OK, the title of this column is probably over-dramatizing things just a bit, even phrased as a rhetorical question. However, a couple of regular Applelinks readers have suggested as much recently in response to my stated mixed feelings about OS X, and professions that I am in no hurry to go Aqua.

Fellow Nova Scotian Gerry Curry wrote a month or two ago:

"Well, I'm very disappointed, I must say. You are supposed to be an 'influential Mac guy.' You're the guy people go to find out the 'real poop.' If you aren't an early adopter, how can you provide the 'poop.'

"You can berate Apple all you want about charging for the beta, making it self-destruct, or not giving a discount towards the finished product. That's your prerogative, and in my opinion you would be right.

"You can still berate Apple for not supporting older Macs and for requiring too much RAM. That's your prerogative, and in my opinion you would be right.

"BUT you still need to buy the beta and install it on an appropriate computer... otherwise, how can you report on it to your customers."

And this week Con Rodi noted that: "...you ought to make a greater effort to make friends with OS-X. Ignoring it for now does not add to your reputation as a writer in this field (it doesn't take away either.)"

My intention here is not to contradict or argue with Gerry and Con, but to take a thoughtful look at the issues they have raised, and perhaps broaden it a bit.

Currently, the Mac user community is in schism over OS X. Some are enthusiastically eager to embrace it, and indeed already have done so in the form of the Public Beta. Others are either cautious about it or downright resistant to the new Mac OS.

For example, Bruce Tognazzini writes in a recent QuickTake column:

>"I'm buying less and less software now because I'm tired of getting beaten up during installations and initial runs.... I'm trying to get my Mac fully tricked out before January, when the Mac operating system is no more. At that point, I want my machine perfect, so I can go as long as possible before switching over to Windows."

In a column this week, osOpinion's John Holmes writes: "...I'm going to need to go terminal to debug it or call tech support. Or like Windows, would it just be easier to reinstall the OS" and.. "if I need to learn UNIX to operate OSX at the level that I operate OS9, then why stay with Apple?... What I care about is the User-Interface and which direction the OS is headed; that's what I have a problem with."

Personally, I am. (at least) in the cautious camp. I am extremely fond of the Classic Mac OS, which I have been using since System 6.0.1. The Mac Graphical User Interface is the overwhelmingly dominant reason why I choose to use Apple computers, and why I am sitting here right now writing this column. I know the Classic OS; I know what I can and cannot expect of it; and I have tailored my work habits over the past eight years around it. The interface suits my needs and tastes to a T. And almost equally important, I know how to fix it (most of the time) on the relatively rare occasions when the Mac OS (or more likely some piece of third-party software running on it) fouls up.

Having said that, I am also not a complete stick-in-the-mud, and I acknowledge that the Mac OS has some shortcomings, although I would argue that the latter are almost all in the underlying, and now antiquated, guts of system, and not in the GUI, which I consider the best of any personal computer user interfaces I have yet encountered.

Ergo, I am not intransigently resistant to the concept of switching to a different OS, but I need to be convinced that there is compelling reason to do so. My exposure to OS X, admittedly limited so far, has not convinced me in the slightest that it will make my work day more efficient, more convenient, or more pleasurable. The contrary in fact. Several of the features that I like best about the Classic Mac OS are missing from the OS X Aqua interface, and while Aqua is not utterly horrible, I have serious problems rationalizing the idea that switching to a tool with fewer features and more cumbersome operation than the one I am now using makes logical sense.

Of course there is OS X's more robust, Unix-based core, which does offer significant improvements over the old, ancient, Mac OS , notably protected memory and preemptive multitasking -- the former almost in and of itself enough to convince me that putting up with Aqua and the Dock is worth the trouble -- IF -- and it's a big if, protected memory really will spell an end to crashes. My son's Lombard PowerBook seems to lock up as frequently or more often running OS X Public Beta then it does on OS 9. Real multitasking would be nice to, but for me it's not a killer feature

Then there's the issue of fixing OS X when problems inevitably crop up. As I noted above, I can troubleshoot and repair classic Mac OS problems pretty well, but I am a command line ignoramus. I never owned a DOS or a pre-Mac Apple Computer, and programming beyond level of HyperCard, or perhaps AppleScript, is almost as exotic to me as nuclear physics. There are of course those who argue that the average end-user will never have to know that Unix code is lurking there beneath the flashy Aqua interface, and while that is probably true for the folks who would seek tech support for even the Classic Mac OS, it is not true for me, living 150 mi. from the nearest Apple dealer, and 50 mi. from any sort of computer tech support facility.

