Members of thalo,

Your crusade against Apple's adoption of OSX is rather well known. Given the mutiple forum memberships of some of your more vocal members - word of your crusade here has spread far and wide. As I'm sure you all are well aware, news of your crusade isn't always met with enthusiasm and more often than not is met with extreme criticism and the jeers of your once MacOS Classic using peers.

Now you may be asking yourselves, "Who is this guy?" Well I'm not really a Mac User (though my wife makes daily use of OSX on her ibook) as I generally stick with Linux on my laptop and Windows on my Desktop/Workstations. In terms of older software I find that I myself foster an increasing dislike for modern games and an increasing respect for those older classics I used to play as a kid.

So on one hand I can understand where you are coming from but on the other I am unable to understand it. For about a year early in my career I got to play the part of a Graphic Artist for awhile. In this position I spent most of my time using MacOS 7.5.x and MacOS 8.x and I must say I didn't find the experience enjoyable in the least.

I for one did not care for the spatial interface paradigm that runs rampant with Classic. I rather perferred to manage my files through a commandline or through a Windows explorer like interface. However interface issues aside my biggest issues with Classic were the technical ones. The lack of stability - the primitive memory management and the inability to multitask were the final nails in the coffin for me. I just couldn't understand why I couldn't play a CD without skipping while incurring moderate system load using something like Photoshop. For crying out loud even Windows 95 managed to deal with this better than OS7, OS8 or even OS9 even managed to do.

I'm also not particulary biased towards any of the modern OSes. I'm one those people that would rather hedge my bets than bet the farm on a single product as so many professionals seem to do nowadays. However given the marketplace conditions and Apple's "love it or leave it" attitude it seems quite obvious that MacOS Classic doesn't have a future. Hell even something like Linux that has seen next to nothing in terms of desktop adoption has a better chance of "surviving" the current round of OS wars than Classic does.

If this thread is seen as a troll, then let me apologize. I don't mean to troll I only mean to inquire and to understand why you guys feel the way you do.

Thanks,

Jay

Hello Brother Jay

This site is obviously geared to inflate thalo's already inflated ego if that is possible.

Let's get some things straight.

Classic is what runs in Mac OS X.

What many Brothers and Sisters here long for is the Legacy OS.

Remember also that we are just chimps and it is hard to teach an old chimp new tricks.

The goal here is so complacency does not kill the cat.

quote:

---

However given the marketplace conditions and Apple's "love it or leave it" attitude it seems quite obvious that MacOS Classic doesn't have a future. Hell even something like Linux that has seen next to nothing in terms of desktop adoption has a better chance of "surviving" the current round of OS wars than Classic does.
If this thread is seen as a troll, then let me apologize. I don't mean to troll I only mean to inquire and to understand why you guys feel the way you do.

---

Hi, Jay. Don't worry, this is the one site where you won't see people screaming "TROLL!" at someone just because he or she has a contrary opinion. Our arguments can be vigorous, but we don't use the internet version of "shut the fuck up, only pre-approved opinions allowed."

You're absolutely right. Linux has more of a future than the legacy Mac OS. But Linux also has more of a future than OS X. The Mac has less than a 2% market share, and without the iPod, Apple would be in a death spiral. OS X was supposed to be the salvation of Apple and the Mac, and turn its fortunes around. In that regard, OS X has been a total failure. Apple's market share is less now than when X first came out. Apple had to diversify its product line and come up with a totally different item--AND SELL WINDOWS VERSIONS--to save its ass.

There's no single answer to your question of what we're trying to do around here. We all have different perspectives on the subject. I hardly ever get into OS X discussions anymore. What's the point? It's a failure, but it's here to stay because Steve Jobs can't admit that his baby NeXT, re-named OS X, has failed in the market a second time. It's done; the majority of Mac users never migrated to OS X.

Others here think it would be OK and still salvageable if Apple would just change this or that. Some others, including some who drifted away when the old debates got stale, think X is more or less fine just the way it is. There's no party line here.

