| ||||||||
|
Cool Mac Gear• iPod Video • iPod nano • iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Garageband |
The Mac OS Is Dead Letters
The Mac OS is Dead. Long Live The Mac OS The Mac OS is Dead. Long Live The Mac OS From Marvin Price Dear Charles, As soon as I read the news article about the end of OS 9, I went looking for your response. I knew you would be disappointed but I think the level to which this angers you is a bit unwarranted. With all due respect (and that's more respect than I have the linguistic ability to express), this IS an evolution of Apple's products. The world of computers has always been this way. For as long as I can remember, (and I've been doing this since the late 70s), computer manufacturers would build a platform that included an OS and a fundamental hardware architecture. Eventually they would move on and either the OS or the hardware or both would be dropped in order to move to the new system. It happened with DEC in the 80s when they moved from the highly successful PDP line to the VAX line. Many people just didn't want to give up RSTS and RSX and move the the VAX/VMS world. They had significant amounts of time and money invested in building comfortable and functional RSTS and RSX infrastructures and wanted to believe that DEC would continue to support them forever. DEC knew it had to move to a 32-bit processor, to support greater amounts of memory, and larger tasks. This called for a completely different OS. What DEC never really figured out was how important the desktop was, not until it was too late. I too am one of the Mac faithful (and I hate that phrase). I have preferred the Macintosh, and almost used it exclusively for the last 15 years. The Mac OS has always been a joy to use. It has constantly provided ways to easily do things that are monumentally complex in other operating systems. The ability to simply copy an entire hard drive -verbatim- just by dragging it to a new location has probably saved Mac users and technicians an incalculable amount of time over the years, for instance. Nonetheless, anyone who has ever programmed for the Mac OS or looked at its internals knows that the 20 year old beast wasn't just getting long in the tooth, it was a morass of spaghetti code that had no effective path to becoming what is commonly accepted as a modern operating system. With the classic Mac OS, Apple was boxed in. It had to go. Even as a Mac faithful person, prior to OS X, I was leaning closer and closer to LINUX. If there was no OS X, I can honestly say that I would be using LINUX full time, probably on PCs now. I'd be looking at the Mac under OS 9 as a great old lady, incapable of moving into the future. OS X prevented my professional departure from the Macintosh as I'm sure it did for many others. Referring to OS X as a "powerful toy" is terribly unfair. The technologies that are part of OS X, from the ground up greatly outweigh the comfort factor we felt with OS 9. I could write pages on just the Core OS, more on the Developer Frameworks, and continue on the Display/Multimedia and Interface capabilities but I know you've read all that and know it. I think the vital and important thing to take note of however is how often improvements, updates, bug fixes, and additional applications are flowing from Apple. Prior to OS X, updates to OS 9 were few and far between and there was no way to retrofit the technologies that other operating systems such as LINUX or even Windows NT/2000/XP were taking advantage of. We would never have seen a kernel based, true virtual memory, protected memory, version of OS 9. Developers would never have flocked to it, and hard core professionals would have abandoned it over time. In addition, new markets in business, science, and engineering are opening up to Apple as a result of OS X. These are markets that would never have considered OS 9. With OS X, Apple has constructed a platform that allows it to make rapid improvements. I'm guessing, but I expect that we can count on major upgrades at least once every year. I suspect this is the Apple method of creating subscription based services, without actually insisting on a subscription. Quite frankly, I like it better. Apple is saying, "here is what weâve done to improve the system, you can buy it if you like," whereas certain other OS developers are saying pay us our timely blood money whether we make things better or not. From Apple's point of view, maintaining OS 9 compatibility was an expensive and restricting endeavor. Sooner or later the old PPC based Macintosh (and I think it will be sooner rather than later), will say goodbye to make room for a new and exciting architecture. That architecture, whatever its based on (and no, it won't be intel), will not boot OS 9. The death of OS 9 in this respect in inevitable. I suspect the new architecture will look as different when you open the box as a modern G4 looks from the original 512K. I do not believe this is a heavy handed or mean decision on the part of Apple. I believe these are sound business decisions upon which the survival of the company depends. I feel that if Apple tries to maintain OS 9, they will create a drag on their evolution and development as an "iEnterprise" that could result in the company not only being forced out of their niche markets, but vanishing altogether. I also take exception with your complaints about OS X being slow. I'm using it on an 800mhz G4 Titanium right now, and it's darned fast. Under Jaguar it feels at least as fast as OS 9. I've helped people upgrade old Blue and White G3s to Jaguar and the performance is far better than previous OS X implementations. Jaguar running on older G3s is very fast. I was so impressed that I just helped a client with an old iMac DV (400mhz G3) upgrade and the performance is exceptional. Suddenly her aging little iMac is a UNIX workstation. Most of the people I work with don't miss OS 9 after a week or so. In fact, I make extremely small OS 9 partitions for them, about 600MB, and dedicate the rest of their hard disks to OS X. I believe you are an extremely sophisticated OS 9 user, one who milked every tiny bit of productivity he could out of that OS. Most people aren't like you. You squeeze productivity out of the system. Most people want the system to coax productivity of them. So the basic OS X system is a great improvement to them, if for no other reason than the darned crashing is all but gone. All in all I believe the benefits of OS X far exceed the comfortable shortcuts we've come to love under OS 9. Apple is not stabbing Mac users in the back. On the contrary, Apple is rewarding the "Mac Faithful" with a system that is leaps and bounds better than anything competitors have to offer, and better than the system that Mac users were previously stuck with. The death of OS 9 is a sad thing, in retrospect, however all in all it is a good thing, a very good thing. PS: Even my cat Connor likes OS X! 
Note the books he's sitting on. He misses the dogcow though. So do I. ;-) C. Re: OS 9 cutoff yearend announced by Apple, Inc. From Bob Whitney To any and all at Apple, Inc., and in reply to Mr. Moore of AppleLinks: I could not agree more with Mr. Moore and AppleLinks' analysis of the likely impact of Apple's ill conceived announcement re OS 9.x.x cutoff 1 Jan 03. All of the objectives stated in the Apple release could just as well be achieved by simply emphasizing OS X product development while quietly leaving OS 9.2.2 in place as an alternate (not default), separately bootable OS for those of us who have been Mac users for many years (since 1984 for me). In a nutshell, why should we with ample Mac functionality not be allowed to continue to use the OS of our choice?? If there were a true hardware related need for making new "Macs" incompatible with OS 9.x, then so be it, but I do not perceive any such problem at present. Therefore, the net effect of this announcement seems to be that long time, happy users of Macs will delay updating hardware, and actively seek other choices such as Linux when the time comes to buy. While still stumbling and bumbling through their latest ".Mac" vis a vis iTools gaffe, Apple seems bent on repeating the same absurd scenario by again creating anti-Mac sentiment among their most dedicated and faithful customers (probably in well over "20% of their installed base"). The following quotes say it better than I can (_emphasis_ added by me):
This " ...will almost certainly cause an unintended short-term spike in Mac hardware sales, as traditional..." Mac users "...scramble to pick up the last Macs that will run OS 9..." and "... when those units are gone, an awful lot of folks are going to hang onto and upgrade their older Mac hardware for a LONG time coming. I predict that in the medium term this ill-conceived move will backfire royally on Apple.
"Apple estimates that there are over 3 million Mac OS X users today, and expects to reach 5 million Mac OS X users—or more than 20 percent of the installed base—by the end of this calendar year.
"We expect that 20 percent of our entire installed base will be using Mac OS X by the end of this year, making it the fastest operating system transition in recent history,' said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.
"Twenty percent after nearly 18 months! Big whoop! Doesn’t that tell you something, Steve? And I’ll bet ... that less than half of that 20 percent are using OS X exclusively.
"Steve Jobs, genius that he is in many ways, has never understood that 'ya' dance with the one(s) that brung ya.' He was instrumental ..." in "... saving Apple, but it wasn't a single-handed feat. He couldn't have done it without the Mac faithful. I predict that the old guard's ranks are going to be thinning substantially. Linux, anyone?
Jaguar is "...a powerful toy for UNIX aficionados, and _arguably a no-brainer for those new to the Mac platform. I have no argument with either_. But for us wizened old Mac pros who have tailored and honed our work habits to a fare-thee-well on the legacy Mac OS, OS X is simply not there yet."
Bob Whitney I'm not sure what the issue is here From David Chilstrom I'm not sure what the issue is here. Those who prefer sticking with OS 9 (or must because of hardware/software incompatibilities) can do so on the cheap by keeping with current hardware or buying used or refurbished equipment. Given the enormous depreciation of computer hardware and the terrific performance of OS 9 on current Apple machines, this seems like a very wise thing to do anyway. Not good for Apple, but good for consumers. Apple has legitimate reasons for going OS X only. One issue is focus. Support for new machines will be better because staff will not be split between supporting two very different OSes. Likewise, developers who have been on the fence about getting their applications carbonized or at least updated to run well under Classic will do so. That seems a good thing to me. Apple cannot convince developers (or users) to make the commitment to OS X if they aren't ready to bet the company on it themselves. As long as OS 9 is available as an "out" for either Apple or developers, than we will continue to be confronted by situations that require re-booting into OS 9. By making the commitment to OS X, no one has any more excuses and that's a good thing too. David Chilstrom Apple is shooting itself in the foot again From Jentim Stone I completely agree with your comment. Apple is shooting itself in the foot again. I have not moved from OS8.5 - it works for me and my software and until my mac become obselete i.e. it breaks down or I need to run incompatable software then I guess I will not be changing. In fact if there is any software I might need it could even be cheaper to buy and run it on an unmentionable rival system. I have some faith in "the market" From Henry Linton I didn't have a catharsis email, but here's a comment or two upon reflection. I have some faith in "the market"; if lots of us are screaming as 2002 nears its end why wouldn't the resellers stock up on OS 9 tolerant machines? We'd at least be able to buy that 17 inch iMac when our old faithful PowerComputing 604e finally gives up. I have one so I think of it. Ditto for my iBooks and TiBooks. Maybe even Apple would relent, or maybe third-party programmers would provide workarounds; we have a lot of smart folks who are motivated by demand. It was interesting to read Woz's comment. "OS X is really lovely and beautiful. It's just not ready for me yet."
