with an XLR8 G3 500 card; all are running 9.1). Like the old saying goes:"If it ain't broke...".

Well, actually my Lombard threw an embolism last month - after 3 years of perfect behavior it suddenly decided to fry its processor card out of the blue, but it was still way cheaper and easier to take it to the local We Fix Macs here in the Bay Area and have it repaired than to spend 10x the $$$ on a whole new machine. Which leads nicely to: the economic factor - since the economy is sucking major ass these days, the last thing I'm going to do is plunk down multiple G's to completely replace all my systems just for the sake of being on the bleeding edge, never mind losing the rock solid stability I currently enjoy and basically having to learn to walk all over again (plus, I just spent a whole heap o' dough on new synthesizer equipment a few months back, and of course that takes priority in the budget ~_^).

I also have *zero* interest in any of Apple's cheesy "iLife" stuff - I don't share photos (don't even take them), I don't download music (besides, the kind of obscure electronic weirdness I'm into will *never* be available from the iTMS), I don't give keynote speeches... you get the idea. Now I acknowledge I'm not your "average Joe User" who wants to email photos of the kids and buy stuff on ebay; I use my Macs for specific purposes for which I have them optimized and streamlined. My Macs are simply tools, not a religion or an end unto themselves.

One of these years, when the time is right, yeah, I'll probably switch, but not anytime in the forseeable future.

Chris

Puzzled by your priorities

From Wilbur Pan

Hi Charles,

I read OS X Odyssey 332 with some interest and confusion. You seem to be resistant to upgrade your new iBook to 10.2.6 because of benchmarks that show that 10.2.1 is the fastest version of Jaguar available. Yet you still continue to use your older Mac notebook for work.

This becomes even more confusing when I looked up what the benchmarks said. I'm not sure which benchmarks you are referring to, but the website I found is http://www.macinfo.de/bench/macosx.html. Yes, OS X 10.2.1 seems to be the fastest in many of the categories that were measured, but if you compare the time it takes in 10.2.1 and 10.2.6 for booting up, login, and launching 5 applications (assuming that Internet Explorer benchmarks are average for application launch, and I picked 5 apps because that's what I autolaunch on login -- Mail, Safari, iCal, MS Word, and iTunes), that's a whopping 26 seconds you save at the time that you boot up your computer.

It seems incongruous to me that your concern about benchmarks has prevented you from participating in 5 OS X 10.2 upgrade cycles yet you still use a notebook with a slower graphics processor, slower bus, and a nearly maxed out hard drive. I would guess that the added speed you would gain by moving your production environment to your new iBook where you have a faster computer and more hard drive space would more than compensate for the less than half a minute that you are saving by not upgrading to 10.2.6. Not to mention however long it took for you to do all of your maintenance using Cocktail.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

Wilbur Pan

Hi Wilbur;

The iBook is faster in a whole bunch of ways that dwarf the differences between 10.2.1 and 10,2,6. I did have it upgraded to 10.2.3 at one point, but downgraded to 10.2.1 (restore CD) when I partitioned the HD. I never got around to reinstalling 10.2.3, and then there was the 10.2.4 battery-busting bug that afflicted iBooks, not to mention a modem bug that bugged a lot of iBooks as well. 10.2.5 had the kernel panic issue, and it wasn;t conclusive that the battery problem had been licked. So I'm in no hurry. It works well with 10.2.1, but it's really not the older system's better benchmarks that are the issue.

Application startup times are not an especilly key consideration for me, because I usually go for long periods of time between startups -- or at least that's the goal. The apps get started up and stay started up for a week or ten days at a time. Finder performance is more important to me.

Why do I use the Pismo for production? Well, for one thing it has been a relatively happy camper in the later 10.2 versions, which I wanted to keep abreast of, and there was no way I was going to risk frying my battery with 10.2.4 on the iBook. I also just like the Pismo, even though it's slow in OS X. This is partly one of those je ne sais quoi things. There is also a more prosaic reason; floppy support. I am finding it useful these days to use my old PowerBook 1400 for a lot of my drafting and editing, and the most convenient way to transfer files back and forth between it and my production machine is via floppy disk, which the Pismo supports with its VST SuperDisk expansion bay module. I don't have a floppy drive for the iBook.