We all knew that the Mac operating system had to be updated. We're not idiots. But the technical underpinnings could have been redesigned without losing so much of the user-friendly interface that had made Mac users so loyal...and who had stayed loyal even while Windows was taking over the market just because Wintel computers were cheaper and Apple was too stupid to see that. Slapping the Mac label on an alien OS that rejected so much of what was good about the Mac, and the superior, smarmy attitude with which it was done, offended many of us. Imagine in the 21st Century, a would-be mass-market computer for non-techies with a command-line interface! For some purposes it can't be avoided. The techies who post at many other Mac forums actually love that, and think that GUIs are for morons. A CLI is inevitable in any system based on the antique Unix technology. Linux has it, too, but Linux is known as a system for techies rather than average users. The Mac was SUPPOSED to do away with the old ways of computing and be "the computer for the rest of us." It's a huge admission of defeat for Apple and the industry in general that when Apple was looking for a new and modern OS they couldn't come up with something that wasn't based on 35-year-old technology.

And why are the screen fonts in OS X so fuzzy and blurry when even Microsoft knows how to put sharp text on the screen? I could go on, but I'm just answering your question, not trying to re-hash old debates that just don't matter anymore.

No one here thinks that if we just yell loud enough Apple will scrap OS X and come out with something like OS 8.7--a modern OS with the classic Mac interface. That battle was lost long ago. This OS X Talk forum is a remnant of the common interest that brought us together in the past. As you can see we have several other forums on this site. Those are where I spend the bulk of my time these days when I drop by. The community of conversational friends endures even while the issues that brought us together originally fade into the background.

Markle

So on one hand I can understand where you are coming from but on the other I am unable to understand it.

This seems natural. You have the story wrong. None of us want to go back in time to an older and less capable OS. I know this is the story Apple defenders tell, but it is just a fairy tale they tell themselves to make themselves feel better and to marginalize valid criticism. Of course you are unable to understand that story. We wouldn't understand it either. It is a silly story explicitly meant to make reasonable and valid comments seem silly. Notice it avoids discussion of the OS entirely and, instead, discusses and trivializes those with opposing views as an unreasonable group. That is what you are suppose to understand. The story is designed to lead you to this prearranged conclusion.

The strength of Apple's Macintosh OS was once user interaction. It was the guiding design principle. Apple was once so strong in this area that some users were smug about this superiority and Apple itself would advertise "the computer for the rest of us" and ridicule other OS makers in print and on TV about how little thought they gave to their customers. No more. Now, Apple's OS is little better than any other OS in this regard. I suppose OS X isn't particularly that bad, it's just that it isn't really any better than those other OSs you mentioned. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. This is the reality that OS X cheerleaders found unbearable. So, to soothe themselves and to squelch reasonable comment we get the silly story.

Since I addressed this issue last month in a different thread I am just going to paste it here for you to read and hopefully give you a more accurate idea of what we think about past OSs and about the silly story you are being told about us.



Although OS 9 is certainly no example of OS excellence it does retain a portion of strength that it inherited from the original Macintosh OS design, namely, user interaction. The original Mac OS was built upon this foundation. In OS X it is a more minor consideration.

The issue for us was never OS 9. It was never that any of us thought OS 9 was so good, it was that OS X was so extremely disappointing. The issue was always OS X.

It's interesting that no matter how many times we told X-men the issue was OS X, not OS 9, many of them would willfully convince themselves of the entirely opposite thing. Despite explicit and pointed declarations to the contrary they convinced themselves that, really, we must be muddled-minded Luddites so decrepit in our dotage that we had become unreasonably enamored with OS 9. This hallucinatory tale was so pleasing to them that they even gave us the epithet of "Niners" or "Niner-Whiners." Of course, the desire for malice and slander played a part in their self deception, but the main utility of the comforting dogma is that it shielded them from the reality that there existed dedicated, knowledgeable, long time Mac users who had valid criticisms about the technical design of the operating system being touted. In short, the pleasing tale protected them from reality.

Jay, by the way. Take Markle's post to heart. We don't think much of cheap debating tactics like labeling someone a "troll" just because that person has something different to say. This sort of name calling makes the guy doing it look like an asshole. It says something about his intellectual capabilities and his ability to construct a rational rebuttal.

In a more generalize form, see how many times one of our "more vocal members" post something specific about OS X only to be answered, not with discussion about the OS, but rather with discussion about them. This has happened to all of us. We would talk about OS X, they would talk about us. This is a stupid man's tactic.

