Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  Jaguar: Time to Stop Pussyfooting Around
Subject:   Missing the point? I don't think so.
Date:   2002-08-02 03:16:01
From:   geertdeg
Response to: Missing the point? I don't think so.

I think Robert is right. If you say "As for Quark, you can't tell me that 80 percent of the Mac user community is relying on Quark as their main application.", I think you're underestimating how big the prepress-community is within the Mac-community. I have switched to OSX for prepress and it doesn't work better than OS9. After 2 months "production"-work (and I'm an experienced Mac-user) my main feeling is: OSX is TOO SLOW. We had to upgrade all our software to native applications and the native applications are just slower than under OS9! The only DTP-application which is native is InDesign 2.0 and most service-bureaus are just too lazy or don't have the time to learn this new software. And why should they, if they can run XPress on their old G3-machines much faster? Worst of all: most service-bureaus don't accept InDesign-files! In prepress, for PDF-generation, we need Distiller, which isn't native and we need FlightCheck, Enfocus PitStop & CertifyPDF which aren't native because not all the PDF-technology from Adobe isn't native yet. Then there is the problem with the fonts, which now reside in 4 locations! I could figure it out with Suitcase, but most users just want to use their computer to WORK with it and don't want to struggle with all those fontproblems and quirky old applications running in Classic mode. The largest "community" within the Mac-community are the prepress people. If Apple doesn't make their OS much faster or at least as fast as OS9, they're gonna lose their largest market and this will simply be the end for Apple. I'm not ashamed to say that "working" with the computer is much smoother today with Windows XP than with Mac OS X. We have also a G4-450 (Sawtooth) that won't work with OS 10.1.5. We replaced already 4 times the hard drive and we keep getting "kernel panics". That machine won't even start and is unusable. According to Apple-dealers it's a "defective processor module". But we do heavy Photoshop-work with that same machine under OS9 without many system-errors! My conclusion is: OSX is a buggy OS, which is not enough tested on all their machines. I'm sure there are very much people who have the same "kernel panics" - look at the forums, even the Apple-forums. Apple should focus their attention at stability of the OS and not on al these "iApps", otherwise there will be a "switch" to WinXP. In my humble opinion it would also be wise if they use Intel-processors in their future machines.
Main Topics Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • Missing the point? I don't think so.
    2002-08-02 16:47:06  simx [View]

    OS X is not buggy, nor is it slow, and nor is it worse than XP.

    I have been using OS X full time since OS X 10.1 came out last September, and let me tell you something: OS X really IS light years ahead of OS 9.

    I rarely have crashes anymore with OS X. In contrast, I had a crash at least once a day, if not more, because I used it all the time. This stability alone is reason enough to upgrade to OS X: it increases my productivity probably tenfold because I don't have to restart so much (rarely at all).

    Furthermore, OS X 10.1.5 is PLENTY fast on "old" hardware. I'm sitting at a Snow G3 iMac at 500 MHz, which many people claim is not enough to run OS X decently. On the contrary, it runs OS X MORE THAN ADEQUATELY. I know many people who are completely satisfied with OS X on even older machines, too.

    In retrospect, it's probably futile to argue like this, especially when you're one of those deluded users who think that switching to Intel processors will be an easier transition than from OS 9 to OS X. NEWS FLASH: OS X is the future, and it is stable, reliable, much easier to use, and overall much better. Get over your obsession with OS 9 and make the leap.