Then there's the curiousity and challenge of how to make OS X work better and faster on the older machine. ;-)

The iBook still gets used a fair bit, as it is a much better platform for dictation, at least in OS X, and it's connected to the Pismo with an Ethernet LAN (I don't have an Ethernet card for the 1400).

Charles

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

CM

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear

Cool Mac Gear

There was such a large response to my commentary on the state of OS X transitioning yesterday, that I'm dedicating an extra edition of the OS X Odyssey to them. Also see Odessey 334 today for more on the topic.

CM

Movement to OS X

From Jim Corti

Dear Charles,

You seem pretty level headed, where Manzione can be a little over zealous in his writing. (Particularly when he lost a battle with Apple over a machine, recently)

Please don't stop your comments on OSX with this column, May 30 or 29, whatever it is. You speak well and are pretty balanced in your views, so IMHO, you are a needed and welcome voice.

I switched over, and have some serious problems with the software upgrades, 10.2.5 and 10.2.6 to be specific. If I had known all of this would be happening, I would have found a way to just run 9.2.2 at all times via Classic. Which I was trying to do, when 10.2.5 popped on me.

I do, however, still love the elegance of OSX, when it is running right. (10.2.4, slow as it is, but still wonderful)

I just wish my Epson 875DCS and my HP 6300CSE had native OSX drivers, Pushing $1,000 or so, they are fairly recent, excellent peripherals that have no need to be trashed or relegated elsewhere.

There is no problem using them on any Windoze OS. Imagine that.

Please, keep talking about this OSX issue,

Jim Corti
Indian Ocean Mac User

Thanks for the comments, Jim. The issues you cite in particular are common ones.

OS 10.2.6 seems to be working reasonably well for me now after a rocky start, and I'm continuing to tweak and experiment.

Charles

Why Switch?

From Scott Smith

Hi Charles,

I have an original 233 iMac running OS 9.1. We live in Europe. I went to the States last summer and bought an iBook with OS X. Got David Pogue's "Jaguar The Missing Manual" and read it cover to cover. Enjoyed the learning experience.

I came back here and fired up my old 233. (My wife has taken possession of the iBook) After eight months of OS X, the fun of learning all that new stuff, I am now enjoying OS 9 much more than OS X. I like launching apps from the function keys, all the keyboard shortcuts, I like Outlook Express and IE better than Mail and Safari. What can I say? OS X still seems like a "immature" or "young" operating system where as OS 9 has lots of whistles and bells.

My 2¢

Scott Smith

Re: Odyssey 333: Switching to OS X

From James Robinson

Hi,

After reading Manzione's article and your commentary, I'm not sure that the proposed solutions come anywhere near the problem of boosting OS X adoption.

Between the facts that: Most people run the OS that shipped with their machines for the useful life of the machine; OS X runs tolerably to poorly on (some) hardware over two years old; every sale of a new Apple CPU is an adoption of OS X - isn't the obvious conclusion that hardware sales are the best way to drive OS X adoption? With most people uninterested in or ignorant of the possibility of OS upgrades, half of Americans on dialup (I doubt any country of any significant size has a much better percentage), and the possibility of a lukewarm first impression on their older hardware, what would a free download solve? Before this year, getting people to adopt OS X was a little dicier both because of the immaturity of the OS and because the hardware still shipped with and booted OS 9. That's no longer true, so OS X will continue to grow with sales.

As for the Apple Menu, et al: Apple had a chance to revisit and consolidate the interface with OS X that they will not have again for many years. The most important feature an Apple interface can have is new-user-friendliness. Whether it has all the advanced features that advanced users have come to lean on is, frankly, a secondary concern. First, you get the basic foundation right, then you add the fancy stuff. The OS 9 Apple Menu was a boon to those people who mastered its eccentricities and got used to working around its shortcomings (including a tendency to destabilize the OS, which is why I turned off almost all its advanced features and kept it in the state it shipped in). To new users, and to people uncomfortable with computers, it might as well not have existed. I taught my mom how to get around OS 9, and she did well enough and got use out of her Macs. I installed OS X when I judged it "mom-proof" (around 10.2.4) showed her around in about 10 minutes, and she's much happier now. She uses the machine to do a lot more than she ever did in OS 9. The Dock is an unambiguous improvement over the Apple Menu and/or aliases on the desktop. She much prefers using the machines, and I get far fewer phone calls. Both of her machines are 500MHz G3s with non-QE graphics capabilities and 256MB of RAM or less, so she isn't seeing OS X at its best, either. Nevertheless, it allows her to think about what she wants to do rather than how she's supposed to go about doing something, which is the whole point.