Don't assume that any particular member here is party line anti-OS X, even the moderators. You would be wrong. Many of our members are pleased with OS X. When Thalo started this forum they moved here to continue pressing their point. The difference between them and the OS X cheerleaders you are probably used to is that they are the strongest debaters who don't need cheap tactics to defend their valid comments. They can hold their own precisely because of their sharp reasoning powers. Kinda tough to get around, but we like it that way.

Also, there are even long-standing disagreements among those who agree that OS X could be a lot better. Four years ago Thalo and I engaged in a series of long posts. Thalo was arguing that Apple needed to fix OS X to make it more Mac-like and if we kept up the pressure they would do just that. I was arguing that Apple had just 'fixed' its OS and that fix was called OS X, and that's the way it was going to stay. I thought Thalo's crusade for change was folly. Both of us vigorously gave our reasons and analyses of the situation. I don't either of us budged an inch. I still think I'm right. The "crusade" you talk about as being the members of this forum is just Thalo's alone. He is a stubborn, optimistic bastard. I doubt that anyone here actually agrees with him that if we all just make enough noise Apple will rediscover its dedication to OS excellence. I know I never did.

As I said, take Markle's post to heart. There is no walking on eggshells here. You have an opinion about computer OSs, politics, religion, good jokes maybe? Great, let's hear them.

Brother HH just articulated that perfectly.

In this crusade, I always--and I mean always-- get pegged as the guy who wants to somehow turn the clock back. Some old greybeard curmudgeon raining on the OpenSource parade. Well, that ain't it. That's never been it. From day 1, all I wanted was for OS X to be BETTER than OS 9. Where it counts. Meaning interface and usability.

The dirty little secret of OS X is that it has NEVER surpassed the legacy operating system when it comes to usability. No way, no how. Sure, the interface became bloated, loaded with happy horseshit, over-designed up the friggin' WAZOO... but you know what? It's never really WORKED. Never functioned smoothly. Never reared up out of that beta feeling.

To me, years after the fact, it STILL feels like nobody ever fucking TESTED this beast. On a daily basis, I run into just some insanely stupid interface shit that brings my workflows to a grinding halt. Crap that has never, and continues to not simply MAKE SENSE. Proving to me, once again, that pretty photo-realistic upscaled bouncing icons and crystal sausages do not an interface make.

I've said this before a million times, so why should I bother... no that's OK, I will anyway: Aqua and OS X are about slathering a fancy façade over a beta freeware infrastructure. Everything we see on our screens, is there to OBSCURE the shortcomings, or limitations of the operating system. To fool us into thinking that things work, when really they don't. I've always seen that as ass backwards. A good interface should make computer operations both TRANSPARENT (though not transparent in the sense of the ridiculous see-through interface elements)... and intuitive.

In short, the interface should not be making US as users jump through hoops... it should be the mechanism by which we make our COMPUTERS jump through hoops. FOR US. Well, you tell me, is that the case? I say no.

I say that we are being PLAYED by this interface, and by the marketeers who created it as a means to con us. It keeps us so busy nursemaiding it, and so "enthralled" looking at it, that we don't sit up and notice that it really doesn't do a very good job. At friggin' ANYTHING.

And slow? My god, if the legacy was this slow back in the early 90's, nobody would have ever bothered with it. That we are just sucking it up and happily watching the beachball as it spins endlessly, is just horrific to me. To me, this interface and operating system are so bad, that LONG AGO there should have been a user revolt.

The trouble is, like Mulder on the X-Files, we WANT TO BELIEVE. And that's why we become crap-settlers and slack-cutters. We hold Apple to low standards because... well, because we love them. But overlooking the serious flaws with the OS and interface, I say, isn't doing them any good.

And yet, they are cleaning up with the iPod. Their stock is going through the roof. Great. But is it because the iPod interface is overdesigned? Au contraire. I'd go so far as to say that the SECOND Apple did something minimalist, made the gizmo that made the task intuitive and effortless, it caught on like wildfire.

Now, I know they're TRYING to do that with their unix OS, and all the digital hub gadgets that hook up to a computer. They've succeeded in making the Mac a decent casual use machine.

