Cool Mac Gear

Another batch of excellent letters about why people are or are not switching to OS X rolled in over the weekend. Thanks to everyone who is participating in this discussion.

Why aren't more people switching to OS X?

From Bill DeVille

Charles:

I've totally switched to OS X on my TiBook 500 MHz with 1 GB RAM and 60 GB HD.

I've got a 20th Anniversary Mac (400 MHz G3 CPU) and a PowerBook 2400c as well. Both are running OS 8.6 and will probably stay with that operating system, as it lets them do just about everything they are capable of -- and they are not acceptable candidates for upgrade to OS X. Both are running flawlessly and have my picks of productivity and graphics software for the OS 8.6 era, so both remain useful machines in case the TiBook ever has a problem. The Bose sound system in the 20th Anniversary Mac still sounds wonderful.

Here's an observation. Prior to getting the TiBook, I had a Pismo PowerBook running OS 9.x. During that time, I almost always took the PB 2400c on trips in preference to the Pismo, as it could do everything the Pismo could do and was considerably lighter and tougher. I continued to use the 2400c on trips until I installed OS X 10.1.x on the TiBook (currently OS X 10.2.6). At that time, I started finding OS X programs that let me do things that hadn't been possible under Classic OS. Oops -- a quantum leap; now the older machines could no longer do my everyday tasks. Once in a while I'll take the PB 2400c into the woods to do a little writing, or turn on the 20th Anniversary Mac to enjoy the sound system.

For me, the major advantage of OS X isn't just improved stability or a delightful working environment, it's the software, stupid. Well-written Cocoa applications are now letting me do things on my TiBook that I had dreamed of doing on my previous Mac and Windows machines, but had remained impossible or severely limited.

My research and writing revolves around four Cocoa applications: Safari for Web browsing; Circus Ponies NoteBook outliner and document database for daily journals, notes and article drafting; DEVONthink for my big, fast and smart document database; and Stone Designs' Create for page layout and final production of PDF and/or HTML documents. (The combined price of these applications was less than $250.)

Each of those programs is impressive in its own right. What makes them truly magic as a team is that, through OS X Services, I can "fly" information back and forth between them with a truly wonderful synergy. Nothing like the power and simplicity of these programs and their interactions is available under Classic Mac or Windows. Mac OS X and these programs created a sea-change in my workflow.

I would like to add a fifth member to my team of applications, a really good Cocoa word processor. I've got MS Word and AppleWorks, but they are Carbon and don't work with OS X Services. Although Nisus Express X beta and Mellel are Cocoa word processors, they're not quite there, yet (Mellel is closer). However, I expect my wait to be over in a few months.

Bottom line: Many of the comments and letters in your series on OS X compare doing the same things, using similar applications and procedures, in OS 9.x and OS 10.x. From that perspective, OS X may seem slower, especially on lesser-powered machines. So, the argument might go, why sacrifice speed to move to OS X? I've taken a different approach, looking for ultimate productivity increases that I thought were possible with OS X and properly written applications. The raw speeds of NoteBook, DEVONthink and Safari blow away any remotely comparable (but lesser) applications under OS 9.x on my TiBook 500 MHz, and Create is very responsive, especially for multi-page layouts. Adding in the integration of these programs through OS X Services further increases productivity, with the bonus that I've NEVER had a System crash under OS X.

For me, my daily tasks are performed much faster and easier under OS X -- so much so that I wouldn't dream of trying to go back to Classic Mac (or Windows) to do them (and my more than 2-year-old TiBook is "underpowered" by current standards).

Regards,
Bill DeVille

Hi Bill;

I mostly agree with what you say here. When I work in OS 9 these days I really miss the speed of the OS X browsers; the slickness and versatility of DEVONThink, the cool new features of the OS X version of Tex Edit Plus, and as you say, the convenience of OS X Services.

However, what I don't miss in the sluggishness of OS X (except in browsers, where OS X versions are faster). Like you, I've decided that putting up with OS X's laggard response and need for frequent maintenance is worth the trouble for the convenience, efficiency, and coolness that you can only get in OS X native applications. Too bad it has to be either/or.