That, as far as I'm concerned, is proof that the OS X UI is an improvement (which is not to say that there is not ample room for further improvement!). The Mac is "the computer for the rest of us" first and foremost, and a computer for power users second. Power users, you recall, never failed to point out how much more powerful DOS was than that goofy, dumbed down GUI on the original Mac. And they were right, once you got so used to command-line arcana that they became comfortable and familiar. This is why you don't design GUIs with power users as a baseline. At least, not if you want anything recognizable as a Mac. :-)

Pros never hesitated to install all kinds of shareware programs to beef up and customize OS 9. They should not blink at continuing to do so. Better us than the novice users.

Thanks,
James

Hi James;

I have more than once made the observation myself that OS X is a better OS for newbies than the Classic Mac OS was.

One of the central points in my commentary (and I think John's as well) was that it's mainly Mac veterans who are digging their heels in with regard to switching. If you never used Classic, you don't know what you're missing (good and bad). My boilerplate advice to new Mac users of dual boot machines over the past couple of years has been to ignore OS 9 and become proficient in X.

But as I said, if Apple wants to speed up adoption by the installed base of pro and power users, then they need to give them more of what they want GUI wise, and somehow get OS X up to speed -- literally.

Charles

Big problem with OS X adoption

Tom Hofheinz

Charles,

Big problem, my problem, many others' problem...

I cannot afford to purchase any software except for superb little programs that cost up to $50 (mainly text editors). All of the big software programs on my computer (Dreamweaver, BBEdit, MS Office 2001, Acrobat, Photoshop) are licensed work copies or the fruits of excruciatingly painful personal past purchases. None of them work on OS X, as much as I would like to use that system.

My wife and I finally reached an agreement for me to spend $200 on a 400 mz. G3 card & RAM upgrade to my old PM 7300 at home. I have not yet negotiated a scanner.

On top of that, I am at least technically at the very bottom of the murky lower regions of the "upper middle class."

How can Apple sell OS X? Dig into their $4,000,000,000 cash hoard and aggressively ship major, mouth-watering software on those machines, even major upgrades. Make the deal last for six months or as long as it takes. It would make developers and customers very, very happy.

They'll sell machines alright, and Mac OS X at the same time.

They'd probably even sell one to me.

Tom Hofheinz

Mac OS 10.2.0 on a Blue & White G3

From Bruce Williamson

Charles,

I have been following your OS X Odyssey for quite awhile. I finally took the plunge over the weekend and installed 10.2.0 on my Blue & White 400 Mhz G3, with 192 MB of RAM. It has changed the way I work for good! Just the Bookmark feature in Safari is alone worth the upgrade. I'm also amazed at how well all of my OS 9 apps work in Classic. I regularly use Photoshop, GoLive, InDesign, Quicken 2001, Office 2001:mac, AppleWorks & Reunion—all of which I will eventually upgrade to their OS X versions, but right now do not feel any urgency in doing. In fact, some of these OS 9 apps seem to work faster!

I have also noticed that—although my connection speed here in my rural area in Northern California is still around 26,000—the actual speed of page download with certain sites (including AppleLinks) is DRAMATICALLY improved. For instance, I have a public library site I visit often that uses Java extensively and on OS 9 it was a royal pain of a wait from page to page, even using one of the Magic Modem scripts. Now the pages load almost as fast as they do on a broadband connection! Why that is I don't know, but I am very grateful.

The only problem I have had is upgrading. Each time I try to use a Mac OS X Combo Installer (10.2.6 & 10.2.3) my CD drive disappears and I get a series of repetitive dialog boxes. Everything else seems to work just fine. Go figure. This is annoying but not fatal and I have just gone back and reinstalled the original. If any of your readers have had these kind of problems with a B & W G3 and 10.2.x upgrades I would love to know if they found out how to solve the problem. There are a few new apps I'd like to use that require the higher upgrade versions but they aren't essential right now.