My problem with that is, as a pro I need more from my computer. And as uncomfortable as it is to realize this, I think Apple is gearing its personal computers to people who really don't know any better, and who don't really NEED anything beyond casual use.

I say the Mac has becomed dumbed down. And my hope is, that as the digikids and digital hubsters get more knowledgable, they're going to finally start asking more from Apple. Where Apple does its best to continually LOWER expectations, there will be thalo.net, fighting the dumbing down of the Mac, and doing its best to RAISE them. Where X-Men will sit there and laurel-rest, make excuses and crap-settle, thalo.netters won't. We'll continue to criticize. We'll risk being pariahs and party poopers. But what we want is a better operating system. One that's pro capable, and works. One that doesn't con or look down at the user base. One that's not designed under the assumption that Mac users are total dumbasses.

And yet when I critizice this software, I'm raining on the digikid parade. I become the elitist old guard Mac pro user... so it's probably going to have to be a question of the new generation of Mac people REDISCOVERING the legacy interface. Maybe asking crap like, "why would these thalo.net guys think OS 9 was so great? Let me take a look..."

I don't spend much time booted into OS9 anymore, but when I do, I always say the same thing: Now THAT'S an interface. No bullshit, no nonsense, no marketing con-job. The legacy doesn't look down at me. It's not designed as if I'm a child or a retarded chimp. It's responsive and functional and minimal. It does the job and isn't distracting, and stays out of my friggin' way.

OS X? Sweet Mercy. It's all ABOUT getting in your way. Jumping up and down like a spoiled brat on "Nanny 911" begging for attention. It thinks it's more important than running my apps well, and so the sum total of my computing resources have been mortgaged to feed its dysfunction.

That's what's wrong with the Mac. Apple has lost their way. They forgot how important usability, intuitiveness, and interface are in the Personal Computer. They swapped that out for passive entertainment. They've created machines for consumers, rather than producers. Watchers rather than doers. Twiddlers rather than workers.

Jay said: ...I find that I myself foster an increasing dislike for modern games and an increasing respect for those older classics I used to play as a kid.

Me too. Check out this book. Fascinating reading.

...I only mean to inquire and to understand why you guys feel the way you do.

If someone painted stripes on the Mona Lisa I would sure hope someone would complain.

If someone painted stripes on the Mona Lisa I would sure hope someone would complain.

Oh, I forgot to mention putting a layer of Vaseline on the bullet-proof glass in front of the Mona Lisa. Other Louvre analogies probably apply. Imagine -- like prefs that don’t stick -- that the signs and door numbers around the museum kept falling off and needed "repairing". Imagine hitting the "talk" button on one of those interactive displays and hearing nothing until you pushed a second time.

.
By the way, some of us here got our start in these discussions in the Tech Issues forum (previously Mac OS X Talk) in the forums at MacFixIt. I occasionally still drop by there to see how the conversation is going. In the last few months, maybe a good part of this year, there has been a surprising amount of criticism of OS X over there. There's been a lot of "Why are we still waiting for...." and "Has OS X development stalled?"

Of course, many of those criticisms start with, "Don't get me wrong, I love OS X, but...." --As if they have to assure the group of their loyalty before they can say anything that departs from the official ideology. Still, however they package it, they're now saying some of the things that they used to slam us for saying.

And the truth is, Apple DOES seem to be putting less effort and resources into their little niche OS. Why should they bother when the most dynamic and growing part of their business has nothing to do with the Mac?

Markle

quote:

---

If someone painted stripes on the Mona Lisa I would sure hope someone would complain.
Oh, I forgot to mention putting a layer of Vaseline on the bullet-proof glass in front of the Mona Lisa. Other Louvre analogies probably apply.

---

Well, according to "The Da Vinci Code"....


Markle

Well, according to "The Da Vinci Code"....

Speaking of The Da Vinci Code, Rico would be quite proud to hear that I’ve actually found a good use for OS X here at work. I’ve got 10.3.7 running on my iBook and its functioning as a sort of print server for both my OS 9 Mac and the two Windows boxes. Works great. I can now print (with true halftone screens) from Publisher to a laser printer and not have to throw a big Dr.-Phil-like "What were you thinking?" fit every time I receive one of those things.