Charles

Another Perspective (OSX)

From Ken. Cavaliere-Klick

Matt Deatherage's comment to Apple to "drop the attitude and make OS X more like the Mac" hits it on the head for me but in an unusual way. I came to the Mac platform from PC's just before Jaguar. I had never seen X, never used it and, having a resuscitated Bondi, never thought I would use X. I'm very happy with 9.2.2 on my Bondi. Apple listed the Bondi as X compatible after all so I tossed X on the Bondi just to see what the fuss was all about. It never hurts to know a new OS.

After the initial wow passed, my first impression was "so slow", next feeling was "Windows". It looks, feels and works like Windows, the platform I just abandoned. Upside down Windows at that. X lasted about a week on the Bondi and I just could not justify keeping it installed.

Now I have the iBook and it's Jaguar only. I want to learn this OS. The speed issue is not as dominant a factor as it was with the Bondi. Jaguar still makes me think "Windows", the maintenance makes me think "Windows" and the interface still reminds me of upside down Windows. I feel like I'm playing a video game. Up, down, left, right I'm pointing all over the screen. You can load whatever in the Dock, the menus are still on the top. Up and down, repeat often. In Platinum at least everything was on top. If an app is not in the Dock the screen can get cluttered fast with lingering windows as you drill down to an app.

For instance, I use the calculator once in a while with another app open, not enough to keep it in the Dock, but often enough. In Platinum, this was simply Apple menu, Calculator. No lingering windows left open. In Jaguar this is Finder, Applications, Calculator, but Applications stays open so close Applications. Two steps is now four, five if you access Finder by clicking on the desktop.

I, like you, have more than one Apple computer. My Bondi sits side by side with my iBook. I often use them together. I can really see the difference between the two OS's.

Side notes to Apple:

1) Stability is not a feature, it's an expectation.

2) Big icons and dialog boxes do not make for a better interface, a better interface makes for a better interface. Stop copying Windows. Break new ground, the desktop metaphor is old news.

Sorry this is so long, edit as you please. Thanks for all your great work. I've learned a lot about Apple computers (and other things) with your clear, precise and insightful articles.

Hi Ken;

Glad you're enjoying the Odyssey.

I'm sure that OS X must be excruciatingly slow on a 233 MHz iMac. As for the interface issues, I agree that the OS X Finder is clunky compared with the Classic Mac OS Finder. I use the Dock mainly as a substitute for the old Application Switcher tear-off palette -- positioned vertically on the far right. Tiger Launch handles most of my launching tasks, and WindowShade X restores the windowshading medicine for open window clutter.

Charles

OS Switching

From Bob Weir

Dear Mr. Moore,

From a marketing perspective...

What is the compelling reason for a user to change from their traditional product/service to a different one?

1- Lack of drivers for printers, scanners, etc.
2- Slower performance of applications
3- Lack of capabilities of "Finder"
4- High learning curve of diagnostics and repairs
5- Stability problems with each upgrade
6- Loss of memory from leaks
7- Excessive use of screen space by graphics in windows
8- Lack of management of font families.

Of course, you can purchase additional products and services to alleviate the aforementioned. But what is the cost benefit ratio or return on investment compared to the user's present system?

The minimum system requirement of the APPLICATIONS we use to get our work done, will determine the OS my firm uses.

Bob Weir

P.S. I always appreciate your insightful comments. I made the smooth transition from System 6 on a 2cx to System 9 on a G4. Recently, all my work applications became available on OS X. Now, I can consider X an alternative.

Hi Bob;

Good points and a sensible upgrade philosophy.

Charles

Switching

From David Meyer

Charles,

I fear it's true - not many people have converted their older Macs to OSX. I converted my Yosemite to 10.1, then bought a QuickSilver a few months before Jaguar took its bow (grumble . . . full price . . . grumble). I gave the Yosemite to my son-in-law when I bought the QuickSilver and he took it right back to 9.x - wasn't about to spend a penny to upgrade his software, that which COULD be upgraded. My son upgraded his Yosemite, and he still has it running 10.2.x!