Bottom line for me on OS X? Everything is working well and I wish I hadn't waited. I have found VERY little to complain about or wish for. I am astounded at how fast and well everything works on a relatively slow machine with not that much memory. All I have to do tomorrow is get a Palm Connect USB Kit for the OS X version of Palm and I'm in business. I continue to value your experience as a trusted guide in this ongoing process!

Bruce Williamson

Hi Bruce;

Delighted to hear that the OS X transition is going so well for you. I think that the faster hard drives in desktop machines do make the speed issues in X that plague us portable fans less of a problem.

I too notice that the Classic applications I use regularly in Classic Mode work at least as fast or even quicker there as they do when running booted from OS 9.

I also concur with your observation about surfing speed. My guess is that the OS X versions of browsers are just faster, but it may have something to do with the way OS X addresses the Internet as well.

I don;t have any idea what the trouble you're having with the CDs is, but perhaps readers can help.

Charles

Mac Users And OS X

From Basilio Gonzalez

Hi Charles,

I think there are a couple of reasons why Mac users aren't using OS X. The first is the cost of software in terms of buying new software for OS X and in terms of losing the large investment in the software they currently own for OS 9. Sure, there's Classic but not all programs work correctly.

The second reason , based on the assumption that users of older computers will be so impressed by OS X that they will want to go out and buy a new Mac, is that buying a new computer, even one priced at $1000, is still a big expense. My wife, as an employee at UCLA, can get a great deal for a 15" PowerBook G4 1 GHz ($2000 with AppleCare) but there is no way I can justify buying it since I have 2 G3's that are getting the job done, which in of itself is another reason not to get a new computer.

I think what Apple should do is use car dealers as an example (after all a computer depreciates in value just as fast as a new car as soon as it is driven off the lot) and offer low interest financing (dare I say 0%) for at least a year. An AppleLoan is out of the question as I can't justify paying 10% for a computer loan while my savings account is earning less than 3%. Apple has offered same as cash financing for 6 months but paying $400 a month is too much to swallow (oh groan). I will say that if a low interest, 12-month loan were available this morning, I would be surfing the web on a brand new Powerbook in the evening.

B

Hi Basilio;

Have you considered leasing? The depreciation curve on computers is such that leasing one probably makes more sense than it does with a vehicle purchase. Cars take a big dive as soon as you drive them off the lot, but then plateau. Coimputers don't really have that humongous initial depreciation wallop, but the value erosion is more relentlessly progressive (or regressive). You don't build any equity in a lease, but equity in a three year old computer is not going to be a whole lot anyway, and some folks can use lease payments as a tax deduction.

Charles

Your Latest OS X Comments/Son of Pismo etc.

From Anonymous by request

Charles,

First off, I enjoy your site very much! You seem to know very well, the standing of your readers regarding their progression & conundrums in upgrading software and hardware. (but then your job is just that; addressing the infinite cycle. Cool spot to be in) Your recent articles have been very enlightening and great food for thought. It’s great to read honest & factual opinion, as opposed to sales hype from so many deep pocketed Apple enthusiasts.

I use a 333 Lombard and we have a 400 MHz iMac DV SE that my wife and daughter enjoy. My very first ever computer was a Performa 6100. In retrospect, Apple still uses the same bait & sales tactics. I had a terrible out-of-box experience, and nearly sent the machine back. Upon set-up, a cocky PC user came over to supposedly help me get up and running. He proceeded to have me click on every app & menu command to watch the Mac promptly freeze up, & then he had a good gloat. A few days later I found a Mac evangelist that told me I would do well if I “added more RAM” and added an L2 cache card. Well  $375? bucks later my 6100 was tip top; I eventually installed a NewerTech Card that was even better!

So now I too was a great evangelist for everything Apple. Meanwhile new goodies would come down the pike, but I was OK. Then I got quite intrigued with the Newton 2100. So much so, I talked a small company into buying 3 of them with various software, keyboard, cases... The works. Within 3 months the Newton product was killed. Along about now I was ready to update to a new G3. (wife & daughter had a 233 grape iMac, since sold, to upgrade to the DV SE) The rumour mills were churning about a new OS a little ways out and one would have to have a G3 chip for it to work properly. So I muster up what to me was a lot of money and buy the low end, at the time, Lombard, feeling great, and thinking I was set for a while and could utilize new OS advances. (During the great iMac introduction I was an Apple Retail rep at the local Sears too) I digress.  

