Women in Technology

Article:		Jaguar: Time to Stop Pussyfooting Around
Subject:		Missing the point? I don't think so.
Date:		2002-08-02 16:47:06
From:		simx
Response to: Missing the point? I don't think so.
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.

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

• Missing the point? I don't think so.
  2002-08-02 18:06:17  geertdeg [View]
  
  
  I think that I mentioned that I already work with OSX to do PRODUCTION work. At home I work with OSX since Public Beta on a G3 B&W, at work with a G4-800 Mhz. And yes, for apps like Internet Explorer, iApps and Office, OSX maybe not so slow. But have you ever worked with Quark XPress (Classic modus and terrible screen redraws), InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop or Acrobat? Do you think that "scrolling" in an Acrobat-document is faster with OSX than with OS9? I don't think so. If you compare the performance of those apps with their OS9-versions, they are MUCH SLOWER. And that's my point: OSX IS NOT READY for production purposes. If you have those apps on your computer, do the test for yourself and you will have to admit that it runs all much slower. The Finder in OSX is also slow compared to the OS9 Finder. If you speak to many OSX-users, their most hated cursor of all times is the OSX "rainbow"-cursor. This speaks for itself.
  
  For the PowerPC-processors: it seems that Motorola isn't interested anymore in the PowerPC-alliance. Their focus is on embedded processors. Our fastest machines are at 1GHz now, Intel or AMD at 2GHz+. I know that MHz doesn't always matter, but if you keep believing that our Macs are faster than the 2GHz-processors from AMD or Intel, you are simply dreaming. Intel or AMD is just an example, maybe they can choose for another one, but the GHz(!)-gap is becoming a great problem for Apple with their PowerPC-alliance. Apple is a HARDWARE company and despite all marketing from Apple: MHz sells! Mr. Jobs knows this very well: if Motorola keeps too much GHz behind the Intel or AMD cpu's, Apple will be forced to choose for another CPU. And then we're starting all over again with application updates for the new CPU etc... The problems for Apple in the near future are larger than you might think. A couple of months ago, we went to a "Publishing Seminar" from Apple and Adobe. If the people from Apple and Adobe asked the public if they had already "switched" to OS X, I was the only one who could hold my hand up.
  
  You said: "...it increases my productivity probably tenfold because I don't have to restart so much (rarely at all)." Waw! How good! And what if your applications crash (don't tell me that this never happens to you)? Oh how great, you don't have to restart your computer, but you do have to restart your application if you want to finish your work or if you have a deadline. I feel (and I am surely not the only one) that OSX runs pretty fine on recent machines from 2002. Working with OSX on earlier models is pretty unpredictable.
  
  I really hope that Jaguar will be much faster, otherwise the publishing world just can't make the switch (again), because that would be a financial disaster (time = money).
  
  PS: I'm not "obsessed" with OS 9. I know that OSX is a technically better OS, but speed really matters.