Most people, though, wouldn't upgrade ANYTHING, much less their OS. How many PCs are still running Windows 3.x or Win'95, much less Win'98? Millions! I hardly think it's fair to complain that Mac users follow a similar pattern. Additionally, most of the older Macs out there simply will not run the newer OSs - and remember that the average age of an in-use Mac is half-again that of your average in-use PC.

Yes, I'm occasionally annoyed that my QuickSilver running 10.2.x seems no faster than my Yosemite (300) was and am looking forward to a 970-powered monster at maybe 3X the MHz - OK, it will be 4X before I can justify the expense, but I can dream! Still, I don't do a lot where speed is critical. I -do- like the "Unix" access. No, Linux would not work for me - I fought that battle and simply got tired of fighting it every time I tried to do something.

Dave Meyer
Newton, MA

Hi Dave;

Where speed is not an issue, there is a strong case to be made for OS X. I stll think there should be an optional, bare-bones GUI option for folks who are more interested in efficiency than eye-candy.

Charles

Why People Aren't Switching to OSX

From Jos L.

Charles:

Interesting thread and one that is in many respects long overdue. It's been hard to get an unbiased view on OSX's merits and demerits. Whether this is due to the "Mac cult" mentality, where anything put out by Apple is marvelous and wonderful or whether due to preponderance of technophiles that dominate the bulletin boards, I don't know.

With the possible exception of your column, the print and web press haven't helped much either as they always seem to stop short of calling a spade a shovel. The fact that after two years only 1/6th of the Mac user community has switched doesn't entirely surprise me. If anything the disclosure of these statistics has been gratifying as I was starting to think that I was missing something or that my brain was growing old and feeble.

Being a Mac fan, I have to confess I was seduced by the hype. Consequently, I finally broke down and went out, and bought one of the last DP 867's on a deal. What little truth I had been able to garner, led me to conclude that running OSX on anything less than the latest hardware would be an exercise in stupidity. I further rationalized that if OSX didn't catch on or if I didn't like it, at the very least I'd have a blazingly fast machine running OS9 natively.

Well my experience to date has been a mixed bag. Yes the interface is gorgeous, the "i" apps are impressive as are Safari and even Mail but that's about where it stops. Here are my observations:

1) This OS carries a lot of overhead, i.e.: it's slow. It runs nicely on a DP 867 with a Gig of RAM but it's no faster than my 333 Mhz iMac running OS9.1 or for that fact my Deskpro P3-550 running Win2K. Playing with iBooks and the new iMac in stores, OSX is decidedly syrupy.

2) The user interface is far from intuitive. Neither my experience with the Classic OS or Windows (totaling 15 years) has proven much use judging by the number of times I've been able to induce the spinning ball of death for what I thought were simple operations. What's the difference between staring at a spinning ball for 10 minutes and having a machine crash? When a machine crashes at least you know what's happened.

3) It requires more maintenance, that reminds me I had better repair permissions.

4) Doing anything more than the simplest of operations requires an inordinate amount of research on the web. Ever try making a second HD visible on a small peer to peer network? For the first time in my life I bought a third party OS manual (David Pogue - excellent) that in and of itself says something.

My conclusion, this OS if not in it's infancy is still in childhood. Unless Panther is a quantum leap forward, it'll probably take until 10.5 before it's ready for the masses. Jaguar is still very much on the bleeding edge rather than the leading edge.

As to why more people haven't switched, it doesn't work on anything less than a 500 Mhz G3 and then at a considerable speed penalty. So why change when OS9 does much the same on a much wider range of hardware faster.

My advice to the remaining 25 million that haven't switched, don't do a thing until Apple ships a processor that's capable driving the OS properly and even then wait until Puma or Leopard or whatever ships.

Jos L.

Hi Jos;

Your caveats are well-considered. I wouldn't be quite so emphatic about discouraging Mac users with less than the latest hardware from switching to X, but they need to be aware of the speed and maintenance/configuration issues that obtain.

Many people are running OS X on machines of less than 500 MHz G3 power, but I agree that is the threshold I personally consider tolerable performance-wise.