Then the disappointment and major letdown hit...Mac OS X wasn’t going to run optimally on my 333 Lombard. I was majorly bummed, and what seemed like a series of letdowns, I just chilled for about 18 months. During that time I got a job at nights at a massive call center providing tech support for MSN customers. Boy that was a stressful gig. I bought a 733MHz Dell so I could try and learn the Windows world. The interesting experience with that product is that it acccepted all OS upgrades efficiently, easily and provided speed, enhancements and stability with each upgrade from ‘98 to ME to XP with no problems. I didn’t have to add RAM to make it work, although I did anyway. But the point, mirrors your view that one should be able to get good workable use, (with updates that improve) out of a machine for 5 years minimal.

Not with Apple though. The consumer line always needs more memory, out of the box and especially now with OS X.  From all the various posts and reviews and folks experiences. It seems OS X never did come out of beta mode, even today. This is very discouraging for someone wanting to adopt the latest and greatest. I’m now at the point where I am beginning to cave once again to the Apple hype machine. It’s design and software products (in theory) can make one feel great desire. Because now I find I do want to use OS X. But look at the machines I have. They say it works on my iMac, but at what sacrifice. It will load, but then what. No Quartz Extreme, no Altivec. Just a brand new product that cripples the systems they are said to support. (who needs a bouncing icon when you launch a program anyway) This is just what you and John Manzione are discussing and 75% of Mac users are contemplating. Where is the reward for loyalty or, if no concerns for ones’ consumers, then at least a product that is truly improved and genuinely &  pleasantly usable.

Now I’m obsessing over the conundrum once again... I want to use OS X. I don’t want to part with OS 9.1, cause it works great for me. So do I buy an Ibook & keep my Lombard a while longer like you. Do I put OS X on my iMac to doodle with it sluggishly. Then of course there is Panther and the new IBM chip. And as you say, if everyone thinks Panther is going to fix all the faults of Jaguar, they’re dreamin’. I think quite the opposite. Then G3 owners will really be stiffed I’m afraid. The little Al is very appealing, and then maybe just use our iMac for OS 9 although portability is crucial to me. Anyway, I could go on & on. Your site is great and LEM too, are my current hang-outs. It’s good to know I’m not alone. I hate it when all the OS X adopters assume we’re losers. Flaming every OS 9 user that can’t or won’t ante up for whatever (justifiable) reason. Personally, it’s a bloody expensive ride fraught with un-fulfillment . With Apple it’s become quite blatant as of late. OH well, I don’t think the average user studies it all quite as much as I do. Sometimes it seems the “Lemmings Ad” has come full circle.

Thanks for your great work Charles!

Sincerely
Anonymous by request

Hi ABR;

Thanks for your interesting anecdotes and observations. I think many veteran Mac users like yourself are in a similar quandary. I'm getting addicted to the *good* and in some cases *very cool* aspects of OS X, but I miss the speed, polish, responsiveness, flexibility, certain Finder featurees, and general user-friendliness of OS 9, so I'm torn, but I'm switched and unlikely to switch back. OS X runs decently quickly on my 700 MHz iBook with 16 MB od VRAM. Quartz Extreme seems to be the charm.

Charles

Re: Why Aren't More Mac Users Switching To OS X?

From Terry Sullivan

Personally I'm getting tired of all the moaning about Classic MacOS users not switching to MacOS-X.

Switching to MacOS-X isn't the problem, having to buy new hardware that can run it is the reason most people haven't switched.

I have a Mac 8600-200 that I bought just after Apple bought NeXT. This machine was the original development platform for Rapsody/MacOS-X. I bought it because I expected to be running the new Next based MacOS as soon as it came out.

Unfortunately, after many delays, Apple decided not to support my Mac when they rolled out MacOS-X. I actually bought the Beta version just to see if the "unsupported install" would work. It didn't, and that "feature" was gone in the final product any way. So I gave up till I could afford to get a new Mac.