Thanks for asking Jay!
I certainly enjoyed reading the brilliant responses you got from “the brothership“, LOL...

Members of thalo,

Thank you for your well thought out responses. I definitely have a better understanding of what your "goal" here is and with that I'd like to wish you luck with your crusade.

Thanks again,

Jay

Brother Jay

Thanks for stopping by you trolling pc crapsettling using Linux wanna be.

At least there is one sane person in your household.

Hey Brad your conversion is almost complete. Every morning keep staring into the Mac OS X hypnotizer at start up.

Soon you will be remotely controlling all your machines in the office using Panther on your iBook.

Resistance is futile.

Hey Brad your conversion is almost complete. Every morning keep staring into the Mac OS X hypnotizer at start up.

Yeah. And I must admit that I once in a while boot into OS X just to use this Texas hold'em program that is for X only.

Soon you will be remotely controlling all your machines in the office using Panther on your iBook.

Umm, believe it or not, OS 9 still works better than OS X for what I do. Now, I know that might not be the case for some or even most of you. And I'm continually surprised (you'd think I would have worn out my eye-roll muscles by now) by the lack of responsiveness in the Finder. Truthfully, if one is managing a lot of files (which I do) then OS X is just not up to the task. You truly have to baby the system to get that kind of stuff done.

By that's not the end of my revelations. I do believe that since Microsoft started focusing on security that Windows XP, even on gigaflop processors, has become dog slow. You know how those talent shows on TV use applause meters to gauge audience reactions and thus to name the winners? Now imagine me screaming at the top of my lungs at the damn computer while waiting for it to accomplish some simple task that should be lickety-split fast. These days Windows XP is the shout-winner, hands down, and that even takes into account how little time I spend in OS X. I mean, you'd think you were asking for the moon for XP to SHOW A BROWSER WINDOW IN WINDOWS EXPLORER or to SHOW A MENU IN THE START MENU. And all that security stuff is a sham. It seems all that they've created is a series of dialog boxes that pass the buck. "Do you want Windows to unblock this or that service or program?" No, god damn it, I want you to take responsibility for security. You're the damn operating system. Operate! Take charge of the programs that run in your realm. Don't try to sell me this horseshit idea that offering me an ON or OFF switch is a substitute for security measures.

End of rant.

quote:

---

I must admit that I once in a while boot into OS X just to use this Texas hold'em program that is for X only.

---

You can play Hold 'Em (or any other form of Poker) in iPoker, which works in OS 9 and at least 8.6. In 8.6 I play Hold 'Em, Stud, Draw, or whatever in its original version, then called PowerPoker. I tried the demo version of iPoker in 8.6, and it was fine.

See, Brad, now you don't need X at all!

Markle

quote:

---

Umm, believe it or not, OS 9 still works better than OS X for what I do.

---

Actually, I totally believe that, brother Brad (a belated Merry Christmas, by the way)... To be perfectly honest, the only reason I'm using OS X right now, is that I'm TRYING to be a good little Mac soldier. TRYING to go with the flow. I've paid my money, done all my upgrading to native apps, even bought a new computer (the Powerbook 17 incher) that boots only in OS X.

But I have to say, for me and my work, interface is EVERYTHING... the Finder is EVERYTHING... and so my Mac experience these days, as a pro user, basically sucks. I can get through it, yeah, but I don't ENJOY it anymore. And I used to love it.

Now it's slow, buggy, and fraught with ridiculous, insane, irritating workflow stoppages. For three years plus I have felt like a beta tester, and you know what? That's because I am.

I'd say the new crop of Adobe and Macromedia products are what KEEPS me in X, but I'll tell you this, NONE of the new apps works BETTER in OS X than the old legacy versions did in 9. It just hasn't happened yet. Sure there are a few extra bells and whistles for everything, but software USABILITY and pro workflows have taken a huge hit.

I find when I go "backward" and actually boot into the legacy, my computing experience as a whole, is just much, much better. Even Photoshop. Font rendering across the board is better and clearer. Interface responsiveness, well, I shouldn't even have to mention that. Those of you with dual boot machines, ga head and boot the legacy for shits and giggles and tell me it's all in my head. I have always laughed great big belly laughs at any X-Man in such denial as to say that OS X and Aqua are fast and responsive.