Charles

OS X - not Mac enough

From Metroxing

I think everything you've said so far and what most readers have said so far are on base but I also want to add a summary of the audience out there:

HAPPY AS CAN BE
While most of your most vocal readers are probably tinkerers like me - always adding, subtracting apps/hardware, etc ... I also know quite a few Mac/computer users who just buy a machine and never add or download anything beyond a system upgrade and other than buying games for the kids, pretty much just use the OS/computer as is. I know people who have literally hundreds of files on the desktop and think learning the folder navigation system is too hard. They prefer just to look at the desktop and doubleclick. There are other people still using Performas or original iMacs and are perfectly happy. They like the Mac and wouldn't switch but they also see the computer as a household appliance. It may not be a high end Cusinart but if it does the 3 kinds of chopping I want, who needs anything else? They will buy a new Mac when this one just gets too slow or stops working. I even know a few people still on dialup and are okay with that. So, for them, it works - why bother expending time on something that's a minor part of their lives.

So, that extends out to learning new software. Sure, MAIL is very like OUTLOOK EXPRESS but why bother exerting 4-5 hours of brainpower to relearn an email app when OE is all reflex?

(It doesn't help that Apple builds are pretty hardy that people can continue to use 10 year old machines just as well - something no PC can claim)

JUST TOO COSTLY
The machine is really not the big expense. Obviously there are upgrade discounts and deals but after you buy an OS X Mac, even a low end one - I had to buy Office, Photoshop, Indesign (switched from Xpress), Dreamweaver plus another 6 little programs. While most people might not have the need for all that, that can be over $1,000 to upgrade on top of the machine itself! (and if you had to buy NEW not ugraded software? - $2,000+) Then you add in things like Final Cut Pro or other industrial strength software, you might be talking $3-$4k just in software!

And while, I like OSX, not counting the cost of the machine, is it worth a $2k cost in software upgrades? That's tough to say. The OSX machines are certainly faster/better than the pre-OSX machines so you can see the value there but is PS7 even $200 better than PS6? No. And you can go on down the line. The OSX versions (besides compatibility and being more stable -but that's really the OS) are incrementally better but not that much better. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying software should be free, I understand the need to make it up to date or better, I'm just saying $2k to a great majority of people is a lot to spend for software and is a consideration.

SO, IRONIC
And in the actual true sense of the word, it's because the Classic OS seems to bend to the will of the user that makes OSX much harder to swallow. It doesn't really bend to the will of the user. The user now has to conform to the OS and that's wrong.

I have no real use for UNIX except it does seem very stable and I know nothing about NeXT but when Apple released OS X (not the beta version, the released version), the FIRST screen should have asked people if they wanted to run OS X New Desktop (look and feel) or OSX Classic Desktop.

Why force people to adapt to a new "Desktop?" We certainly don't like it if someone came and re-arranged our actual desktop, what makes Apple think we want to change?

There's no reason they can't have any of the desktop/finder uderlying technologies still working fine but having it look like Classic OS desktop? The Dock is an improvement over the Apple Menu but I'll bet 95% running OS9 or earlier have never changed the files in their Apple Desktop Menu so the Dock is a more obvious thing but shouldn't that be the users choice - to be as inefficent as they choose?

And I absolute hate the assigning of folders/files to users. It might be great for an admin option for 500 users but in our small office, we sometimes need to jump on other machines when that person is not here to retrieve a file, makes changes, etc ... So we don't want any "secret" files but there's NO WAY TO TURN THAT OFF - it should be an optional feature to turn on and off. We can turn web sharing on and off, why not that?

I think that is the closing reason for why another big group have not switched.

NOT 100%
OS X does not follow 100% the MAC belief that the desktop is yours to do as you please - from customizing your apple menu to tab folders or to having every file on the desktop and so on ... inefficent-maybe - but 100% you. It's now down to about 35%. We wouldn't accept a software program that's only 35% Mac (Microsoft Word 6.0), why should we accept a desktop that's only 35% Mac?