I have that Mac now, a PB-17, but the old 8600-200 still limps along with a less than the lastest version of MacOS-9.

I would have switched. Apple wouldn't let me. I had to wait for funds. Apple had to wait an extra 2 years for my switch.

That's the REAL world story of most Mac users.

Terry Sullivan

Hi Terry;

I agree, although based on the performance of my UMAX S-900 200, which should be roughly equivalent to your 8600/200, I wouldn't consider running OS X on a machine that slow even if it were supported. Works pretty good in OS 9.1, though.

Charles

Moving to OS X

From Melvin Ah Ching

Just read your article, "Why Aren't More Mac Users Switching to OSX?"

Here are my reasons for my slow transition to OS X.

1. Pagemaker 6.5: All of my desktop publishing work is done with Pagemaker 6.5. I plan on using this app for a few more years or until the time my service bureau and printer stops supporting it. Currently both operations gladly accept Pagemaker 6.5 files along with InDesign (OS 9 & X) and Quark. I've been a long time user of Pagemaker and as long as it works I really don't want to change... plus it works on 2 of the computers I own... Powercenter 150 and Power Mac G4 733 Quicksilver.

2. My main client also uses Pagemaker and has several Macs, none of which are OSX ready except for his iBook which he recently bought, but promptly changed the default start up to OS 9.2. We work in a shared environment and send our Pagemaker files back and forth to each other.

3. Adobe has all but abandoned Pagemaker for InDesign. I do plan on upgrading to InDesign, but since none of my jobs require it, I am in no hurry to upgrade. We all have to decide when to do our upgrades and I prefer to do mine on my own timetable and not by the marketing calendar of Apple computer or any other software company.

4. I do run OS X about 60% of the time on my Power Mac G4. I recently upgraded to 10.2 and I am currently happy with it. Apple's iTunes and iPhoto are great apps to run on OS X. I also use OSX for building and maintaining various websites with Pagespinner 4.1.... Do most of my web surfing and emails with OSX now...

5. Still I have a lot of older Mac hardware that will run older OS's. Many people do and as long as the old stuff works, they probably have no compelling reasons to upgrade to new hardware and a new OS. I know a lot of writers who just use Word or Apple/ClarisWorks and are totally happy running these apps on their 2 to 10 year old Macs.... I prefer WriteNow 4.0 as my main word processer and happily run that on a number of older Macs.

I do recognize that OSX is Apple's future and it is here now. There are some great new apps that run on OSX which I know I will eventually get.. but on my own time. With the impending release of Panther, I will probably get that upgrade sooner than I did Jaguar (which I only bought in April)....

I am sure many other Mac users are on the slow track or even no track to the OSX path. We just simply upgrade on our own timetable and not on the marketing timetable perpetuated by Apple and the software vendors.

Aloha from Hawaii.
Mel

All good reasons, Mel.

I still do a lot of my word processing these days on a 117 MHz PowerBook 1400cs running OS 8.6.

Charles

Why I'm not switching yet

From Chris

Hi Charles!

There are a couple big reasons I'm not moving to OS X anytime soon. First and foremost I'm a musician, one of the 2 main groups (the other being Quark users) who are still waiting on X versions of a lot of the major recording/sequencing software.

Yes, Apple bought Emagic, and the forthcoming version of Logic is for OS X, but I standardized my system on Mark of the Unicorn stuff many years ago, am very comfortable with it, and have no desire to dump *everything* and start over from scratch with an unfamiliar app (never mind losing compatibility with all my old files). It just works the way it is. Which leads nicely to the second reason: the Mac stuff I have JUST WORKS. If I were using crappy PCs that died on a regular basis, then yeah, I'd be on that Endless Upgrade Treadmill, but Apple just makes ther stuff too damn good. My 2 primary systems work just fine (for the record: my main "do everything" machine is a Lombard 333 powerbook; my "music workstation" is a 7500 goosed with an XLR8 G3 500 card; all are running 9.1). Like the old saying goes:"If it ain't broke...".