The other thing that always kills me, is the degree to which we could customize the interface in the old days... and how hogtied we are with Aqua. OK, we can go from huge to REALLY REALLY HUGE with the dock and icons, we can fart around with desktop pictures and screensavers... with those friggin' TERRIBLE labels... so why is it the legacy, with its "appearance" panel felt so much more like "my" interface? Maybe it was font control, which of course we don't have now.

As many of you know, I have a PC on my network, and so now I have that to compare OS X to. Surfing? Cripes, Safari is a total slug next to any browser on the PC. Same connection. Games? Hands down, the PC wins. I don't think there's all that many games that are actually PLAYABLE on the Mac. I've tried some of the demos, and would just never, ever buy the retail based on how they perform on my G4 systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RicoX:
Thanks for stopping by you trolling pc crapsettling using Linux wanna be.

---

Heh... no I think Linux is probably one of the greatest hobbyist OSes in the world. It's reasonably decently supported and you can poke, prod and change any part of it you wish. If I think X11 sucks... I can create my own fork or even something entirely different from scratch. If I don't like KDE I can use Gnome, XFCE or any of the other bazillion window managers out there. Now I'll be the last person to play the "Linux on the Desktop" card as I don't believe Linux is even close to being able to compete in that arena. But even though I think you were kidding I wouldn't go so far as to refer to the use of Linux as "crapsettling". Generally as a professional I find it advantageous to maintain experience in multiple platforms. My Linux experience has come in handy multiple times over the past few years. It even managed to allow me to save 40 gigabytes of valuable data off my mother's machine after a XP SP2 installation gone wrong (XP wouldn't mount the NTFS drive but I could mount it and recover the data through linux).

quote:

---

At least there is one sane person in your household.

---

Errrr... she uses whatever is on the laptop. In this particular case her 600mhz ibook runs OSX 10.3 in an alright fashion. She still bitches about beachballs on ocassion but for what she does there isn't any real performance problem on OSX (read: Cruise the web, Check email, and Remote Control her Windows XP box upstairs). Still I think OSX could be faster and better but then again I feel the same way about Windows XP and even Linux as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markle:
You can play Hold 'Em (or any other form of Poker) in_ iPoker_, which works in OS 9 and at least 8.6. In 8.6 I play Hold 'Em, Stud, Draw, or whatever in its original version, then called PowerPoker. I tried the demo version of iPoker in 8.6, and it was fine.

---

http://www.pokerroom.com has a great Java version of Hold 'em that you play on any platform with a Java VM. It works like a charm on my linux laptop, you might want to give that a shot too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
By that's not the end of my revelations. I do believe that since Microsoft started focusing on security that Windows XP, even on gigaflop processors, has become dog slow.

---

Thats not been my experience.

quote:

---

And all that security stuff is a sham. It seems all that they've created is a series of dialog boxes that pass the buck. "Do you want Windows to unblock this or that service or program?" No, god damn it, I want you to take responsibility for security. You're the damn operating system. Operate! Take charge of the programs that run in your realm. Don't try to sell me this horseshit idea that offering me an ON or OFF switch is a substitute for security measures.

---

Really? The general consensus is that the security additions made to SP2 have made quite a difference in the overall security of a Windows XP system. I think your primary complaint boils down to, "I don't want to be bothered with this security stuff" and sadly that's the attitude that got us to this point to begin with. Your complaint is akin to me complaining that I have to manually unlock and open my frontdoor for guests after they have rung the doorbell. I mean why can't the door be smart enough to let in the people I want and keep out the ones I don't? Well thats because the door, much like the machine in this example is dumb. And like anything on a computer it needs specific instructions for what to do when presented with a given set of conditions.

And honestly this is likely going to spark some furor but if OSX or linux were as popular as XP I'd wager you'd see the same amount of security issues crop up. Apple has a pretty shoddy track record in regards to keeping OSX secure (especially older versions like 10.0, 10.1 that are far less than 5 years old) and it is a well known fact that Linux and its related OSS products get patched for security holes even more than Windows itself does.

Anyway thats just my take on the situation.