One of the big advantages of a Classic Mac OS for me is that I COULD fix it myself. Now, while I'm not the village idiot, and I suspect that I can, if I have to, over time, learn enough Unix expertise to deal with OS X problems, which will inevitably crop up, and while learning some Unix might not be a bad thing, I chafe more than little at having it thrust upon me.

I think that there are an awful lot of Mac users out there who feel more less the same way, and I naturally feel comfortable advocating their concerns. There are plenty of voices on the Mac Web cheerleading (I think with genuine enthusiasm) the advent of OS X. I also think there is room for some voices speaking for those who intend to stick with the Classic OS that they know, and that is doing a good job for them, for at least a while yet.

However, this raises some subsidiary issues. When Windows95 arrived, I spoke with quite a few PC people who vowed that they were going to stick with DOS forever, regardless of the newfangled OS with all the pretty pictures. I think that some people really did like DOS, had developed their work habits around its idiosyncrasies, and found that it did a good job for them. Nevertheless, the notion of die-hard DOS fanaticism now seems quaint, notwithstanding the fact that command lines are actually making a strong comeback with Linux, and probably there are a few individuals out there still using DOS on their old 286s and 386s.

The Classic Mac OS, IMHO, is a far superior operating system to DOS, and will continue to do a fine job for many years for users who are inclined to be content with it. However, I suspect that in 2005, stubborn refusal to move beyond Mac OS 9.1 or 9.5 or whatever the final version of Mac OS Classic is called, will seem as mildly eccentric as using a DOS on an old PC does in 2000.

For better or worse, Captain Jobs has set the course for the good ship Apple's future on the compass of OS X, and if we're going to remain Macophiles, the reality is that we're eventually going to have to adapt to OS X, and whatever OS numbers follow it, whether we like it or not.

What makes me more than a little uneasy about this, is that died-in-the-wool Mac aficionado that I am, the thought has been occurring to me lately that, if I am going to be obliged to learn Unix anyway to support OS X, and since I'm not exactly enthralled with the Aqua interface, would another Unix, perhaps a Linux running Eazel's Nautilus GUI, be worth a serious look?

This would not even necessarily involve abandoning the Mac platform. For example, SuSE Linux has just released their version 7 OS for Power PC, which the company claims is user-friendly enough for Linux newbies to install.

SuSE is also working closely with the Eazel project, which, incidentally, was conceived and is spearheaded by a blue ribbon group of veteran ex-Apple programmers including Andy Hertzfeld, who wrote the code for the original Mac OS toolbox. Eazel is developing a user-friendly GUI for Linux.

One significant advantage SuSE Linux for Power PC has over OS X is that it supports legacy Macs and some Mac clones back to 601-based PCI machines, including my 200 MHz, 604e, UMAX SuperMac S-900. It kind of begs the question as to why, if Unix-based Linux can support legacy Macs, why Apple's own OS X does not. I suspect that Aqua is probably big part of the reason, which, if so, reinforces my contention that abandoning the Classic Mac OS interface completely was an ill-conceived decision.

While these musings may seem like heresy to some, if I'm thinking them, I don't doubt that many others are as well , particularly people annoyed at having their high-end, less than three-year-old, Macs orphaned by the new Mac OS.

Of course, the Mac experience is more than the Mac OS and Apple hardware. It is partly a state of mind and a community of people who share that state of mind. It includes the astonishingly rich selection of really great shareware applications and utilities for the Mac that I document every day in the Applelinks Shareware Beat feature. Happily, it seems that Mac shareware developers are rising to the challenge of OS X, with an avalanche of innovative new applications, some of which even replace those missing features in the Aqua GUI.

However, we should be mindful that the Mac experience has always been predicated on the Classic Mac OS. Let's just hope that OS X will continue to offer enough of that intangible je ne sais quoi to sustain the communal celebration.

Charles W. Moore

.