Original Post (AppleInsider)

quote:

---

I think OS 9 speed is highly subjective because it's a totally different kind of speed than OS X speed. OS 9 is fast when nothing is going on. Windows open, close, resize, and move instantly on any G3 and most 604es as well. But as soon as you open an application, any application, things slow down. You have to wait until everything is done loading and THEN you can continue. In my opinion, OS 9 may look fast, but it generally is slower than OS X. Besides, who's going to have good enough reflexes to take advantage of OS 9's near-instantaneous window management? There's a limit to how fast you can click close boxes or hit command-W. OS X's speed is more useful than OS 9's speed.

---

I really don't like to mock AppleInsider people per se. It's just that I enjoy the outrageousness of some of their statements. Or more accurately, I enjoy the outrage they induce in some of you here.

He's kinda right. I mean, I used to be STRESSED using Mac OS 9, mousing and menuing and windowing as fast as the OS would let me. Now, I'm older and wiser and can chill and relax while the beachball spins or the arrows chase eachother.

Mac OS X....so relaxxxxxxinnngggg....zzzzzzzzzz

I really don't like to mock AppleInsider people per se. It's just that I enjoy the outrageousness of some of their statements. Or more accurately, I enjoy the outrage they induce in some of you here.

You are the blasting cap. We are the dynamite.

quote:

---

Besides, who's going to have good enough reflexes to take advantage of OS 9's near-instantaneous window management?

---

At the very least there's some high-speed rationalizing going on there. An OS that intelligently rations its CPU cycles is good. An OS that first syphons off a good percentage of those cycles to run a bunch of other nonsense is bad. It seems a great many people want to judge the quality of the OS by what it can do in the background. Granted, having this capability is a good thing and we'll no doubt find more and more uses for it. But to take your eye off what is happening in the foreground to make excuses for this OS is just out and out blind zealotry.

Throw a Mac label on an old IBM PC Jr. and we'd be hearing about the wonderful advantages of the chicklet keyboard.

He's basically saying rather than the big city pace of Mac OS 9, he's happy with Mac OS X's Mayberry pace.

And I get the technical aspect of there being such a thing as too fast for interface elements.

But isn't it astounding crap settling to make the argument that, hey, if Mac OS X isn't as fast as Mac OS 9, well, that's jes fine, because we here in Mayberry like to take our time, y'see. Yes indeed. Take our tiiimme. Ain't that right, Barn?

He's basically saying rather than the big city pace of Mac OS 9, he's happy with Mac OS X's Mayberry pace.

Hey, it doesn't sound quite so snazzy when put like that.

But isn't it astounding crap settling to make the argument that, hey, if Mac OS X isn't as fast as Mac OS 9, well, that's jes fine, because we here in Mayberry like to take our time, y'see. Yes indeed. Take our tiiimme. Ain't that right, Barn?

Yeah. That would be one approach to it. But what I don't hear is many people making the case (and a case could be made) that although OS X's GUI is shit that the underpinnings more than make up for this deficit. And if they ever do make this case then I'll ask the next logical question: Why can't we have both the underpinnings and an excellent GUI?

<< OS X's speed is more useful than OS 9's speed. >>

Wow. Those sad, pathetic, deluded X-worshippers.

"War Is Peace."

"Freedom Is Slavery."

"Ignorance Is Strength."

"OS X Is The Mac."


Markle