Good points. With the Classic Mac OS, there are usually three or more ways to do something, even without add-ons or hacking, and the Fort Knox style UNIX security protocols are a royal pain for folks like me who are their Mac.s sole user and not on a shared network.

Perhaps that's the nub of the problem with OS X for many of us -- UNIX is essentially a network, multi-user OS that does not bend to the will of the user the way the Classic Mac OS does.

As for the Desktop, as Matt Deatherage notes, it seems to be the NeXT people at Apple gratuitously trying to ram NeXT down Mac-users' throats. It's not all bad, but it's not as good as the old Classic Finder, and there is no technical reason why the old Finder features could not be incorporated into Aqua, or even better, an alternate, stripped down GUI with the old functions but a more subdued (and less performance-hobbling) appearance made available as an option.

Personally, I think the old Application Switcher/ControlStrip/ Apple Menu troika beat the whiz out of the jack of all trades and master of none Dock.

Charles

OS X adoption

From Michael W Snider

Charles,

There's no mystery and no problem.

I make my living writing software in the Wintel world, mainly embedded stuff. Do you know how often I've seen an XP machine on a developer's desk? Not once. I'm using Win98 right now, and my last 3 assignments all used NT4. Ironically, we do have XP machines--and they're used exclusively for certain email and corporate data systems.

As a rule, neither individuals nor corporations change OS's until they buy new machines. Mac users may be more willing than most to do so. Somewhere between a quarter and a fifth of all Macs are OS X now. XP is now at about 35% ( http://www.statmarket.com/cgi-bin/sm.cgi?sm&feature&week_stat ) of the web world--which seems a little better, maybe, except that hardware cycles are much shorter in the Wintel world and that since October 2001, XP has been the only choice for a new machine (except for a few large accounts), while Macs have shipped with 2 OS's until this year. Consider also that Win98 still has about 25%, and that means 40% is Macs (all flavors, Win95, Unix, Linux. Consider that--after 2 years at 95+% of all new computer sales, only a third of web traffic runs on Windows XP.

Best,
Michael

Bruce Williamson's B&W

From Chris Kilner

Hi Charles:

One possible reason for Bruce Williamson's problems installing combo upgrades on his B&W is that, as you know, file permissions can get screwed-up on OS X. I always run fsck and repair permissions before and after upgrades. Resetting the PRAM can also help.

Also, OS X is very sensitive to RAM issues.

A friend of mine had trouble upgrading from OS X 10.2. It turns out that she had been deleting package receipts to save drive space...big mistake.

As for the Blue & White G3, the only quirks I know of are that the Rev. 1 B&W had a bad IDE controller chip that is subject to file corruption, especially when hooked up to newer (ultraIDE and faster) hard drives or slave drives. I have a Rev. 1 and use Intech's Hard Disk Speed Tools drivers to limit the newer drive to Multiword DMA, which solves the problem. Using a PCI IDE card also solves this problem.

Chris Kilner

Problems with Mail

From: Mark Lehrman

Dear Charles,

Once again I'm turning to your expertise, I hope you don't mind. My G4 12" recently started doing something strange and I can't figure it out. Mail will not download any e-mail but will send. I attempted to install Eudora 6.0 and 5.2 and the same thing occurrs. I am running OSX 10.2.6. Unfortunately I didn't recall when this behavior began, either before or after I upgraded. The settings seem to be correct, and it was downloading mail fine until recently. Any thoughts or ideas? How do I go about uninstalling 10.2.6 and reverting to 10.2.5 or an earlier version, if that is necessary.

Thanks again for your time,
Mark

Hi Mark;

Haven't heard of this one before. Eudora beta 6 and Nisus Writer 1.6 are both working fine in 10.2.6 on my Pismo.

I'm wondering if it could be a problem with your email service provider or ISP.

Something you could try is to set up an account with a free POP 3 email service that has SMTP mail sending support, and see if the send problem is still there with their server.

Ones you could try are:

http://www.myrealbox.com
http://www.softhome.net
http://www.hotpop.com

aal of which have smtp mail sending support.

Charles

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

CM

Charles W. Moore