Thanks for listening,
I'm afraid in this case, you're just wrong From Daniel A. Shockley Charles, I'm afraid in this case, you're just wrong. Apple has almost never made Macs that boot older versions of the OS than the one they came with. Go ahead and try to install System 7.1 on a PowerMac 8500 - don't even think about trying System 6.0.8. Even the original PowerMacs needed a tweaked version of 7.1 to run (barely), and none after them could boot anything less than 7.5. Apple's making sure that the developers and users realize that X is the focus. The current users who absolutely MUST have Mac OS 9 or earlier are a very small percentage of the 80% who haven't upgraded yet. The largest part of that group are people who have older machines anyway - they haven't upgraded because they have old machines, not because they bought new and can't use OS X.
I'd bet the breakdown is something like this:
The second and third group may overlap, but neither one would have real problems using Mac OS X if they were buying a NEW Mac, which are the only ones covered by Apple's decision. They aren't removing the ability to boot OS 9 from all the machines already out there, are they? Classic works very well for most users. Very few of my clients would be unable to upgrade - they just haven't had the time, or still use older machines. It sounds, unfortunately, based on the double-mouse issue, that you are in that last group. From what I've read about your buying habits, though, you won't be buying a 2003 Mac until at least 2006. :-)
Love your writing,
I don't see a business advantage to switching to OS x From Bob Lunn: Hello Charles I agree 100 percent with your assessment on this development. I don't see any upside to forcing the issue at this time. In the business world, if you want someone to switch to your new product offering you have to demonstrate a clear advantage. A clear advantage would mean something performs faster and or cheaper. In addition, the advantages have to be of sufficient magnitude to justify switch over costs. These costs usually include things like hardware and software replacement, retraining users and technical staff. As a small business owner, I don't see a business advantage to switching to OS x (the small 'x' is not a typo but a statement about how I rate the capabilities of the new OS). OS x is not faster then OS 9. Maybe in the future, but not now. My primary business application is not OS x native, so I would have to run it in classic mode anyway. Did I mention OS x is slow? To make the switch I would have to purchase new, 'faster' hardware. However, I believe we are near the end of the life cycle for the G4 platform. I owned an '040' machine, so I learned the consequences of buying near the end of a chips lifecycle the hard way. When I buy a new desktop machine it has to be better then what Apple is currently offering. The current design has 'kluge' written all over it. It does not make sense to buy new hardware to run things in classic mode, so I would have to upgrade all my software. That would be expensive, and time consuming. I went through that experience when I switched from the previously mentioned '040' platform to the Power PC platforms, and it was not pleasant. The economy is not doing well at the present time, so trying to strong arm people to make un-necessary business expenses is ill advised and perhaps an indication that Apple does not understand the needs and wants of their customers. I am suspicious that this decision was mitigated by Microsoft's implied threat that the OS x user base is too small to continue to support. I have been disgusted with Microsoft's greedy bullying ways for some time now and had already decided that my current copy of Microsoft Office would be my last. This decision was made after I found I could not register my current Office software online without registering for a Microsoft 'passport' account. No way, at no time am I EVER going to provide Microsoft access to any of my personal data. Their record on security speaks for itself. I don't want anything to do with the unethical way they conduct business, and you can be sure if they are involved in any way with your business, they will have their hand in your pockets. I am one of those people that pays for every piece of software they use, including shareware. As such, I am particularly sensitive to onerous copy protection schemes. The new version of Office apparently disables access to the program if you make 'extensive' modifications to your computer system. To get access back, you have to call Microsoft and explain what you did so you can get your software activated again. I know this is the situation on current Windows systems, and if it is not the situation with Office X, you can bet it will be in the future. People I do business with will have to learn to send me Office documents in old Office formats. I believe Apple is attempting to implement a strategy designed to bring them into the IT mainstream currently dominated by Wintel. Clearly, that is where the money is, so I understand the logical basis for that strategy. However, mainstream IT is not where Apple's current customer base is, and alienating your current customer base is a strategy for disaster. Making inroads into corporate IT departments is not going to happen overnight, if at all. One of Apple's primary problems is they are the sole provider of Apple hardware, and businesses usually try to avoid dealing with sole provider business solutions. You only need to look at the current situation with Microsoft to understand the inherent dangers of dealing with sole providers. In summary, I believe the decision to disable OS 9 booting for new machines will only hurt Apple. When Apple makes a business case that justifies the time and expense necessary to convert to OS x, I will consider it. In the meantime, I will stick with my current machine that runs OS 9. If it dies before Apple makes their case, its off to ebay for another machine that runs OS 9. Bob Lunn From a Mac Service Tech who prefers to remain anonymous: I have my own Mac Service Repair Shop. For 14 years I've been repairing Apple products."OS X, without a good backup drive and plan, is GREAT for the Mac service shops. The more we sell, the better the business!" I've taken "Apple's" crap for all those years. While OS X is great Eye Candy, for those customers using their Macs for total business, I just cannot recommend it. Maybe 5% of our local Mac User Group have gone to it, part time! As their Apple Ambassador, I still tell them the truth! Use it at your own risk! BUT, back up! Yesterday I had a brand new iMac, 2 months old, corrupt directory! Guess what? She ran Norton's 7, from the CD, which overwrote part of her directory file. I had to back up what I could onto an external firewire drive, Re-Format and RESTORE from her 6 CD's, then move back her stuff. 3 Hours @ $60/Hr. $180 total for being stupid. I told her to send Nortons7 back for a refund. Back up, back up, back up with OS X. Eye Candy has a price, doesn't it? Nortons, Disk Warrior and TechToolPro work great on OS9. In time, OS X will be great, but I wait until the diagnostic tools work for X before I switch. I do service for a living. Let the Pioneers get the arrows in their backs, not me. PS - I also have lots of Professional Graphics (Quark & Photoshop (plugins))customers who use graphics and Music software/composition, etc. for work. I told them NO WAY to go to OS X yet. Stuff still doesn't work in there. I'll fix their OS X problems at $60/hr (read $120 repairs), but I won't use it myself! I can't afford all the software upgrade costs. OS 9 is cheaper to service, and 91/92 is VERY stable! My OS 9.1 has not crashed in 6 months. STABLE PS - Kevlar shorts work well From Guy Richardson I won't buy a Mac that doesn't run OS9. Period. I make a living on my Mac. People who have time to play around on OSX are welcome to it. I don't have the time. And if I'm forced to change, I'll migrate to Windows XP, with a system so popular even the guys at the neighborhood bar have troubleshooting tips for it. This after 15 years on Macs. Sad, sad, sad. --Guy Richardson From Eric Cooper Love your columns, but disagree with your conclusion about booting OS X only. There has to be a time when the hardware is allowed to move forward. You will still be able to buy your used/refurbished 'Books. I hope that this portends great things for the next hardware change (G5 is OS X only?). Keep up the good work. Eric I'm even dropping my subscription to MacWorld From Jerry Koszut Hi Charles... I couldn't agree more! I am the LAN mgr of a small K12 school in Nebraska with 100+ Macs, of which about half are capable of running OS X, but probably never will. First of all, none of the educational programs we use, including (and especially) administrative, will run on X, and even if they did, I don't have the budget to buy them. Secondly, we use everything from 7.6 to 9.2 here with a 99.7% up-time. It all works, and works extremely well. Going to X would require at least one server be replaced, RAM added to everything, possibly new printers for lack of drivers, and.....last, but certainly not least, I don't want to learn another system, much less train the staff and students on another interface. That last just adds another level of complexity to my job that I don't need, and I'm not the only one in education that feels this way. We'll still be replacing and adding Macs here at the school, but it will be with refurbished and used units, and again, I'm not the only one in my field who's made that decision. We can keep everything here running for a long time, but the day will come when we have to decide between two Alien operating systems. The decision will be based on equipment cost and software availability, and quite frankly, Apple isn't even at the gate, much less in the race on either count. Steve has scratched a line in the sand, challenged the faithful and is leading the charge, only a bunch of that installed base he brags about isn't going with him. The 20% he hopes to have by the end of the year may be all he gets. On a personal note, I've been one of the faithful since my 128k, and for the first time ever I don't feel a need, or even an urge for that matter, to up-grade to the latest and greatest Mac. My G3 is becoming a G4 this week and I'll be up-grading my graphics and web design software to the latest versions that will coexist with 9.2. Then I'm done. I'm even dropping my subscription to MacWorld when it runs out. Jerry Koszut P.S. If my "creds" mean anything, I was; director of corporate support for Power Computing, vice pres of DataPak Software (first game for the Mac and more), graphic designer (Dial and Purex packaging to name a few), feature writer for MacGuide and...too much more to bother you with...JK Scizophrenia running wild in Cupertino From Christopher J. Smith Jobs is no businessman. Gates understands legacy support. I understand legacy support. You understand Legacy support. Most others in the industry understand this as well. I am delighted with Apple's decision. This means that my on site Mac tech support business will skyrocket! Existing Apple customers in the Manhattan NYC area will turn to me. New customers who don't understand Mac OS X will turn to me. OS X ain't THAT easy baby.... Look up "new Jersey Mac tech support" or "new jersey Mac tech support" in google Charles...guess who you find? Try any other engine ya want too. Same answer. Oh bliss oh glee, Apple laid a BIG egg, and now I can count my chickens as they have hatched!!! I have prepared for this, knowing how Jobs holds a grudge against Apple for firing him in 1986, his Next fiasco, as well as previous behavior towards the Apple 2-Macintosh schism deal he ran down in 1984, which was the thing that started Jobs on the road to being fired in the first place. So I know my man pretty damn well, and have prepared for this day carefully (expecting the worst and planning for it). Thank you Mr. Jobs for all the business coming my way now. I LOVE YOU, and for all the wrong reasons! From Dean Lewis Dear Charles: I'm sure someone else has mentioned this by now, but I figured why not add my voice to the mix. Neither your rant, which you agree was typed quickly after the announcement, nor your revisitation today mentions that you understand only new machines bought after the beginning of 2003 will be "crippled". I don't think everyone's current computer systems are going to suddenly stop booting OS 9 on December 31, 2002. If you think you need a faster machine, then now would be the time to buy it, or purchase one of the excellent processor upgrades, and -- voila! -- a fast machine that still boots into OS 9. I'm sure you do understand this, but your anger refuses to let you mention it lest it muddy your main point. Also, I think you should reconsider calling people who happen to like OS X or the direction Apple is taking "apologists". The derogatory connotation is a rhetorical slap, the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and says, "nah nah nah nah", and it's beneath your usual editorial flair.
Dean Lewis
Hi Dean;
I can't think that any rational person would imagine that they will not be able to continue booting into OS 9 on pre Jan. 2003 machines ad infinitum, so I assumed that it was superfluous to address that point.
As for "apologist," my use of the term stems from the theological field of apologetics -- advocacy and defense of the faith -- and was not intended to imply derogation. I refer to myself frequently as a Christian apologist, and, I am also, suppose, a Mac apologist.
Charles From Doug Rowland Charles, The speculation has been running rampant about Apple's reasons for keeping the 2003 Macs from booting into OS 9. Suggestions I have seen include:
1) Jobs power trip
I would like to suggest a fourth possibility. One of the main reasons why people aren't moving to OS X is the existence of apps which do not run at all in the Classic environment. These are commonly apps that need access to hardware. Maybe what Apple is planning is to put the final 10% touches into the Classic environment so that all but a handful of OS 9 apps will work, including those that need hardware access. In that case, the reasons for not switching would simply boil down to personal UI preferences and perceived speed issues. I don't use Classic all that much, but have found it more or less the same speed as OS 9 on my 400 MHz Pismo. With new hardware, this Classic / OS 9 speed issue would be minimized, or possibly even reversed (the same apps may run faster in Classic on newer hardware than they would run in OS 9 on the old). Doug Rowland From Gerry Coleman Charles, I was a bit taken back by your near-hysterical response to Apple making their 2003 Macs bootable only in OSX. Your most, dare I say, raving?, statement was: It is, among other things, a complete reversal of the time-honored backwards compatibility ethic that has always contributed substantially to Macintosh value. Yet you also state in your essay about OS9 applictions running in Classic mode. Please, Charles, take a deep breath and calm down. :-) Personnaly, I don't own a single Mac that can run OSX. My newest one is a 6500/250 running 9.1, which I just updated in July 2002! The Mac I use at work is a 9500/200 running 8.1, for cryin' out loud. (Bet you can tell that one of my favorite sites is Dan Knight's "Low End Mac") My point is, Macs run nearly forever. Those of us who can't afford a new computer every 18-24 months value this fact, as well as that they are the only computers with any substantial resale value. If anything, this issue may make me finally purchase that iBook I've been craving; but even if I don't buy it by January 2003, there are a LOT of resellers willing to sell me a pre-2003 Mac. What the prices will be, however, will be hard to tell. Will they stay high, since a Mac that can boot in OS9 could become precious, or drop, because few will want one that won't boot? I have noticed that beige G3s (which can rus OSX, but slow as molasses) now sell for less than US $400. Right now, Charles, you have far more experience running OSX than I do - my only experiences with it are at Macworld Expos. As "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" puts it, "Don't Panic." When you feel that you - and OSX - are ready, make your move. I'm sure your son Tristian is more than capable to help with your transition. Until then, cherish those OS9-bootable Macs! Gerry Coleman From George Engel Hi, Great article on OS 9- the Day the Mac OS Died. I have lots of customers who are Graphic and MIDI oriented and will be taking this hard. Most of our User Group is OS 9, and lots will NOW be thinking hard of NOT getting a new Mac after 2003.
I'm the Editor of the 'Upstate Apple User Group's Newsletter, a non-profit publication for User Group members only. I would like permission for a one-time reprint of your Article,
Thank you for your time.
Permission granted.
CM From David Sopchak
Charles,
From Russ Abber Dear Charles - I understand your frustration with Apple making this move. However, I think your anger may be misplaced. The only people who will be affected by this decision will be those purchasing new computers. If more than 75% of the people purchasing new Macs are electing to stay with OS X that is more relevant than the 20% of the user base that is using OS X. I was comfortable using OS 9, but needed a new computer earlier this year. When I finally made the jump to a new computer, I tried OS X and have never looked back. Although I am having trouble running some of my daughter's games, they were old versions that don't run on OS X, in classic or, for that matter, Windows XP, 2000 or NT. I realize that this transition will be difficult for some people, but it may allow Apple to have more flexibility if they can eliminate support for OS 9 booting. What Apple could have done was given us a roadmap of why this was necessary beyond the reason of pushing developers and users to the new operating system.
Best Regards,
Hi Russ;
What I think is most significant in the figures you cite is that one quartet of the folks who have bought Macs that were configured to default boot into OS X took the trouble to swithc to booting in OS 9.
Charles Re: TDTMOS Died - Well put, but I'll bet you a loonie... From Michael Leishman Another excellent article Charles. You stated: "However, I also confidently predict that when those units are gone, an awful lot of folks are going to hang onto and upgrade their older Mac hardware for a LONG time coming. I predict that in the medium term this ill-conceived move will backfire royally on Apple."
I disagree and I will gladly wager a hard earned loonie. 1. There must be a very small minority of users who, like yourself, NEED to run OS 9 as their main OS.
Finally... 11. Of all the people I help with their Macs EVERY one of them would be better off in OS X. Keep up the great work.
Cheers,
From Paul Mr. Moore, Get real. Linux anyone? I have Yellow Dog Linux installed on my PowerMac G4 and there is no way any OS 9 user would put up with that nonsense. With OS X there is no need for Linux on the Mac. You need to get on the ball and get used to OS X. It is time to let go of the classic Mac OS. Since last December when I got my G4 I have fallen in love with X. I avoid Classic and OS 9 like the plague. I understand that OS X is not completely refined as is OS 9, but then that has had over 16 years of evolution. It takes time to refine an operating system, but the future is clear and it is OS X.
Thank you,
Hi Paul;
I had SuSE Linux and then Yellow Dog Linux installed on my now-deceased WallStreet, so I know whereof you speak. No argument that OS x isn't a lot more Mac-like. My parting shot was a philosophical statement. I prefer the user-is-boss Linux philosophy to Apple's top-down arrogance.
Actually, I'm quite used to OS X, having been on it nearly ever day from November, 2001 to August 2002, and still quite frequently lately. I just find it dog slow and maddeningly clunky compared with OS 9.
Charles
From Nate Hey Charles, Just a quick thought on your article. Yes this is speculation, but could the move to OS X only be driven by a new chip set that won't run OS 9? There have been rumors galore of a new chip set, and with the redesign of the Power Mac line, this annoucment might just signal things to come.
Just a thought.
I have no quarrel with Apple abandoning OS 9 to (at last!) facilitate adoption of a new CPU. If that's what they mean, why not just say so, or wait until it's prudent to say so?
Charles
Steve Johgart I don't get it. Slow? OS X is substantially faster on my Quicksilver 733. It's booted and ready by the time the SoundBlaster extension (the first to load) would have loaded in the OS 9.2.2 bootup. And OS 9 is lucky to boot the first time...frequently, on both the Quicksilver and the Wallstreet, I get an "Error 25" at the end of the Network Extension load (the second to load) and have to start my bootup all over again. Usually the second booting works. But that's neither fast nor calming. Beyond that, the speed of app booting, scrolling, and such is close enough that I don't notice the difference. The ability to read my email or use TexEdit or BBEdit while Netscape/Mozilla/IE (whichever I decide to use that day) boots means that even if those browsers boot slowly, I don't care. The only serious drawback I've found to OS X is the lack of drivers for my ORB drive and my SoundBlaster card. The ORB is more serious, since the ORB is my backup device, and there seems to be no indication that Castlewood has any intention of writing an OS X driver for the ORB...if I want to continue using my ORB carts for backup, I'll have to buy a new Firewire ORB (which is plug and play in OS X, allegedly...no driver needed). One last thought...it may be that there's some new and zoomin' hardware (G5?) that simply won't support OS 9 without substantial tweaking of OS 9. That could be partially behind the "OS X booting only" decision...it could be very expensive to rewrite OS 9 to boot on new hardware.
Just my quick thoughts.
PS: To be fair to OS 9, I suspect my OS 9 issues (other than the Error 25, which happens before all but 2 extensions load) are due to the fact that I have 4 rows of extensions that load at startup.
Hi Steve;
D'ya think? ;-b
Sounds like your OS 9 install needs some tuning. ;-)
I don't think I've ever had an Error 25 on bootup. OS 9 has been very stable for me.
Slow? Yes, I would roughly estimate that OS X slows me down by maybe 20- 30 percent -- a cumulatve result of draggy scrolling, slow menus, sluggish window opening, etc. ad infinitum.
Charles Keep your old computer until you are ready From David Schell Charles, If you don't want to switch whole hog to Mac OS X yet (as many don't), keep your old computer until you are ready. Apple didn't say Jan 1 03, OS 9 will disappear from your existing system. By moving to a OS X only boot system in January, it frees them from the hardware constraints of OS 9. Apple then has the option to use IBMs 64 bit Power4 chips or switch to Intel (please no!) if they think it will make better computers. David From Kim Peacock Charles, I could not agree more. It is not a smart move to drop 9. And this from an early adopter of X, who only goes back to 9 for ViaVoice. It should not go the way of Newton and Hypercard, two other silly decisions. I'm sure you will get a slew of similar messages. But will Apple listen? Doubt it.
rergards,
From Craig Milburn "But for us wizened old Mac pros who have tailored and honed our work habits to a fare-thee-well on the legacy Mac OS, OS X is simply not there yet." As an old Mac Pro, I'm not sure how wizened I am, but I've been using Macs since 85 and I'm 52. I have three of them on a network with a PC (the PC only runs RIP software for an Epson 7000). I'm a photographer and Photoshop is my primary tool. All of my machines are running OS X and have been since 10.1. I have no need or use for OS 9 and the sooner it's gone the better. I'm all for anything that improves OS X and if the death of OS 9 speeds that process up then all the better. OS 10.2 is prime time and will be even more refined by 2003. The writing has been on the wall for several years. Lets move on. All of the major developers are into X except Quark. It's a done deal. I'm raising my glass to OS 9. It was nice knowing ya, but I'm not crying over your farewell. "the only thing constant is change" Craig Milburn Hi Craig; I'll be 51 in a week or so. However, I'm not a Photoshop user. That may account for our dissonant perspectives. Charles From Dave Glassco I really don't agree with your article on the announcement of OSX only machines next year. You are complaining about devices you haven't even seen yet. Who knows, perhaps Apple is moving to whole new internal architecture with a different chip (power4lite), that would make it impossible to boot OS9. It is also inaccurate to say Apple has always been about backwards compatibility. My Mac SE can only run system 6 or below, is that wrong? You also have until next year to buy a great machine that will run OS9 for years to come. By giving you warning, you are able to plan for the future. Things change in technology, and I don't recall ever buying a system that promised it will run every OS to come. If you are happy with OS9, then stick with your machine and nothing will change. Don't try to hold back a great change for Apple just because you are set in your ways. Dave Glassco I and many, many others will have ZERO reason to buy a new Mac From Martin A. Totusek If I can't get the money together in the next couple months to get a new machine that still can boot the Traditional Mac OS before they block everything (this apparently is NO rumor and also reported by "Charles W. Moore" <cwmoore@applelinks.com>), I and many, many others will have ZERO reason to buy a new Mac. We need both Mac OS and Mac OS X both as bootable OSes. Period. Somewhat painful, but necessary From Dave Clark Hi Charles, I read a lot of your stuff and agree with almost everything you write about the Mac. However, I'm a bit disappointed with your entirely negative reaction to Apple deciding that new Macs will no longer boot from OS 9 as of January. While it might be a bit premature and perhaps Apple should wait until after OS X 10.3 is out, there HAS to come a time when Macs no longer support OS 9. (Hardware advancement will make it necessary.) This announced transition, while somewhat painful, is a necessary first step. I believe it's entirely possible that the OS 9 Classic Environment will cease to exist within six months or a year after this first move by Apple. It's better, in my opinion, to first prevent Macs from booting in OS 9 as an enticement for more users to hurry up and get their applications upgraded in preparation for what could be a much more painful discontinuing of Classic. One might argue that I'm wrong and Macs should boot OS 9 forever. If so then as you suggested, it's now time, while that's still possible, to get your hands on the fastest Mac you can afford and plan on using it forever. I'm sure some folks will, or might actually switch platforms. Apple made it clear back when OS X was still in beta that they did not intend to be a two-OS company. I like OS X. It's not perfect but there are very few things I dislike about it. I understand that some people dislike it or find it less convenient than OS 9. For them, it will be fairly easy to continue using OS 9 for quite some time on current hardware! So, I don't really think Apple's announcement is such a big deal. I maintain six Macs at my office. (Five still boot OS 9.) One of them is for graphic design. Right now, OS X isn't the ideal environment for graphic design. However, all I'm waiting for is Quark Xpress and then I'll take my lumps and switch that design station over to OS X, realizing that it has to be done eventually. The other (slower) Macs at the office will probably run OS 9 until they eventually break down; not too soon, I hope. Sometimes change is difficult, but usually good. I'm glad Apple dumped serial for USB and SCSI for Firewire. And I'm glad there are no more floppies.
Kind regards,
From Michael Koren
I feel for you. But I have a 400mhz Pismo and find System 10.1.5 to be quite fast - albeit not as fast as 9.x. (Note there was a brief period which for reasons I don't fully understand, my system crawled to a slow pace for about a month until I updated to the latest FruitMenu and the problem suddenly vanished - hmmmm. So with that experience I wonder if you aren't having some sort of program conflict. Or something like that.) Putting System X first on new systems will probably not have the speed problems you're experiencing - these new computers are a faster breed with their onboard video card assistance. And Steve probably has inside information not privy to us about hardware to be released by the end of the year that will inspire. That's my guess. There will be issues in cases where, for example, Pro Tools has been slow at becoming System X ready. And Pro Tools does require System 9 without X. That could be an issue and I suspect that Pro Tools will come on board quickly, as will the few others requiring non-Classic, System 9 booting. Competition has a way of forcing the issue because others find a void and fill it. Look at how Retrospect's slowness spawed other backup solutions, even if not as thoroughbred. System X is evolving fast - a lot faster than any system in the past - to my memory - my first computer was a Mac Plus and I've upgraded continuously over the years. And by the end of the year, I'll bet that Apple with 10.3 will have many issues you are concerned about handled. It is good business practice not to tell in advance what is in store because that causes sales to stop in anticipation. I don't think that you serve Apple well by looking at the half empty 20% acceptance. Many people I know are still on Windows 95 and 98 despite all Microsoft marketing. Corporations on even earlier models. System X is radical and I think 20% after this short time is astonishing. And a good barometer of acceptance. I think there is an upwards acceptance curve that is geometrically increasing. Witness the record number of Jaguar purchases. Michael Maybe Stupid^3; More Likely Not From Walt French The issue is whether the cost of supporting OS9 booting is money well spent by Apple's customers. I'd rather have those $$ go into streamlining OSX for the well-loved featrues of 9, for example metadata such as type/creator codes on files, that have been replaced by the abomination of trying to figure out who owns ".DAT" or ".DOC" By the way, I own a PCI drive adaptor for my notebook that allowed me to migrate the data off my dead PowerBook, a lifesaver. OS9 recognizes it without a driver, while it's invisible to OSX. But losing that lifesaver is yesterday's news. Hard to argue that a new $3000 laptop should be designed to accomodate my not wanting to spend $75 for a firewire enclosure. Can't recall the link, but yesterday an *excellent* rant appeared on a discussion board that I found thru MacSurfer, about the stumbling on Copland and eventual transition to Next. By this account, the huge cost of 100% backwards compatibility was a major stumbling block that Apple's Spindler-era management muffed, leading to the failure of the project, a 3-5 year setback in getting a "modern" OS for the Mac, and the eventual replacement of the management. It seems that many of the issues are relevant here. And the pro-n-con discussion that followed was insightful, too. Walt sez, 'check it out.' I don't recall His Steveness ever doing something purposelessly, even if it was horrifficaly rash. A moment's reflection offers several reasons for the switch: first, dropping OS 9 booting makes it easier to migrate to substantially different hardware platforms, while keeping a more-or-less unified code base. Some have speculated that this is The End for Moto and the PPC, and the beginning of the Power4 or AMD era; I'll suggest that future formfactors might be more PDA-ish or sport all sorts of quirks that would take lots of time to make backwards-compatible. Second, there is obviously a certain cost to making sure that even the now-conventional types of machines support the various features that OS9 expects. Increasingly, that expense to apple increases the cost of, and delays the availability of, new hardware. All purchasers of new machines have that as a "tax." If those new machines are very unlikely to need to boot into 9, why? (And the user stats you cited: shame on you for abusing stats. 20% applies to the user base that includes ancient machines for which OS9 was "too bloated, so I went back to 8.6." Today's machines have a very high OSX utilization rate.) Third, there is a certain security issue. Apple has large client bases for whom the ability to boot into 9 presents all sorts of opportunities for users to bypass the OSX security. I would expect the Classic box to have a more restricted sandbox than it now has, if this is the case. Fourth, Apple cannot build the user experience when users boot into 9. Rendezvous, for example, might be increasingly insinuated into various applications, new Airports, etc. All well & good to have a classic car club -- I still lurk in the Comet/2400 lists, for example -- but why spend your energies encouraging the notion that Apple is all about has-beens and hand-me-downs? Fifth, this could encourage those in the software industry to get off their duffs and upgrade their s/w to X. Nothing like telling them that they will not have a new market for their old stuff, to motivate them. I don't know what other factors may be involved, nor in fact, whether these are all technically valid reasons. Finally, there's always the possiility of plain ole-fashioned planned obsolescence. On the other hand, it appears that this applies ONLY to new machines and new software support. Your current machines can continue to work the way that they do. It's just that you won't be able to bring your old scanners, whatever along. It's already happened for me: I hulking NEC PostScript printer, with useless AppleTalk & parallel ports, sits next to my TiBook as I type. And really, why? For $50, less than the cost of a new toner cart, I can plug in a faster, color inkjet. I have always "liked" the printer, but its time has passed. Welcome to the Brave New World.
Hi Walt;
Re: the 20 percent figure -- I was quoting it directly from Apple's own press release terminology.
Charles
From James Strickland I read The Day The Mac OS Died with great interest. While I usually agree with your viewpoints I have to at least partially disagree with your apparently great measure of animosity towards Apple's decision. I agree that this decision will make it hard on many people...but it will not make life impossible. I feel that Apple had to set a deadline, and no matter when they set it there will be many people upset. That is a big part of major system upgrades. You mention that OS X is not ready yet because it is still too slow. Did you stop to think that much of that sluggishness is due to software developers, such as Adobe, creating their software using carbon so that it can be used by both OS X users and those who refuse to upgrade? I feel that once users are forced to upgrade to OS X and software developers can concentrate on writing software in cocoa, which seems to be much faster. My experience thus far with programs written in cocoa has been very positive. I run OS X on both a 733MHz G4 and on a 500MHz TiBook. I can honestly say that I don't see the sluggishness within the operating system itself that you mention. Working in OS X has not been without it's frustrations, but overall it has been a very rewarding experience. That has been the case with the three systems in our office so much that we are getting ready to do a massive upgrade to OS X 10.2. For your information, we are a graphics shop that creates maps for the wireless telecommunications industry. We SHOULD be one of those holdout companies. I remember 7 years ago when Microsoft (sorry for the mention of that evil word) went throught the same problem of irate customers with the release of Windows 95. There were many windows 3.11 programs that did not work in Windows 95 (and some that did, but very slowly), and Microsoft never gave us the option to boot into Windows 3.11 or even to run a "classic" version of Windows within 95. The same thing happened, albeit on a smaller scale, with Windows 98. At least Apple allowed OS X users to boot in classic for a year, and still allows them to run "Classic" within OS X. So while you have a right to be mad at Steve Jobs, try to understand his decision a little more, and get over the anger soon and take the plunge with the rest of us. Jim Strickland Try re-thinking that one a bit From Jerry Yeager Let's see if I understand you correctly, you are p.o.ed because the Mac SE you are planning on getting January 2, 2003 will boot into 10.2.x instead of 9.1.x????? Try re-thinking that one a bit. It is the right thing for Apple as a company to do. Like it was to move from OS-7 to OS-8 and beyond, and away from the 680xx chips to the PowerPC chips when they did. Not arrogance, but a good decision for them. Now if they would open up the programming a bit more for third-party developers, that WOULD be a good thing too. But hey, you can still use your old Macs with 9.1.x on it with your current software to finish your current work projects (at least I don't recall reading anywhere that there was an embedded code fragment in all the older OSes that causes all currently running Macs to self-destruct January 1, 2003).
Cheers,
From Bill DeVille Charles: OK. Take a deep breath. This is a topic on which we disagree. I think Apple is acting for the benefit of the Mac community by moving to OS X-only boot for new computers next year. Most new software is OS X-only (I'm counting in the shareware applications here), and much of it raises the elegance and usefulness of the Macintosh to a new level. Like you, I do a lot of research and note-taking, often from Web resources. OS X is supporting tools to do my work that are better than anything I found under OS 9. My reference collection and search tools are StickyBrain 2 (www.chronosnet.com) and PocketNotes (www.pocketsw.com), which work well in tandem. With StickyBrain, I can 'zap' selected text or graphics from my browser (or any other application) directly into the StickyBrain database, using a CONTROL key option. Text and graphics can also be captured into PocketNotes databases, although not quite as automatically. Both databases let me organize material by categories. Both databases also allow me to set hyperlinks to other documents, such as Word or Acrobat PDF files, or Web pages. Importantly, both databases have good search capabilities. PocketNotes has the advantage of allowing multiple databases (StickyBrain is limited to one). So, as a collection of information on whatever I'm working on grows, I tend to migrate it into a new PocketNotes database for that specific topic -- it's easy to copy or move items between PocketNotes databases. PocketNotes is also great for organizing and managing a writing project. I'm preparing to do Web publication of selected topics on environmental policy and environmental information exchanges. Here, my OS X software of choice is the Stone Design Studio (www.stone.com). The Create module of this suite is a capable page layout application that enables publication in PDF and/or HTML format quickly and easily -- from a one-pager to book-length. So, things change. There's an ongoing explosion of new applications for OS X. I worked for many years under Mac OS, from OS 5 to OS 9, and got a lot of things done. But I never had a set of tools that made my work as easy and productive as the tools I now have under OS X. I wouldn't want to go back. I used an Apple II computer for 9 years, and there are a few things I was able to do on the Apple II that still compare well with anything I could do now with current hardware and software -- especially some large databases I designed -- but it took a lot more time and effort to accomplish those things. When I moved over to a Mac SE and a Windows 95 (office) computer, I gave up database development -- it took years before applications appeared for those machines that were anything like as sophisticated as the database tools I had been using for the Apple II (Barney Stone's programmable DB Master database tools, which were much more powerful than dBase or the other microprocessor databases available then; everything was indexed -- really fast searches -- and data files could be huge, but the position of every pixel for screen view or print had to be programmed). I wouldn't want to go back. The future of Mac software development is with OS X. I don't have the time or desire to do programming now, but if I did, I would be using Cocoa development tools. We're going to be seeing a lot of exciting work from individuals and small programming teams, as well as from the big companies. But if that future is to flourish, there needs to be a growing user base under OS X. I don't fault Apple for moving to OS X-boot-only computers next year (remembering that Classic applications can still be run). For the vast majority of users (especially on new computers), OS X is the better operating system. I've still got two older Macs running OS 8.6 that I plan to keep indefinitely. They can't run OS X, so I can't buy new OS X applications for them. One is a 20th Anniversary Mac, which has a magnificent sound system. The other is a small and light PowerBook 2400c, which I still use for writing notes under a shade tree in the back yard -- it's more compact than my TiBook. Both machines remain as capable as when they were new, and that ain't bad.
Regards,
Hi Bill;
If you like zapping stuff to databases, have you tried Znippetizer. It's a very cool little application that is available in both OS X and OS 9 native versions.
http://www.code66.se/dl/znip.html
Charles From Steven Kroll Charles, Don't be so despondent. The shift to machines that boot into the latest version of the OS isn't new to us longtime Mac users. My still functional 512Ke cost more than what I paid for 2 iMacs. My 512Ke wouldn't really boot into system software version 5 or later. (4.1 was about it for that puppy) no real regrets or lamentations. My Mac Plus and SE/30 will both boot into OS 7.5.5, but version 7.1 was the last truly useable version for either of those machines (6.0.8 worked better on the Plus. My SE/30 is connected to this day via Ethernet to my iMacs, it's still running a very trimmed down version of 7.5.5.) I couldn't lament when the machine wouldn't boot into OS 7.6. So what, the Quadra's pretty much top out with versions of OS 8. The early Power Macs don't really handle OS 9.2 well enough to suit me anymore. My iMacs both do OK with 9.2, but I notice variances between models. The move to exclusively booting into OS X is just the way things eventually go. So my advice is: don't lament to much. Keep your machines stocked with the best version of software for its era, and they will continue to serve you well. Try to step back and get a historic perspective. Ya know, I never expected the functionality of an iMac under OS 9 during my college years slugging out papers and spreadsheets using a machine with 512K of ram / a 400K single sided floppy drive / an external only 20MB serial hard drive. I now fully expect to see the day when Apple machines won't will no longer boot into OS X. It's just he way things go. Don't be so despondent.
Best Regards,
What are you whining about anyway? From Wayne Smith, Dear Charles, I'd like to start off by saying that I've enjoyed you writing for many years now. I've often found it thought provoking and insightful. Now, about your latest piece on Applelinks. What are you whining about anyway? Personally, I've been using OS X almost exclusively, since it's release, for all my movie editing, web design, MP3 ripping and burning, etc. Even all the games I like to play are OS X native now. The only two apps I haven't upgraded yet are Quicken and Photoshop, both of which run quite nicely on my G4 400 in Classic mode. To quote you:
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. The system will still run apps in Classic mode. You just won't be able to boot into OS 9. For most software that I can think of, this isn't an issue. The only time it would be is if there were direct calls to the hardware that Classic can't make. Now that I've gotten an excellent piece of software for scanning, I never boot into OS9 anymore. According to the press release, the change over will only affect new systems built or sold after Jan. 2003. When was the last time you bought a brand new system sir? Judging by your excellent articles, and by your own admission, you're by no means an "early adopter." Based on that, I can only guess that you won't be getting a non-OS 9 booting system until somewhere around 2005, by which time it shouldn't be an issue any longer. Thank you for your time and keep up the good work, Wayne Smith Trying to force it down throats From George H. Norsworthy Charles, I totally agree. This is a classic carrot vs. the stick situation. Apple could lure us all to OS X by X's own virtue. Instead, they are trying to force it down throats. What has happened to Apple?! George From Ron Parsons Hi, Read your piece and I have to STRONGLY disagree. Don't like X yet, fine. Don't want to stop using 9, fine. I assume that you've got a machine running 9 tweaked the way you like it. So what is going to make you want to buy a new machine? To get something faster? A valid choice, but it seems from your opinion piece that you have a machine that is working. Why do you want to buy a new one? You don't have to have the fastest computer to do productive work. (of course, it is nice :-) ). Want the latest features in your favorite software? Bite the bullet and move to X. Keep your old machine around to do anything that you can't or don't want to do in X. Apple's decision is just one more way to push software and hardware vendors to get off their collective #$%#@ and support X or get out of the Mac business. I don't see the move as hurting people that haven't made the switch yet or don't want to make the switch. They've just made a decision to stick with the systems they have. I've got lots of old Macs around the lab where I work that are running old systems so I can still use older versions of software that do the job I want them to do. I've made a conscience decision that upgrading the software wasn't worth the investment in time or money. Are you also complaining that the latest iTunes only runs in X and iCal is only for 10.2? Ron From Kelly Doudna Hello, Mr. Moore, From your "The Day The Mac OS Died" article on applelinks.com:
"As my friend Chris Long emailed to say this morning: “'This truly IS the beginning of the end. a sad day and a stupid decision, IMHO.'
Chris? Restrained? Well, it's an understandable mistake--you don't spend all day every day in the office with him! :) I don't think it's the beginning of the end, but I do agree there are huge productivity issues surrounding some of the programs I use every day (QuarkXPress, font management) and which don't yet play well with OSX. And I'd be perfectly willing to switch to InDesign, except that as soon as a document gets a few placed images in it, the application slows way down. What's a Mac devotee to do? I'd like to use OSX, but right now I just can't. However, look on the bright side--it's still not Windows!
Kelly Doudna (Chris' esteemed colleague)
Chris McCusker Charles, this is hardly news. Stop and think about it for a minute. It's not like they are pulling the plug on all hardware that runs Mac OS 9 right now. It's not like they are going to force you "at gunpoint" to upgrade. If you like Mac OS 9, you go right on using it. There's no one to stop you. Need a new machine, because your older one is getting a little long in the tooth? You still have 3 months, at least, to order one, and still boot into your OS of choice. After three months, there will be other options. And don't pretend this is the first time something like this has happened. My company has a G3 that won't run System 7.x. I have a Performa 575 that won't boot with System 6. Heck, I can't even boot my Quicksilver 800 with a 9.0.4 CD. This is a normal progression. It had to happen some time. 20% of the user base has switched over /completely/. There is aproximately 30% more that switch back and forth (according to Apple's estimates) and the other half have systems that can't effectively run Mac OS X. If Apple is going to sell systems, people have to upgrade. Those who are still using systems too old to run Mac OS X probably don't care to upgrade anyway. When they're ready to upgrade their OS, the hardware will be ready for them. They won't be effected. The rest of us will make the transition when it suits us. Not ready to make the full move to Mac OS X? Don't. It's that simple. If your OS is good enough, on the system you have today, then you don't need to worry about what Apple is going to do in the future. It doesn't effect you. If you need a faster system - buy one now, and continue to use your older OS on a very fast computer. If you are on the fence - and can't make the commitment - this is the push you need. This is the only direction Apple is going to take. They've already stopped developing Mac OS 9. They're moving forward. If you don't go with them, be happy where you are. Just remember that it was YOU who stopped moving. No one abandoned you. And before you go calling me an apologist, or a sheep, or OS X Police, or whatever else I may be branded, I've already recommended that my company just stay with Mac OS 9. It does what we need, as well as we need to do it. There's no compelling reason to upgrade at this time. Maybe later, and then it will be a complete, soup-to-nuts, transition. But not until we're ready. Apple can do whatever they want in the meantime. And if we need any more machines, there are plenty out there that are still OS 9 compatible (and will even run OS X when we need them to). Some are New Old Stock, some are refurbished, some are just plain used. But we're not being /left behind/. We've decided to hang back. There's a difference.
Chris McCusker
From Wayne Folta Charles, I know you're not happy with MacOS X. But your latest article has revisited the kinds of comments you made last year that were really over the top. You (again) talk about things like "It's a powerful toy for UNIX aficionados", which of course lumps people like me -- who makes his living on MacOS X -- somewhere in toyland, I guess. The fact is, people are making their livings doing heavy-duty work on MacOS X machines. MacOS X is there for them. It just plain works, and it works so much better for us than MacOS 9, that it's like comparing MacOS 9 and Windows 3. You go on to deride "20% in 18 months". Well, two things you don't talk about: 1) people who are waiting or are scared off after read ranting columns like yours, written by "wizened old Mac pros" who claim they're open-minded about MacOS X, but only as long as it works just like MacOS 9, and 2) people who just run the OS that came on their machines, whether that's 9, or 8, or 7, or even 6. You remind me of a co-worker of my sister's who was a PC bigot. He tried her Mac once and proclaimed that Macs suck because he couldn't figure out how to delete a file after struggling for 20 minutes to do so. When my sister pointed out the trashcan, he said, "I want DELETE dammit!" Sure, some of your objections are hard-n-fast show stoppers. Like the dual-mouse wielding. Then again, that's pretty esoteric. Other objections really sound like "but I don't want to do it THAT way, I want to do it THIS way, the same as for the last 50 years." You do give credit to Steve for saving Apple, but it is not a completed act. Apple is not saved yet: Jobs pulled it out of the nosedive, but it's not clear that it will be able to stay aloft. And whatever things he's done to pull it up have had absolutely nothing to do with MacOS 9. It's been new hardware, new OS X, new iPod, new iApps, embracing of Open Source (ala Linux, ala MacOS X), and plain old vision casting and perception changing. None of these things was helped by OS 9, most were only possible with OS X, and most will be only harmed by the continuation of split OS support. If there were no MacOS X today, Apple would be dead today, Steve Jobs or no. It's that simple. It's great to remember who brung ya to the dance. It's also something to think about when the young man who brung ya and liked to dance that new Lindy is now a wizened old-timer who still wants to dance that classic old Lindy, none of that new-fangled stuff. The NeXT-Apple amalgam is here to stay From Mike Vicente Mr. Moore, I've read, with great interest, your series "Mac OSX Odyssey" on the Applelinks website. Although I've used OS X since the initial release, I found it interesting to hear another user's perspective on the changes. I've been using OS X since the release in March 2001, and I've upgraded to new versions as they've been released. Other than a few annoyances that have largely been resolved with the latest update, the switch for me has been relatively uneventful. In fact, I use my computer more now for more purposes than I could with OS 9 and earlier. In the past, I learned ways to coddle my computer so it was stable. I have no such concerns, now. It's not uncommon for me to render iMovie transitions, listen to iTunes, burn a data CD, transfer files from my laptop to my desktop, check my e-mail, surf the web, write letters, and print documents at the same time. The hardest adjustment was learning new conventions. I understand your concern over the recent announcement about the discontinuation of dual-boot systems. However, how does this announcement affect you? With the recent loss of your WallStreet (a great loss, indeed!), you mentioned replacing parts or buying a used Mac. I'm sure you can find a worthy replacement. But you did not mention buying a new Mac. The announcement only affects new Macs. In fact, there should be quite a market for older Macs in the next few years for users such as yourself who choose to use OS 9 and earlier. I'm not sure what effect this will have. However, I believe the alternative, using a Wintel machine, is not sufficient. You mentioned Linux. Perhaps running Linux an older hardware for "buzzword compatibility" makes sense to some, but you lose the same capabilities from OS 9 that you bemoan of the new system. Perhaps Apple will reverse their decision if the outcry is strong enough. Unfortunately, the chances are poor given Apple's recent history (e.g. Jaguar pricing, .Mac). I think the NeXT-Apple amalgam is here to stay.
Sincerely,
Something is changing in hardware, but what? From Ed M. How do you explain this little morsel? "And so all the new models of Macs that we introduce, including faster versions of the current models, after Jan 1st will only boot into Mac OS X." Now, how would you explain that "key" quote? Apple might be a secretive company, but I think they are starting to realize the value of at least giving their audience a "hint" or clue every now and then. These hints have been extremely subtle as is the clue above. The fact that these new machines will not be able to boot OS 9 tells me that something is being modified of manufactured in such a way that simply wont allow this machine to boot the older OS. Having it boot OS X exclusively raises even more questions. The main questions are: "Is it the CPU?", "Is it the Motherboard?" or Is it going to be a combination of both?" The partial answer is obvious. Something is changing in hardware, but what? That tidbit also tells us that we will be getting faster Macs after January 1st. So, as you can see, there are plenty of "givens" -- we just don't have the specifics. Ed devoting limited resources to Mac OS X From Larry Rosenstein
(1) Don't make significant changes to the hardware, so Mac OS 9 would continue to boot. That would limit the hardware improvements Apple could make. (2) Continue to devote engineering and testing resources to updating Mac OS 9. (3) Drop the ability to boot Mac OS 9. I'm still a Mac OS 9 user, so I'd certainly like to see continued work on Mac OS 9. (Booting isn't a big deal for me, since I don't expect to get a new Mac soon, but I'd really like to be able to run iTunes 3.) Realistically, I think Apple is better off devoting its limited resources to Mac OS X. (Note that Apple did delay the inevitable by a few months. The new PowerMacs come with a slightly different version of 9.2.2 to support changes in the hardware.)
I've heard the same thing from several people. And this includes developers who would have no trouble dealing with the switch to Mac OS X, or getting into the Unix subsystem to hack things. For me, it would be cool to have Mac OS X running on my Pismo, but I currently don't have enough free disk space to make Mac OS X comfortable, and there are a few key apps that I haven't yet upgraded. (Some, but not all would run in Classic, but what's the point of that?) I figure it would cost me >$500 and a lot of time to make the switch. And I'm worried about the performance.
A lot of developers have already switched to Mac OS X-only development besides Microsoft. (In some cases, it's hard to tell because they throw older versions on the CD-ROM for Mac OS 8/9 users.) I pretty much expected Adobe to do the same, and this quote just confirms that in my mind.
Overall, I think Apple is much better off spending time and money on fixing the problems with Mac OS X than trying to test Mac OS 9 on some new machine.
Larry Rosenstein
From Mr. Moore-- I do not see a problem here. Historically-speaking, Apple has been supporting OS 7/8/9 to the point of abusing OS X development for five years. That's what it has taken to get Rhapsody to run these old binaries through the development of Classic, Carbon, and all the rest of the legacy load. It has created developer stagnation. If this move finally gets you the OS X functionality you need faster by pushing developers, it's a good one for you. If it allows Apple to incorporate new technologies without having to support two sets of drivers, it's also good for you. If it allows Classic to become further streamlined, and compatible with more old programs, it's even better for you. Lastly and most importantly, I see no reason why OS 9 fans cannot just stay with their current Apple hardware. OS 9 doesn't need a speed boost, does it? 1 G memory? Dual G4s? HyperTransport? It is not as if your current machines are going to stop running OS 9 in 2003. By definition, a machine that "does what I need" is a machine I do not need to replace. I still run OS 6 on one Mac, and DOS on an old PC for WordPerfect 5.1. Perfectly good for what they do. Steve From John Conley I couldn't disagree more with your "Day the Mac OS Died" article than I do. I've owned and used Macs since 1984, and I've used OS X exclusively ever since Epson produced a driver for the 870 Photo Stylus printer (and I think that was sometime last December, if I recall correctly). I'm never going back to OS 9. I recently did some trouble-shooting for relatives with an iMac 333 (Rev. D), and upgraded it to OS 9.2.2 in the process. I spent a few hours installing and upgrading software, cleaning the hard drive up a bit (i.e., tossing out about a gigabyte of extraneous files), etc. Although the machine is running just fine now, after spending hours in OS 9, I couldn't wait to get back to OS X on my own machines. Apple needs to focus on improvements to OS X and stop spending time on supporting OS 9. That's just my two cents.
Regards,
I think you're a bit behind the curve From Dave Davenport Hi Charles, You wrote of the upcoming demise of OS 9 as a bootable option on new Macs as "a complete reversal of the time-honored backwards compatibility ethic". I think you're a bit behind the curve on this; when I purchased my G3 iMac DV (summer 2000), it did not come with the ability to boot into anything older than OS 9, which was the current OS at the time. How is this latest move different than that? I think what is more important than "backward compatibility" is "forward compatibility". In that regard, that same G3 iMac (summer 2000) DOES run OS X quite handily. Also, if you need to stay with the old, feel free. Nothing will prevent you from continuing to run OS 9 on your current machines (or plenty of terrific new Macs that are on the market right now). I don't hold any disrespect for you over this, and have long valued your opinions. But Charles, get over it.
Cheers,
From Con Rodi I think you are overreacting as though every Mac in existence would stop working with OS-9 on 1/1/03. I know you realize this is not the case, but your reaction is at that level of extreme. Look at this in a few days, months, years, and it will not be near the hyper-calamity you expect. You grossly underestimate both your own personal ability to adjust and the ability of Apple to migrate OS X in a meaningful way. Let it go (this personal agenda) and let it come (OS X). Life will be fine.
Cheers
From Joseph M. Piazza >It is, among other things, a complete reversal of the time-honored >backwards compatibility ethic that has always contributed substantially >to Macintosh value. Poppycock! My B&W G3 won't boot anything prior to 8.1. Virtually every new model Mac since ... what, the Mac II? ... can't always boot previously current versions of the OS. For a while there was an *apparent* continuity with the use of enable extensions but the ultimately, hardware advances preclude how far back OS compatibilty extends.
While I can understand and sympathise that you'd like to buy a new Mac in 2003 and boot in Mac OS 9, your expectations are unrealistic. Your claim that Apple has made a "stupid" decision is unwarranted. Why?
>Baloney. Most developers are concentrating mainly on OS X anyway, but the evolutionary, rather than point-of-the-gun revolutionary approach was the >way to go. The evolutionary approach is called Carbon; OS 9 is not required. Within the next year or so there should be no reason why can't get the software you need to run on your desktop machine to at least be Carbonized. People who can't upgrade their software aren't likely upgrade their OS either. Lastly, a large number of Mac users only upgrade their OS when they buy a new Mac -- I'm serious! My next door neighbor was using a Mac Classic unil last year running System 6.0.7. I helped many people who are still using Windows 95! joe "my first Mac was a Lisa 2" piazza From Terrance Haddock I loved the classic Mac operating systems, but I find that I love Jaguar even better. It is a wonderful operating system that will just continue to get better. The only problems I have had with Mac 10 has been the incredible amount of time required for there to be scanner support and printer support for this new operating system. It is a continuing puzzle to me how a single individual can develop a capable graphics program or a capable scanning program that will work in Jaguar and large companies can't seem to get the job done. Personally I think that the large companies just are not interested-they say to themselves, the Mac is only 5% of the market, and Mac 10 is a smaller part of that small market. I finally found a photo printer that will work in Jaguar, but the printer does not have full capability. My scanner works because of a shareware program. I do not run a computer graphics company, but I am willing to bet that business people who depend on the Mac but must use scanners and printers probably have, by and large, not switched yet. They can't toss expensive scanners and printers and expensive software programs that are not compatible with Jaguar. And even if they had the money to do these things, what would they use for scanners and printers? Is Apple to blame for all of this, or third party developers, or both? My guess is that it is probably mainly the third party developers. Some people may say, so what? But I do a lot of digital and film photography, and the Mac is still the best graphics platform. I say, I need scanners, PHOTO printers, and software that works. If I am affected by the lack of third party support, thing about companies that may own $30,000 drum scanners, or a $97,000 flat-bed scanner, or special printers costing thousands of dollars, or software costing nearly a thousand dollars a pop. If we lose these people, the Mac is heading for trouble. Apple is probably trying to get people to switch to the new operating system and trying to get people to develop software for the new operating system. But I do think that unless third parties quickly develop support for Jaguar, it probably would still be a good idea to be able to run 9.1. I personally ran 9.1 on one hard drive and 10.1 on the other so that I could scan and do photo printing.. Terry
From Jay Hilgenberg
I have been using Apple products since 1980 and dislike the MS world, and if Apple went away tomorrow I would continue to use it until it didn't work any longer. As I see it, Apple hasn't done away with OS 9, but are they going to make it more compatible with the existing apps and software. Thanks for letting me rant, Jay Hilgenberg Someone has to draw a line in the sand From Dana Alexander Hello, At some point, someone has to draw a line in the sand with the OS 9 / OS X issue. I agree with Steve - it's time for people to move on. If you want to stick with OS 9, no one is forcing you to purchase a new machine in 2003. If you're in the market for a new machine in 2003 anyhow, it will be more then sufficient to run OS X - and it will still run OS 9 in Classic mode. So what's the issue? You also allude that a 20% adoption rate in 18 months is a sign that users aren't embracing OS X - I don't understand what you are talking about - in a year and a half 1/5th of the user base is using a brand new, written from the ground up operating system. Of which I should add, for the first 6-7 months wasn't very usable. I think that's pretty damn impressive. Like you and many others, my work habits were tailored deeply in the old OS. But I abandoned OS 9 back in May - it's not installed at all on my system - and I haven't looked back. If you really need to run OS 9, you can always run Classic. If your business just can't live without an OS 9 machine - no one is holding a gun to your head to upgrade. It's your choice, but hanging on to legacy code is not helpful to Apple - it's time for them (and developers) to concentrate on the future.
Regards,
From Jeff Wythe
Sir,
From Nicholas Sorensen Charles: Calm down! You're overreacting. Keep with second-hand hardware for another year, if you must. If it has met your needs for years keep using the old system with older equipment. Can't you use Mac OS 9 until X evolves enough until you deem it fast enough? No one is forcing you to upgrade. You seem perfectly content with G3s, so stick with them until Apple comes out with systems with enough horsepower to make Mac OS X feel snappy, whether that is with a Power4 or G5 or Athlon or whatever. I've used Apple IIs, graduated to a Mac Plus, a IIsi, a Quadra, a 6100AV, and G3 MT, and now a G4 iMac. I used Mac OS 6 through 9 very happily. But when X was announced and then released, I made the conscious decision to switch, and find a way to change my workflow and habits to the new system. I knew this day was coming. I figured it was better to find ways to work in the new paradigm then risk dying on the old. Do I miss legacy Mac OS? No, I don't even think about it. I'm more productive now because of the more stable system and the new work habits I've learnt. You're entitled to your rant but it seems like nothing more than overly emotional sour grapes. Sure you can move to Linux. If you complain about inefficiency and inelegance now, just want to you get lost in the intricacies of Gnome or KDE. Nicholas From Vincent Huber Charles, Hi. I read your editorial column regarding Apple's decision to make all '03 machines incapable of booting into Mac OS 9.x. I understand your complaints, but I disagree with you on many of your arguments. Although, I don't believe I can change your mind, I wanted to layout my thoughts as to why I think Apple's decision was the right one. (a) Apple is a niche market company. Even though I think we would agree that Apple has the best OS and most elegantly designed machines, we can't argue that Apple's current market share is small enough to call them a niche player. As such, they have to be able to concentrate on moving forward. As Apple updates their hardware lines, they are thinking about OSX, and as those changes take place, OS9 will have to have stand-alone drivers and enablers written to keep it compatible with the new machines. At some point, Apple has to be free to move all of the developmental efforts to OSX. The question is one of 2003 or 2004. Personally, I think the time is right. 10.2 looks to be pretty good and stable; moreover, this decision by Apple will persuade some software developers to finally make OSX compatible versions of their products. These are the things that Apple needs to do to keep them going and drive new growth. OSX has been out for two years, it's been the default OS since January 2002, and the latest updates to the ãClassicä environment were not available as a stand-alone update to OS 9.2.x. Apple's move was telegraphed and not at all unexpected. (b) That "only" 20% of Apple's entire installed base is running OSX exclusively is probably quite impressive. Don't forget that Apple's installed base is much larger than their market share due to the impressive durability of their hardware product. This ratio is considerably greater than that of the PC market, in general. Apple's installed base not only includes my Ti550 PB, but also my StarMax "FrankenMac," my daughter's hand-me-down PB1400, and her brother's 8500. Heck, I think my sister is still writing papers on a hand-me-down-twice Centris 630. That's Apple's installed base! (c) If the issue is one of software, then it's our responsibility to put pressure on Apple and their software developers to get the applications that we need. In some ways I would think that your column space would be better spent on highlighting OSX's software needs, since that is one of the big issues preventing people from upgrading. Legacy software that doesn't run well under Classic is an issue. I remember there being a few valued programs that were written for the 68k Macs that did not run properly in a PPC machine. I lamented their loss and there was (and still is) no ready replacement. It was bad for me, but I think it's still an issue of getting developers to give us the software we need. Moreover, I don't think the pressure here is to force you to upgrade, but to pressure third party developers into shipping OSX apps. (d) You're right that Apple will probably see a spike in their hardware sales because of today's announcement. But what is really going to drive their growth is new OSX only software upgrades. Companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia (yeah, right), and Avid, etc. offering OSX-only product upgrades will drive growth in Apple's product lines. And if the offerings from these companies aren't compelling enough to get both Mac and PC users to upgrade to a new G4/G5/Gx machine, then maybe Apple's dead after all. I'll agree with you that it's a risk for Apple to make this decision now, but I don't believe it's unwarranted or wrong.
Cheers,
From Jamie Thompson Thank you, I agree with your comments. I use OS X on occasion but OS 9 is where my trust is. Jamie OS9 is to OSX as the MS-DOS Prompt is to Windows - sometimes it is just time to move on... From Bob Ketcham Charles, December 7, 1981. The day I drove 90 miles to pick up my new IBM-PC. Just 5 short months after IBM introduced the machine. For me, the VisiCalc spreadsheet had finally made the personal computer more useful than the programmable calculator. It was time to move on. The spreadsheet and even just the built-in BASIC interpreter were so much more useful than the tools I had at work. The computer folks at work couldn’t accept them. They wanted to keep us tied to the mainframes and the 3270 terminals for many more years. Luddites. Spring 1984. I bought a premiere issue of MacWorld (it is now framed and hanging on the wall beside me). The guy down the hall at work bought a Mac. I now had a 5MB hard drive in my IBM. The Mac didn’t have a hard drive. I stuck with the PC. Was I the Luddite? It was time to move. I just didn’t know it yet. I replaced my PC with an XT clone. June 1988. A new job. The department uses both PCs and Macs. I can make the choice. I choose the Mac. Wow, it lets me file my documents in an organization that I set. Finally, the spreadsheets don’t have to all be in the Lotus123 directory. I can organize my project files by location. Great. And the files can have 26 character names. Boy, I’ve been a Luddite since 1984. The march of new machines and technologies continues. Sometimes the moves were smart, sometimes I was lucky. A PowerBook 170 at work. A Centris 610 at home. The dark days of 1997. A forced transition to a PC at work. The Luddites from the old mainframe world have regained command and control. Should I buy a PC for home? Everyone says Apple is about to die. Maybe, if I shop smart, I can afford both a PC and a Mac. I find a PowerMac 6500 on a closeout. I buy it. And luckily I forget about the PC for home. It wasn’t time to move on. Of course, along come the Internet. I’ve been using telecommunications since I bought a 300 baud Hayes modem in 1982. Ran a BBS. Used CompuServe, Genie and AOL. The minute AOL opened a door to the Internet in 1995, I used the access to find a good local ISP. Clearly time to move on. Windows ‘95 on that work PC. God, was it awful! A horrible mix of Win 95 programs, Win 3.1 programs and MS-DOS programs. Nothing equivalent to the Extension Manager. DLL hell instead. And that Start Me Up campaign to advertise the Start Menu. What a joke! It still can’t do half what I could do with the Apple menu (and BeHierarchic or FruitMenu). Yet the Luddites love it. Except for the real Luddites that still cling to MS-DOS. Soon another new portable. Windows ‘98. No improvement there. And networking. It is so awkward on Windows. Home networking has been great since I first hooked that work Mac to the Centris and Laser Printer in 1994. Security on the PC? Always in the way. Security on the Macs? Transparent. Now I’m working at home. Work provides a Win ‘98 portable and a Win 2K portable. The family now owns a 733 G4, a B&W G3, two iMac DV SEs, a Tangerine iBook and that old 6500. The Centris was thrown out after it was smoked in a house fire. It still booted to the desktop in spite of a melted case, keyboard and monitor case. Sometimes it is time to move on. Things have moved really fast in the past 20 months. Since Apple introduced iTunes, the iApps have flourished. OSX 10.1 last October. Time to give it a whirl. One machine, the G4. A steep learning curve. UNIX and Apple really want me to keep my Apps in one place. A few tricks to let me put my User directory where I want it to be. Copying can really mess up permissions. Why are all these folks so hung up on Spring Loaded Folders? I never used ‘em in 9. Just give me FruitMenu. Things are becoming rock solid. Upgrade the son’s iMac. The daughter’s home from college. Upgrade her iMac. Migrate the Apps as they become available. Add some RAM Ð it’s cheap again. Buy another disk drive for the music and video. 100GB for $100. Hey, I never boot into 9. I’ve stopped loading Classic at startup. I hardly ever use it Ð just for that one 35mm film scanner. Remove the duplicate OS9 Apps. We are really moving on. The iBook’s next. Great new capabilities. Upgrade and peripheral prices keep dropping. The home network is all 10/100. The surplus G3 makes a great server. Really long file names are finally supported (except in a few poorly migrated Carbon Apps Ð can you say Stuffit, Aladdin?). Samba finally lets me transparently share files with the work machines. No more need for FTP on the home network. And did I mention stability? Stability, Stability, Stability. Yesterday, the work PC’s VPN connection broke. Drop into DOS and at the MS-DOS prompt use Ping to check the connection. Boy, this is crude. Today, I added a gig of RAM to the G4. Something corrupted the 10.2 partition. It won’t boot. Grab the 9.2.1 disk and boot Ð Use the control panel to switch boot partitions. Then use the OSX installer to check the disk and fix the permissions. Boy, this is almost as crude as the MS-DOS prompt. Next time I’ll remember I can use the option key to select my boot options directly. I won’t need that 9.2.1 disk. It is time to move on. Again. And this time is more exciting than ever. Many of your columns this past year have focused on reasons not to move on. Early on, you published many misconceptions and outright errors. You complained of problems that had been fixed or worked around by others weeks and months before you got there. I gave up on you and stopped reading the column. I took AppleLinks out of my primary bookmark set. Now you complain that Apple isn’t going to sell machines that won’t boot 9. I’ve seen your attitude before. Many, many times. Do you want the MS-DOS prompt too? It is time to move on Charles. Really. Please focus future columns on how to move on. Please continue to focus on those application vendors who aren’t doing a good job of fully supporting 10.2. Like Stuffit’s poor support for long file names. Please point out those vendors who impede migration. For example, iCal’s import functions suck. Please quit looking for reasons to stay with 9 and start looking at how to fully utilize 10.2 to do our work, enjoy multimedia and much, much more. We can do it. We should do it. You should try to help lead it. It is gonna be great. For some of us, it already is. Apple is best served by a great out of the box experience for every customer. This is not accomplished by a mix of OS9 and OSX. I led a friend though a PC switch early this year and felt I had to apologize for the mix of 9 and X that was then necessary. A great out of the box experience is best created by a consistent GUI, a stable OS, easy connectivity (to both networks and peripherals) and great apps. For PC or OS9 users, the out of the box experience is enhanced by a full suite of migration capabilities to support a move from their existing platform. It can be further enhanced with good networking to allow old and new to run side by side interconnected until the migration is complete. Apple should focus all their resources on how to make OSX better and better and better, not a dime on how to keep OSX booting on new machines. Once, I loved OS9. Today, I don’t want OS9 any more than I want an MS-DOS prompt. Bob Ketcham Wake up and smell the future From Tim Robertson Can you BELEIVE that Dell is now shipping their boxes to boot into XP?!? I mean, no professional can possibly use it as of yet, it is only for the hobby and newbie market. I am SUCH a pro, there is NO way I can use it! True, I write text all day, filling up page after page of shareware news, email people send to me, articles with pictures of old Mopars, bump my fellow writers of the main page EVERYDAY for my DRECK, ect... Heck, I even, at times, do a REVIEW of some web browsers and speech programs. I have my Windows 98 box tricked out so far beyond anything 99.9% of other window users would EVER do, that I really cannot foresee a day when I could ever migrate to XP. Charles, Mac OS X is here. Apple is 100% correct to make this move. If you are so moored in the past, and cannot adapt your working environment, then you are in real trouble. But to publicly call this a stupid move, just because you yourself may be personally inconvenienced, is poor journalism. Mac OS X is in fact ready for prime-time. As a full-time IT manager for the largest graphic-house in the work (AGT) as well as the MyMac.com gig, I probably have ten-times the authority to call what is and is not ready for production work than you do. Where and how are you basing your opinion that this is not ready? On what criteria? Simply that you won't be able to use a brand new Mac out of the box as you have your customized personal computers for years? (I read enough of your stuff to know your Mac background.) Time to wake up and smell the future. This decision is NOT based around eccentric and recluse Mac users. It is based on what is good for Apple Computer Inc., as well as their core demographics, which happen to be both the new home user and graphics pros. In both cases, Mac OS X 10.2 is ready to go. (And there will probably be one if not two updates before 2003 as well.)
Tim
Tim;
Well, the Woz agrees with me that it's not ready. How's that for authoritative? ;-)
It was an editorial/commentary piece. They are supposed to be opinionated, and I stated my opinion.
Having made my living as a full time journalist for 15 years, and been published for fee in some 45 magazines and newspapers on four continents, as well as half a dozen or so Mac Websites, I'm reasonably confident that I know what good journalism is.
As for my Mac expertise, I'm not a tech professional, but I've been a regional sales agent for an Apple reseller, and my son and I ran the only Mac service and tech support business in eastern mainland Nova Scotia in the late '90s. We were also the tech support consultants for the ISP we sold hookups for, and wrote/compiled their Mac connection kit software. I have also used Macs as a working journalist nearly every day for the past ten years, and largely maintained them myself. Consequently, I also feel competant to make a judgment as to whether OS X is "ready" or not, and unless Jaguar, which I haven't used yet, is a QUANTUM improvement performance-wise over 10.1.x, then by my lights it's not even close, and I'm not talking about the dual mouse input non support thing.
OS X is SLOW, and at least up to version 10.1,4 it's pretty raggedy.
I'm interested that many of the actual Mac tech professionals among the letter-writers above agree with me.
Charles
I am just about ready to forgive you anything From Joseph Ballo Well, I can't say I agree with you about OS 9 non-booting computers come next year, but having read your 9/11 article about Islam vice Christianity I am just about ready to forgive you anything. Dr Joe
Back to Moore's Even More Exhaustive Musings On The Termination Of Dual Booting Macs
Page: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 |
| ||||||
|
| ||||||||