Well, actually my Lombard threw an embolism last month - after 3 years of perfect behavior it suddenly decided to fry its processor card out of the blue, but it was still way cheaper and easier to take it to the local We Fix Macs here in the Bay Area and have it repaired than to spend 10x the $$$ on a whole new machine. Which leads nicely to: the economic factor - since the economy is sucking major ass these days, the last thing I'm going to do is plunk down multiple G's to completely replace all my systems just for the sake of being on the bleeding edge, never mind losing the rock solid stability I currently enjoy and basically having to learn to walk all over again (plus, I just spent a whole heap o' dough on new synthesizer equipment a few months back, and of course that takes priority in the budget ~_^).

I also have *zero* interest in any of Apple's cheesy "iLife" stuff - I don't share photos (don't even take them), I don't download music (besides, the kind of obscure electronic weirdness I'm into will *never* be available from the iTMS), I don't give keynote speeches... you get the idea. Now I acknowledge I'm not your "average Joe User" who wants to email photos of the kids and buy stuff on ebay; I use my Macs for specific purposes for which I have them optimized and streamlined. My Macs are simply tools, not a religion or an end unto themselves.

One of these years, when the time is right, yeah, I'll probably switch, but not anytime in the forseeable future.

Chris

Puzzled by your priorities

From Wilbur Pan

Hi Charles,

I read OS X Odyssey 332 with some interest and confusion. You seem to be resistant to upgrade your new iBook to 10.2.6 because of benchmarks that show that 10.2.1 is the fastest version of Jaguar available. Yet you still continue to use your older Mac notebook for work.

This becomes even more confusing when I looked up what the benchmarks said. I'm not sure which benchmarks you are referring to, but the website I found is http://www.macinfo.de/bench/macosx.html. Yes, OS X 10.2.1 seems to be the fastest in many of the categories that were measured, but if you compare the time it takes in 10.2.1 and 10.2.6 for booting up, login, and launching 5 applications (assuming that Internet Explorer benchmarks are average for application launch, and I picked 5 apps because that's what I autolaunch on login -- Mail, Safari, iCal, MS Word, and iTunes), that's a whopping 26 seconds you save at the time that you boot up your computer.

It seems incongruous to me that your concern about benchmarks has prevented you from participating in 5 OS X 10.2 upgrade cycles yet you still use a notebook with a slower graphics processor, slower bus, and a nearly maxed out hard drive. I would guess that the added speed you would gain by moving your production environment to your new iBook where you have a faster computer and more hard drive space would more than compensate for the less than half a minute that you are saving by not upgrading to 10.2.6. Not to mention however long it took for you to do all of your maintenance using Cocktail.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

Wilbur Pan

Hi Wilbur;

The iBook is faster in a whole bunch of ways that dwarf the differences between 10.2.1 and 10,2,6. I did have it upgraded to 10.2.3 at one point, but downgraded to 10.2.1 (restore CD) when I partitioned the HD. I never got around to reinstalling 10.2.3, and then there was the 10.2.4 battery-busting bug that afflicted iBooks, not to mention a modem bug that bugged a lot of iBooks as well. 10.2.5 had the kernel panic issue, and it wasn;t conclusive that the battery problem had been licked. So I'm in no hurry. It works well with 10.2.1, but it's really not the older system's better benchmarks that are the issue.

Application startup times are not an especilly key consideration for me, because I usually go for long periods of time between startups -- or at least that's the goal. The apps get started up and stay started up for a week or ten days at a time. Finder performance is more important to me.

Why do I use the Pismo for production? Well, for one thing it has been a relatively happy camper in the later 10.2 versions, which I wanted to keep abreast of, and there was no way I was going to risk frying my battery with 10.2.4 on the iBook. I also just like the Pismo, even though it's slow in OS X. This is partly one of those je ne sais quoi things. There is also a more prosaic reason; floppy support. I am finding it useful these days to use my old PowerBook 1400 for a lot of my drafting and editing, and the most convenient way to transfer files back and forth between it and my production machine is via floppy disk, which the Pismo supports with its VST SuperDisk expansion bay module. I don't have a floppy drive for the iBook.

Then there's the curiousity and challenge of how to make OS X work better and faster on the older machine. ;-)

The iBook still gets used a fair bit, as it is a much better platform for dictation, at least in OS X, and it's connected to the Pismo with an Ethernet LAN (I don't have an Ethernet card for the 1400).

Charles

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

CM

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear