Comments on this article

Showing messages 1 through 110 of 110.

• Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix Users
  2002-09-18 02:33:52  anonymous2 [View]
  
  

  Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.
  
  

  I am a long-time Unix user. That means I need to have the Ctrl key to the left of the A key. This is a genuine need, not merely a want; it is based upon ergonomics. The Ctrl key is heavily used in unix, and it must be easily accessable. It cannot be off in the lower left corner of the keyboard where it is difficult to get at, and where it distorts the position of your left hand such that you can't easily type other keys while holding the Ctrl key down.
  
  

  Apple desktop keyboards are now all USB. They are all OK. The CapsLock key can be re-mapped into a Ctrl key.
  
  

  Unfortunately, even in this modern age, all Apple laptops have built-in ADB keyboards. The ADB keyboard is broken-by-design. It is, in general, not possible to remap the CapsLock key into a Ctrl key.
  
  

  There are some exceptions, but they are horrible kludges. They are
  horrible kludges because the original design of the ADB keyboard was a horrible kludge. The correct solution would be for Apple to re-design their laptop motherboards to use built-in USB keyboards. This hasn't happened yet. If you run Linux, use Debian's solution. For Mac OS X users, uControl works. There are no solutions (that I know of) for either NetBSD or OpenBSD. Please note once again that the "solutions" above are in fact kludges, because of the original bad design of the ADB keyboard.
  
  

  Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users! This is not merely speculation on my part. In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department, the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market. He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath. Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 10 years. I expect that trend to continue. (Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse, even though Apple intended to port almost all X-window software and deliver it either on a CD/DVD or installed directly on each Mac's hard drive. How Unix friendly is a 1-button mouse with X programs that often require 3 buttons?)
  
  

  Apple has now lost two opportunities to sell me hardware. I really wanted an Apple laptop for their superior battery life, and for the PowerPC with Altivec CPU. (The Altivec is vastly superior to the x86 line for DSP.) Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead. If Apple fixes this problem, they will sell me a PowerBook next year; if they don't, I'll still be running OpenBSD on x86 hardware, and wishing I could use a Mac.
  
  

• Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix Users
  2003-11-03 14:10:04  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  [looks at iMac keyboard. Looks at IBM ThinkPad keyboard. Looks at generic PC keyboard on server. Checkes HP keyboard in junk box. Looks closely at picture of PowerMac on Apple site]
  
  Dude, the Ctrl key is in the same place on Apple laptops as it is on normal keyboards, so just WTF are you talking about?
  

• Switch to Jaguar
  2002-09-16 13:25:40  criduchat [View]
  
  
  Jaguaraggravate:
  
  I don't run Photoshop, don't own a computer company, don't manage a server, don't write computer articles for magazines, no longer run a hospital department, don't see any need to carry 10,000 tunes on my person, don't take part in a LAN, don't own a website, don't do major trouble-shooting on other's computers, don't own a laptop computer, presently have a G-3 B & W 400mHz, 384MB, don't show people my computer to impress them, don't program UNIX (or understand it).
  
  I would like to learn how to use Quicken with my bank etc.; also, would like to further my photographic proclivities somewhat.
  
  I have invested in OS 10.1 and now 10.2; and found the apple Mail program and earthlink.net did not mesh well. For over one month I have had trouble sending, and sometimes receiving email; even though I spent up to 2 hours at a time with Earthlink ISP reps on the phone, and brought my computer to the "Geniuses" at the Apple Store. Now, suddenly, without changing any PPoE settings etc. my mail seems again to be functioning. For this kind of service Earthlink expects top prices, and Apple wants to charge me for the privilege of using their iTools (some of which may be quite useful).
  
  I keep getting messages that my printer doesn't work (have tried to download any and all up-to-date drivers for HP 970Cse; also, Jaz 2 GB doesn't work at all in spite of installing new driver and new stuff in Mac Software that supposedly would cure the problem. Incidentally, the printer works fine almost all of the time, despite the "Printer won't work" type of messages.
  
  I bought a Canon G2 camera recommended by the Apple "Geniuses" and have found it works flawlessly with the Mac (with and without iPhoto).
  
  I am a member of Mensa, taught medicine at Johns Hopkins, Duke University, George Washington University in D.C., University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.
  
  Why am I developing an "aggravation rash" and not more happy with Jaguar despite your glowing article?
  
  Yore Frend, Del
  
  

• The Real Issue
  2002-08-27 12:11:19  skerstiens [View]
  
  
  I know I'm weighing in late on this topic, but here goes...
  
  The sooner Apple's customer base moves to OS X, the better for those users and the company.
  
  Mac lovers everywhere want Apple to succeed. The path that Apple has taken is a bold new direction. I say, its really time. OS X is a step forward. It is stable. It is modern. It has the potential meet and exceed our expectations of OS 9.
  
  I just got my copy of OS X 10.2 and am installing it as I write. I was an early OS X adopter, and frankly the version released in March last year was a disaster that I never got working on my older machines. 10.1 fixed those issues in October, and I've been happy with OS X for the last year or so.
  
  Is it perfect? No. Is it better than OS 9? Yes. I think Apple is going to kick tail with OS X, but not with a 20% installed base.
  
  I understand that there are many of Apple's faithful who have custom applications and hardware running in OS 9.x and before. Maybe its about time to upgrade. I remember the switch to PowerPC back in the early 90's. That was painful too, but it was direction that Apple chose at the time. It was costly for me and millions of Mac loyalsts, but it was the only choice if we wanted continue to own and use Macs.
  
  The mantra of the entire computer industry is change. The industry is based on the fact that new software makes your old hardware obsolete. The industry (not just Apple) wants you to buy new machines every year. That being said, Apple has done a pretty good job of making sure that Classic in OS X and standalone OS 9 still function. In my experience, Classic works well even on older machines. Eventually though, people will have to let go of their old systems and upgrade to OS X if they want to continue to support Apple.
  
  Personally I can't imagine any other choice for my computing needs. Apple is IT.

• New Mac user
  2002-08-22 09:27:51  tbriscoe [View]
  
  
  I just bought my first Mac (widescreen iMac) and it came with Jaguar so I can't really address the upgrade cost. However, I've been a Linux user for 9 years and it was OS X that convinced me that a Mac was for me. I've had one instance so far where I had to boot into OS 9 and I hope it's the last.
  
  This is my first Mac and if Apple abandons OS X it'll be my last.
  
  BTW.. I wrote code for a little high-tech startup on Mac SE running System 6 many years ago, so this wasn't my first experience with Macs.
  
  -- Tom

• It's the little things
  2002-08-20 22:25:45  latrebor [View]
  
  
  You ask why doesn't everyone switch to OSX. You're article is very positive and discusses all the big stuff available for OSX. You fail however to more realistically address all the little things that don't work.
  
  I have OSX on all my Macs but I boot all of them in OS 9. An example of what I mean is Documents to Go. Until about 1 week ago it didn't work with Palm Desktop 4; the version needed for OSX. There were no network drivers for using HP inkjets over a network. When the driver came out I installed it and found I could no longer sync my Palm. I tried to get adice on fixing this and none was available.
  
  I could go on but won't, in as much as I think the point is clear. I am desperate to go all the way to OSX but there are a number of little but critical things which are needed to make it possible to switch all the way.
  
  For now I just remain vigilant and hopeful.
  Loyal Mac User

• ROI of updating
  2002-08-14 15:23:45  martinb9999 [View]
  
  
  Here's why 10.x -> 10.2 upgrade is way too expensive.
  
  When I upgraded from 9.x to 10.1, I paid approx 100UKP for an OS which provided:
  1) Orders of magnitude more stability
  2) A real multi-user security model
  3) The capability to run web tools like Apache, Zope, Perl, Python, MySQL, PHP and ImageMagick
  4) The capability to run SAMBA, tying my home network together
  5) The capability to run essential productivity and mail tools like fetchmail, procmail (particularly to filter spam and make the Mail.App upgrade redundant), ssh (and hence pine and BitchX remotely)
  6) iApps (especially iPhoto)
  
  This was a worthwhile deal. It gave me the first opportunity to have the Dreamteam: the power and stability of Unix married with a highly usable and attractive GUI.
  
  Now, the proposal is to charge me the same amount for a much more lightweight upgrade. I don't see how it's worth it for OSX.x users.
• ROI of updating
  2002-08-15 05:53:48  timmyers [View]
  
  
  Agreed IMO they should have made the jump from OS9 and earlier full price, from 10.0 to 10.2 50UKP and from 10.1 to 10.2 25UKP.

• Jaguar Price Watch
  2002-08-10 18:17:58  dicklacara [View]
  
  
  The best price I have seen so far is $98.95 after a $21.00 mail in rebate:
  
  http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=551926
  
  Close second is $99.95, without the hassle of a MIR.
  
  http://www.macconnection.com/scripts/productdetail.asp?product_id=303593
• Demand seems high
  2002-08-11 17:51:28  weberik [View]
  
  
  (or supply is low) ;-)
  
  Just ordered from MacMall, and they've got a backorder list of 2,000+
  
  Of course, 2,000 isn't a huge number in the grand scheme of things, but it does make me wonder how many copies of Jaguar MacMall was allotted by Apple in the first place.
• Demand seems high
  2002-08-16 23:42:36  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  All indications are that Apple is going to sell lots of copies of Jaguar. Our first clue was when Amazon had to pull their rebate offer because of high demand.
  
  Hopefully, Apple has produced lots of copies of Jag, because after all this hoopla, the last thing people are going to want to hear is that there are delays and shortages ... ;)

• The issue is not OS 9 to OS X---
  2002-08-09 18:54:29  dicklacara [View]
  
  
  The issue is upgrading from OS X 10.1 to 10.2.
  
  OS 7-9.x users -- bless 'em (I am one of you).. but technology moves on!
  
  Have I ordered Jaguar? -- no, not yet -- But I will! I am just waiting for the best deal!
  
  Why Jaguar?
  
  Because everything new that comes from Apple will be built on the shoulders of Jaguar.
  
  This is as important to Mac users as the win 3.x to win 95 transition was to Microsoft users.
  
  How do I justify it?
  
  Simple! It lets me take advantage of the newer, cheaper technology.
  
  Steve recently said at the announcement of the [then] new iMac G4, That "here is a new iMac,
  that is 4 times the original iMac, for the same price". My original 1978 Apple ][ cost $1795, 16 KB RAM - no disks, no CD, no GUI. (I need to tell you that $1795 in today's dollars is about $20,000).
  
  I recently bought a 60 Gig hard drive for far less than I paid for a 4 Gig, 4 years ago.
  
  So, for $129 (or whatever deal I can find) I can exploit the latest new technology-- that's a pretty good investment.
  
  Yes, I still have a 7200 (the Mac II finally belied up) with a SCSI scanner, and PhotoShop 3,5 --
  but I can use it and still take advantage of my Blueberry iMac and network them with the TiBook.
  
  I only bought the TiBook so I could work while visiting my Mom in the hospital.
  
  The TiBook opened my eyes -- there is a new world out there that I hadn't seen (with my comfortable, old familiar iMac).
  
  I can get more done in an hour on the TiBook/OS X than I could do in days on my older systems.
  
  It's just better, and better wins -- and it makes me win, too!
  
  I am pretty close with the dollar -- but Jaguar is an investment that I expect will reap great dividends.
  
  Dick

• X - (Worthless) Hockey Puck Operating System
  2002-08-07 15:13:52  macwoman [View]
  
  
  ...and not worth 2 cents let alone $129.!!!!!!!!! And the faster Apple does away with it, the faster it will GET BACK 80% of its user base, the 80% who are royally unamused by X, the most worthless thing Apple has ever done!
  
  
• The *best* thing Apple has ever done!
  2002-08-08 19:18:13  weberik [View]
  
  
  Did you honestly expect Apple to stick with OS 9 forever? It was a great OS, but it is definitely long in the tooth. I've been using Macs since 1987, and I've been forced to use my fair share of Windows along the way. I've also installed, used, and developed on Linux.
  
  To me, OS X is a godsend. Beyond the marketing messages Apple is putting out, here's why I prefer OS X to OS 9:
  
  1) NO EXTENSION CONFLICTS: Let's face it, we all became used to dealing with extension conflicts in the Mac OS. It used to make me cringe every time I'd have to explain to one of my less-technically-inclined relatives that even though the Mac is a great OS, from time to time some apps conflicted with other apps, causing the whole machine to crash. With OS X, this doesn't happen. No Conflict Catcher, no Extension Manager, no arcane knowledge of extension conflicts needed to run your Mac comfortably.
  
  2) TRUE MULTITASKING: I can, without any concerns whatsoever, burn a CD while looking for something on Google to assist me in a document I'm writing in Word. Toggling between apps doesn't cause hangs or freezes. Everything just works, and you don't ever have to hold your breath.
  
  3) INTERFACE: A lot of people have problems with the OS X interface, but whatever interface Apple came up with for X, they would have received complaints. Stay too close to the OS 9 look and feel, and some would have said it was antiquated. Go to far towards the Nextstep interface, and people would have howled that it was too unfamiliar. I happen to love the Next-style finder view. I like the Dock. I really love Quartz, and saving files is much more flexible and easier in X.
  
  4) UNIX COMPATIBILITY: For some reason, this freaks out a lot of long time Mac users, who seem to feel that the introduction of a BSD core to the Mac OS is akin to Satan being named to the board of directors. As a multimedia and web developer, I can use all of my favorite UNIX/Linux tools on the same machine I use for graphic design, audio, and video. For the first time, the Mac provides a truly capable vertical solution for developing content and backend systems, and then deploying them on the same OS (or, conveniently, on BSD or Linux with only minimal tweaks). This is *huge* and it not only stopped the exodus of web/multimedia developers who were defecting to Windows, it also is bringing new converts in the door. Furthermore, the same "alpha geeks" who eschewed the Mac as a toy are now snapping up TiBooks, learning Cocoa, and marvelling at how well OS X plays with Open Source tools. This is an example of not only taking care of Apple's core user base, but actually expanding it.
  
  5) THE MAC IS NO LONGER AN ISLAND: As I alluded to in #4, Apple has learned that Macs have to work in mixed environments. And do they ever! OS X runs Windows networks better than Windows, in many cases. It uses widely-accepted protocols, it has become a great Java development platform, and it behaves nicely as a client on any kind of network.
  
  I can understand that you might not like OS X's UI, but that's a subjective comparison. Take that out of the equation, and OS X has OS 9 beat hands down.
  
  Finally, OS 9 was not bringing in converts from the Windows world. OS X is doing that, because it's *so much better* than Windows in so many ways, that even long-time Mac-haters like David Coursey are coming around.
  
  There's no way Apple is going to get rid of OS X, and I for one am glad.

• HAH you have no clue..
  2002-08-07 15:05:31  macwoman [View]
  
  
  Apple declared itself dead when it declared its beloved operating system dead. Get over it. X is a flop because practically NO ONE except a geek, even former Mac experts, even CARE about most of the stuff you listed that X supposedly can do. They have no clue what they are so they don't miss them or want them. Get a grip, X just plain sucks from a user standpoint. Apple has made the fatal mistake of turning its users upon each other with I HATE OS X fights.
  I am plain sick of it, and sick of Apple for abandoning us.
  Sure you have some geeks who are thrilled with the candy coated UNIX, but the "rest of us" are not amused and are awaiting the resurrections and for JOBS to eat humble pie. His company's life depends on it.
  Otherwise, 20% of all Mac users is all he's going to get and that just isn't enough.
  I'm fed up and have gone with PCs.....if I'm going to have the aggravation of the BSOD it may as well be on a computer that someone knows something about.............BAH!
  X just sucks so bad, it makes my stomach turn to look at it.
  BSD and all your other alphabet soup ramblings my butt...who the heck cares?
  Most of us want an OS with the easy fix, and it's NOT X.
  
• HAH you have no clue..
  2003-11-03 11:47:07  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  Macomwna, you don't like OS X, you say you prefer OS 9, so you're switching to Windows? Why not just stick with OS 9?? I mean, if OS X had NEVER come out, would you switch to Windows? Not from the sound of it. So why switch to Windows now? What is it in OS 9 that has changed? Honestly, you don't make much sense.
  
  
  
• HAH you have no clue..
  2002-08-23 11:16:00  zeroaxs [View]
  
  
  As much as you may love OS9, it's kind of like trying to live on a ship that has a 10-foot hole in the bottom of it. It's going to sink no matter how much you love it, or hate the alternative (OSX). It's time to stop raging against the light and embrace it. Development for 9 is going to dry up eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later), and you will be stuck with an OS that doesn't have the functionality you want or the compatibility you need, and all because you are unwilling to let go of some antiquated belief that it is better simply because it is not UNIX-based. I have a saying for that, build a bridge.... and get over it.
• HAH you have no clue..
  2002-08-08 01:28:08  timmyers [View]
  
  
  From this users standpoint OS X is great, a MASSIVE improvement on OS9, frankly from a user perspective OS 9 is a pretty poor UI. OS 9 is creaking at the seams it's old, primitive in it's internal structure and abilities, it's reached the end of the road and Apple knew it would never cope with the future requirements of an OS, tried to rewrite it (remember the Copeland project?) and failed. OSX was the ONLY way that Apple was going to survive and Jobs knew it.
  
  One thing you are right about is that apart from the application toolbar appearing at the top of the screen there is very little traditionally 'mac like' about OSX and I guess that's hard for some people.
  
  Your 'ressurections' aren't going to happen, the installed user base will upgrade to OSX either as the software and or the hardware demands it and OS9 will become just a memory. In the end the OS9 users will be the 20%....or less.
  

• Quark upgrade
  2002-08-07 02:24:27  timmyers [View]
  
  
  Looks like the next version of Quark will be incompatible with most if not all current 3rd party xtensions. Now there's a kick in the teeth for those of you hoping to move to OSX when Quark comes out. Now you'll have to wait until the xtension is carbonized too, AND you'll probably have to pay for it again...

• New constituency
  2002-08-07 01:48:33  jthwaites [View]
  
  
  I am one of the new "open systems" constituency of Apple customers, adding to the home and media constituencies.
  
  I am using Mac OS X with NetBeans on a completely equal footing with my PC-using colleagues to create Java enterprise web apps.
  
  This was impossible with OS 9.
  
  Don't be scared, you 80%, jump in - the water's lovely!

• Pro Change Camp is Missing The Point
  2002-08-06 13:06:36  digitaldoc [View]
  
  
  At least for me the issue is not that I'm technology phobic, but rather that the technology provided by Apple and by the 3rd party vendors whose products I use either prevents useful work in OS X and Classic (e.g., incomplete driver support for printers and scanners)*, or fails to work as well as the OS 9 equivalent (e.g., Filemaker Pro and Virtual PC)*, or is an expensive upgrade for no real benefit (e.g., Photoshop)*.
  
  That's plenty of reason not to upgrade based solely on the merits, not phobias.
  
  Steve
  
  * In my humble opinion.
• Pro Change Camp is Missing The Point
  2002-08-07 02:49:42  timmyers [View]
  
  
  I can see your point (and I'm strongly pro change). 10.2 should address several of the issues with scanning and print that have held some people back. As for FMPro and VPC that's down to them and not Apple to sort out their application issues but they ARE doing it because they recognise they have little if any future in the OS9 versions of their products. At some point most if not all of the new apps and the updates to existing ones will be OSX only and the hardware will only support OS9 with the Classic layer (no booting into OS9). I still think that at least installing OSX on your machines even as a dual boot and getting you and your users familiar with it will pay dividends in the end. You WILL have to switch at some point, Apple will give you no choice and when that happens you may as well hit the ground running rather than trip and fall.
• Pro Change Camp is Missing The Point
  2002-08-07 06:28:41  digitaldoc [View]
  
  
  Good points, all. I have both installed and use OS X, am an "old hand" at various flavors of Unix and I'm running as hard as I can...
  
  Thanks for the comments,
  
  Steve

• What Apple should do
  2002-08-06 11:47:11  pontussorlin [View]
  
  
  I understand your frustration Derrick, and I suppose Apple is feeling it too.
  
  The main point that people aren't switching I think is that they are scared of change.
  
  Apple should do something like this: take a demo and put it on a downloadable disc (you double-click it to download). You double-click on the installation which instals a demo. On the demo you get a real live version of macosx/jaguar, much like an emulator (for example VirtualPC). Let people play around in real-time on their own computer, to explore the things that are only showed on the quicktime movies on the apple site. those quicktime movies won't show the goodness of macosx.
  
  This could show the benefits, which only comes if you are installing or partitioning your HD, which many average users just don't do, simply because that was why they didn't buy a pc.
  
  /Pontus Sörlin
  

• Easier to switch from Windows
  2002-08-06 11:26:53  clvrmnky [View]
  
  
  It seems to me that it is far easier to make the leap from Windows, Linux, UNIX, or BeOS (bless it's little heart) than from "classic" Mac OS to OS X.
  
  I personally can't see the attraction of OS 9, and find it confusing and disorienting when I do have to boot to OS 9 for some reason. That seems to be the rub: "when I have to". Fortunately, I have little reason to leave OS X and, once Emagic Logic Audio is released for OS X, I may never have to again (well, Alpha Centauri plays better in OS 9...).
  
  I understand that a lot of people need OS 9 to get their work done. Either some app isn't OS X ready, or their workflow depends on a long history of OS 9 usage, and can't be (easily) moved to X. I'm guessign this last kind of user will be the hardest to convince.
  
  I agree that Apple needs to do more to encourage this migration away from OS 9. Either with strategic moves like aquiring technology (to make sure that the key app families are covered and supported under OS X), to working with hardware vendors to get drivers out, to making it easy to get OS X into their hands.
  
  The last item suggests that there should have been a more attractive "upgrade" pricing approach to 10.2. Jaguar looks and sounds wonderful, but Apple needs to know that this is the first real release of OS X for many people.
  
  OS X is more of a leap for OS 9 users than us "switchers", it seems. Apple needs to ensure that the pros outweigh the cons. Otherwise, people will stick with what they know works and resist moving to what is (in my not-so-humble opinion) a much superior operating system. Certainly superior to Windows, and (dare I say it) even superior to OS 9.
• Easier to switch from Windows
  2002-08-07 02:53:26  timmyers [View]
  
  
  Absolutely! I have been able to 'switch' my parents and 3 of my friends and get more Macs into my workplace (I'm the IT manager) because of OSX and the ease that people can pick up the user interface. When I used to show OS9 to Win users they hated it and/or found it hard to navigate. Not so with OSX.

• Where are the Updates?
  2002-08-06 02:39:24  kyl [View]
  
  
  I have a Mac OS X partition and definitely prefer it. OS X is amazing! Unfortunately I have to boot into OS 9 too often because some manufacturers are lazy to switch, as Coda and Digidesign in the music/audio market (Finale, ProTools). Do we have to wait until... when, then?
• Where are the Updates?
  2002-08-06 11:29:42  clvrmnky [View]
  
  
  The hard-core music apps have been slow to move to OS X. Not as slow as the publishing apps, but slow enough.
  
  I'm really hoping Apple's aquisition of Emagic will bootstrap the music production into this century. With Reason 2.0 and Logic Audio running natively on OS X, the other vendors will have to reconsider their schedules.
  
  It seemed to work for the video production crowd, anyway.

• Adoption rate is not slow
  2002-08-05 17:12:06  tychay [View]
  
  
  I admit that to me, OS X adoption of 10% seems slow at first.
  
  But when I stopped and think about the life cycle of a typical Macintosh, it is not unusual. My mother used her Macintosh II for 10 years and that is not unusual. She typically bought two (or more) PCs in the same time frame as her mac purchases. I know more people whose latest Mac is a Revision A or Revision B iMac than I know who have a G4. And the questions I've seen people ask at the MicroCenter store within a store stump me: Can they use this archaeic Epson printer with OS X, or what SCSI (!) scanners do they carry. Glad I don't work there. All indicators that the Mac world repleat with people who haven't upgraded their peripherals to USB and Firewire, let alone their OS to OS 9 or OS X.
  
  Everyone talks about the amazing Return On Investment and mean time between upgrades of the Macintosh. The 10% just shows that this hasn't changed. It also shows what an amazing OS OSX is that it can get such a large percentage in only a year. Those of us who remember the switch the PowerPC know what I mean.

• Switch already!
  2002-08-05 16:40:30  derryck [View]
  
  
  I started slowing transitioning during the beta, trashed my linux partitions and installed X, I now have 3 of my 5 machines totally X. The other 2, 7200 and a pb170 can't quite handle it. I've got my copy of X.2 reserved and can't wait to get it. X just gets better and better!!!!

• Apple has out-MS'ed MS.
  2002-08-05 13:39:26  techx [View]
  
  
  I am the technician at a library. Given our limited funds, adopting 10.2 is simply not an option. I can understand paying the full price for a full OS upgrade, as we did from ASIP to OSXS 1.x (which was highway robbery, a very poor OS), and from that to OSXS 10.x. Those were full OS upgrades.
  
  Jaguar is a point upgrade. Yes, it has some nice features, but I don't give a damn about 90% of them, LDAP is about the only thing I like beyond /bug fixes/ for my current OS. And to implement many of those fixes, I will not only have to pay full price for a server OS, but buy a full price desktop OS for every public and staff machine in the library, and we were just getting up to speed upgrading to OSX for the staff.
  
  It may be easy for you to say stop complaining about pricing, and missing features, and poor marketing, but that's reality, pal. I love OSX, and I am dying to run an all-Jaguar network, but it will never happen, short of Apple doing some price cuts or donations (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which donated 4 p4 1.4's and an NT server box to almost every library in the country).
  
  I am aware Apple is moving into the enterprise field (I won't get into that debate), but are they forgetting their academic roots? We have limited budgets, and the folks who actually SUPPORT Apple by buying into their new technology are getting reamed, first by OSXS 1.x, now by Jaguar. I've been burned once, I won't be again.
  
  Our plan for now is to make as many things work as we can under 10.1.5 and then sit it out until 11.x. But we can't forecast very well with Apple's habit of placing NDAs over anything they work on.
  
  And mac fanatics say M$ is bad? Wow.
• Apple has out-MS'ed MS.
  2002-08-06 11:37:49  clvrmnky [View]
  
  
  Doesn't Apple offer multi-user licenses for precisely this kind of situation? My understanding was that you can get 5 or more licenses for academic or enterprise use, and that these licenses often have a special upgrade discount for later releases.
  
  Note that I actually haven't researched this. I just ran across a mention on apple.com.
  
  Of course, it is common practice for larger install bases to hold back from upgrading to the latest/greatest. This is often a wise decision. The main point (in relation to the original article) is that you already have the majority of your machines at OS X.
  
  Upgrade to 10.2 once the kinks have been worked out.
• Apple has out-MS'ed MS.
  2002-08-05 16:53:09  tychay [View]
  
  
  There is an educational price for the OSX upgrade at around $70 which a library might qualify for. For multiple machines I think there are maintenance agreements that will keep your machines up-to-date for years (check Apple for the pricing which I think is based on the number of users: I'm guessin a Library has only one user account for the public).
  
  As for the server OS, if you are using an Apple rack mounted server, I heard the OS X Server upgrade was insanely cheap ($10 or so). I imagine that there is/was some maintenance policy in effect for this software also if you are running it on some other computer.
  
  For the record, I'm not enthusiastic about the pricing. If we are comparing Apple to Microsoft using something like Red Hat as the baseline, we see that in pricing of hardware+OS and upgrade pricing, Apple is closer to the latter than the former. As for the donation of Pentium boxes... well Microsoft makes more in profit that Apple makes, and the connection between Bill and Melinda Gates and Microsoft is no secret: sounds more like a charity being co-opted to further a business end of increased market penetration, than it does out of any good will on the foundation's part. Sad.

• No Airport Software Base Station
  2002-08-05 11:02:39  smaxey [View]
  
  
  That's the deal-stopper for me. I recently installed OS X on a partition on my Powerbook, and I like what I see. but I won't install it on my workhorse desktop machine or anywhere else until Airport for OS X includes the Airport Software Base Station functionality I rely on.
• Some alternatives.
  2002-08-05 16:34:59  tychay [View]
  
  
  If you need to just communicate locally computer to computer, you can by creating a network from the Airport menu.
  
  An Open Source project http://airportswbsx.sourceforge.net/ offers more functionality for OS X 10.1+
  
  Finally, a little blurb in http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ seems to imply that OS X 10.2 Jaguar returns the OS 9 Software Base Station functionality. Hmm, I guess that means you'll be ponying the money up for the upgrade. ;-)
  
  terry
  

• Chicken and egg...
  2002-08-05 10:57:32  digitaldoc [View]
  
  
  As others have said here, OS X is not sufficiently well-supported by outside vendors to make the switch. My specific issues include poor driver support for large format photo-quality printers (Canon S9000 in specific, but also Epson), and high resolution film scanners (Canon and Nikon as well as some SCSI cards). These issues remain, even in Classic mode.
  
  In addition, the cost of upgrades to a marginally improved OS X compatible applications such as Photoshop 7 and a buggy Filemaker Pro are a drawback.
  
  Finally, up 'till now, OS 10 performance in several necessary (and, in some cases, hated) Mac applications has been reported as poor - e.g., Virtual PC. It is not clear that OS 10.2 will provide a solution for these issues as the areas in which speed improvements have been made do not seem to attack the fundamental problems with some of these applications.
  
  In summary, while I applaud the technology and recognize the need to move to a modern OS, the reasons to move have not outweighed the reasons to stay with OS 9.2.2., so far.
  
  Steve

• Low adoption of OSX
  2002-08-05 09:27:25  roland3 [View]
  
  
  
  Hi. There are two main reasons for this slow adoption and I suffer under both. First not everyone is ready to run out and buy a new machine and I for one will not buy a new Mac until the G-5s arrive. I have an 8600 that is infinitely upgradable now that Sonnet is back in the upgrade business after a 3 year hiatus.
  Second reason is tha all of the Hardware makers turned their back on OSX. I'm still waiting for Canon to release a driver for my 1220 Cano Scan Scanner, ( 2 years so far) I sill can't use "the best of the MacWorld 2000" my 3DFX video card, nor can I use anything else that predates OSX. This is the real reason. I for one didn't have the time or the Hard Drive space to load OS 9 and besides I wanted the features of OSX. Thank God for the OWC Unsupported Hardware site or I would not even be using OSX. As it was it took me 4 months to accept Sonnets solution as unworkable and to find X-Facto. Now that I'm up and running I'm worried about Jaguar. The fact that I 'm using only 4 Mb of video ram while my 64 MB video card sits on the shelf collecting dust, and don't say buy a new one for there are no decent ones out there with PCI and OSX drivers. Other wise I'll be set to go with 1 Gig of ram and a 800 Mhz. CPU.

• Get XPress there
  2002-08-05 09:23:00  bradrice [View]
  
  
  I know there are a lot of XPress haters and for good reason. But we really need to get it on OSX for a number of reasons. I utilize a number of Xtensions for variable data publishing. One, DesignMerge is a $2,500 extension. We use it and Xdata, Xtags in our company. I would love to move us to OS X, but unfortunately these software titles are slowed by XPress not moving to it.
  
  I am running OS X at home, and I love it. It is an awesome system. I do, however, think Apple has punished early users. I have submitted a number of bug reports, have brought the system into my place of employment in part, and have led others to it. Now Apple wants me to pony up another $129 for the upgrade. Is this like a full version number jump? Even that usually would cost in the $89 range in the past.
  
  Brad Rice

• It's simple; Change or Die
  2002-08-05 07:45:44  timmyers [View]
  
  
  Why should you change? Because OS9 is a blind alley, a dead end, the end of the evolution of that code base.
  
  Sure you can stick with it but you're going nowhere, there will be no more OS9 upgrades, the rest of the Mac world will leave you dead in the dust in a few months as OSX becomes the only bootable OS that new Mac hardware will support.
  
  OSX is the future and the future is now, you need to get up to speed with it and you need to do it asap before the learning curve gets steeper. When OSX came out I downloaded all those little utils that make it more like OS9, today I'm not using a single one and having to use a machine with OS9 is so alien it's as bad as using Windows. Hell I don't even have OS9 on my PowerBook anymore.
  
  It's Quark and their ilk that need a solid kick up the backside for dragging their feet over carbonizing Xpress and breaking the Apple programming guidelines so their stuff runs poorly in Classic.
  
  I'm an IT manager for a design and manufacturing company, we have 15 G4 towers. I have OSX loaded on every single Mac that will support it and I have my users getting used to running it 24/7 and only booting back into OS9 to run Quark, and soon that will be over as we move to InDesign because Quark won't get it's act together fast enough. We DO have bureaus that will take InDesign files and they will be getting our business.
  
  Evolution? It's a tough thing for some to accept but for those who do the future is bright, very bright indeed.
• It's simple; Change or Die
  2002-08-07 15:10:44  macwoman [View]
  
  
  YOU WISH. Apple will be dead because of this nonsense faster than 9 will become unusable. What you should have said was, Change or Apple will die....and most of us won't because X is the hockey puck of operating systems and we all wish it would wither on the vine and die die DIE!!!!!!!!!!!
• It's simple; Change or Die
  2002-08-08 04:39:48  timmyers [View]
  
  
  I doubt it. OS 9 will be dead and burried long before Apple bites the dust and no I don't beleive that most people wish OS X would die, quite the opposite, most of us have been hoping for a stable modern OS from Apple for quite some time and now they are delivering it. It's apparent that YOU don't like it, well there are alternative platforms out there, perhaps one of them would suit you better. Change can be hard to accept and it's clear that OS X isn't for everyone but it will suit the vast majority of Mac users just fine.
• It's simple; Change or Die
  2002-08-06 11:40:38  clvrmnky [View]
  
  
  Don't forget semi-pro music production. There are very few real choices for the post-hardware musician. Here's to hoping that Apple's aquisition of Emagic get's _that_ sorted out.
• It's simple; Change or Die
  2002-08-07 02:38:49  timmyers [View]
  
  
  I'm in full agreement here. Shame that ProTools isn't further along the route to OSX compatibility though. Apple saw a hole in the fabric and patched it by buying Logic. That should help spur Steinberg along to get Cubase SX out the door 1st quarter 2002 and get those audio/midi apps flowing ;-)

• Mail.app not grown up yet.
  2002-08-05 06:10:48  seiz [View]
  
  
  > Mail.app: This is probably the real reason that Microsoft is ticked off;
  > Mail.app in Jaguar is better than Entourage. It's more stable, has much better
  > junk mail filters, and it integrates with Apple's online services.
  
  Hi Derrick,
  
  enjoyed reading your comments about jaguar, but what you said about mail.app doesn't seem correct (depending on what you want from a mail-client).
  
  First let me assure you, I'd be the first to switch from Entourage to Mail.app if it really would be better. Heck I'd even have switched to Mulberry (surely the best imap client arround) if it had a decent GUI.
  
  What I think keeps me from switching to mail.app are some bare-bones features which it is lacking (already filed to bugreporter long ago) which I can't understand how apple could overlook them.
  
  1) Everybody has multiple Email Accounts nowadays. Mail.app supports multiple Accounts, but is *can't tie a ddefault signature to an account*, so I end up having to manually select a signature depending on the account I use for sendin. Quite a showstopper for me!
  
  2) In days of IMAP (which even .Mac supports), the *INBOX* isn't anymore the only pplace to look for new emails. Mails often get filtered on the Mail-Server already and are already filed into various IMAP-Folders on the Server. Mail.app doesn't account for it. When you setup a Schedule to check for new mail Every XX Minutes, all it's doing is checking your INBOX. So you end up having to click on other FOLDERS manually to get Maik.app to check for new messages in these folders as well. Quite timeconsuming.
  This LACK has even gor worse with the Jaguar Release of Mail.app since they implemented the GREAT (ooohhh) Idea of grouping ALL INBOXES of ALL your Accounts together. Again, most of my new mail doesn't arrive in my INBOX (I might be a special case here) and I am sure lot's of other people use email in a similar way nowadays.
  
  These are my biggest show stoppers (I also got Jaguar already during WWDC).
  
  Then there are minor issues lot's of people have difficulties with - as for instance when looking at your Mail in Listview, not to be able to identify if a message has an attachment or not. With mail.app, you can only guess if an email has an attachment (in listview) by guessing it by filesize.
  Viewing attachemts (as PDF or Quicktime) inline is nice, but some people are not clever enough to realize, that to extract such an attachment is a matter of DRAG-AND-DROP. This is a nice example of how a FEATURE can be implemented *too easy for the masses*...
  
  I'll stop now, as you're really not responsible for mail.app after all, I just had to comment on your statement that Mail.app is a Killer Feature of Jaguar because in my Opinion, Mail.app isn't yet a grown up email client to be used in day to day heavy email-usage.
  
  Oh, and I would have really appreciated if apple spent more time with "Speed Issues" insead of deveoping yet another instant messenger client or alike gimmicks (allthough I understand they needed something to demo randezvous) ;-)
  
  Cheers
  Stefan
• Mail.app not grown up yet. -- But getting close
  2002-08-05 08:11:57  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Hi Stefan, yes, yes, good points from a man who knows what he wants in his email client :)
  
  I think Mail.app will continue to evolve in the directions you mentioned. But I do like the current version more that you do. I think some of it is personal taste. For instance, I like being able to choose from my set of signatures regardless of which account I'm using.
  
  You didn't mention the new junk mail filter, which is outstanding, especially during the current spam invasion we're enduring. And unlike Entourage, I haven't heard of a case where Mail.app mysteriously crashed and vaporized all the mail. Beware of the Entourage database.
  
  As for speed, it was one of my three "must have" requests from Apple in my open letter.
  
  Thanks for your comments!

• Apple not supporting OS X
  2002-08-05 05:23:19  edwin_van_spronsen [View]
  
  
  I'd love to upgrade to OS X but one of the applications I'm critically dependent on is still not native.
  
  Which application that is? It's Apple's Quicktime VR Authoring Studio.
  
  So apparently Apple itself considers the number of OS X users too small to do a port.
  
  Edwin van Spronsen

• Quark is a delaying factor
  2002-08-05 05:20:20  dennishenley [View]
  
  
  Until QuarkXPress goes native I don't see the majority of Mac design users making the switch to OS X.
  
  Sure, they can switch to InDesign. InDesign does everything better than Quark. And you can find a service bureau that will take your InDesign files instead of Quark, even if that means switching a relationship you've have for several years.
  
  But, if you've got a decades worth of work in Quark, it's going to take a pretty big push to get you to switch.
  
  I work in the prepress department of a big midwestern printer and we don't get a lot of InDesign files. The ones we have received often give us problems (font and color issues mostly). InDesign 2 is a vast improvement over version 1, but there are still some kinks to work out. And the bigggest problem is that our imagesetter company, Creo/Scitex, hasn't really updated its ripping software to deal with InDesign.
  
  That's a major consideration. When a company spends the megabucks it takes to bring Creo into a shop and Creo has built their equipment around support for Quark, it's had to be motivated to change even if a lot of customers are demanding that change. Creo blames Adobe for not giving them the technical information soon enough to be able to incorporate changes into their equipment. In any case it leaves service providers in the middle with customers interested in changing to a new program and not being able to because the service providers have equipment that isn't fully compliant with the new software. A case in point: the transparency features in Illustrator which will choke a rip.
  
  Until all players are on the same field, it's going to take time to change.
  
  Dennis E. Henley
  Chicago, IL

• Good Comments, Keep it Going
  2002-08-04 23:15:45  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Gee, I feel so much closer to many of you after this article ...
  
  I just posted a weblog titled An Open Letter to Apple about Jaguar where I listed three of the primary suggestions culled from these talkbacks, MacSlash comments, and mail I've received directly.
  
  You can augment my weblog by adding a talkback if there's something you want to add, or if you think I've missed the point all together.
  
  In the meantime, let's keep this discussion going until we've covered all the relevant points.
  
  Thanks,
  
  -- Derrick

• Hardware, Hardware, and then Hardware...
  2002-08-04 20:43:44  jriskin [View]
  
  
  I think we are we forgetting a few things
  
  1. Millions of users cannot run OS X on their current hardware.
  2. For millions of users it would be so painfully slow if they even tried.
  3. For millions of people there is no benifit.
  
  OS X on a 266Mhz iMac is painful. OS X will NOT run on pre-G3 hardware. There are probably millions of 604e and 603e based machines out there running various verson of os7-9 who are happily running there checkbook balancing software, email software and some light browsing just fine.
  
  I run OS X on my desktop and OS9 on my G4 laptop. I like them both, but innovation is not necessarily everyones primary goal, advocation of an OS isn't for everyone, some people just want to USE there computers and not worry about it. Many Mac users bought there machines for just that reason, they didn't want to get caught up in the upgrade crazy PC world where if you don't upgrade ever year none of your hardware is supported.
  
  So I for one am not surprised at the adoption rate of OS X, nor do I think it should happen at any other rate! I think that during the natural course of its development that at each stage users will get on board as they finally find that they would like to have new features and they will probably buy new hardware. This way they wouldn't even need to pay to upgrade, it comes with the new computers.
  
  I think pussyfooting around is the right thing to do for most users.
  
  Apple can go ahead and try and force innovation, it makes more sense for the bottom line, but it doesn't make sense for the users.
  
  Too bad it doesn't make economic sense to ever finish a piece of software.

• We're not pussyfooting--we'd like coherent documentation!
  2002-08-04 19:19:21  dfedoruk [View]
  
  
  What is lacking in OS X at the present time is any coherent documentation of the operating system. Training courses cost thousands of dollars and only recently have been made available. There is an example administration exam who's answers I can only guess at. Apple hasn't given clear answers about anything. Apple has spewed TONS of hype and little technical information. Having worked in the music retail busines at one point I've learned to be VERY warry of smoke and mirrors. While I'm quite sure OS 10.1 and 10.2 will be good. I'd like documnetation. Netinfo is a prime example! Surely the least us users are entitled to is some decent documentation and not just fragmentary knowledgebae documents.
  
  David Fedoruk

• Newbie comp users CAN learn OS X
  2002-08-04 12:06:23  cyradisbc [View]
  
  
  I'd like to respond to some of the few that weren't, that invoke the "clueless AOL" user type.
  
  My sister picked out her first computer with my help at Christmas. (Think "clueless AOL user" squared.) She now has a spiffy G4 tower that I want to steal. She asked about OS X, and my advice to her was that since she didn't know that much about OS 9, she might as well take the plunge into OS X, because there was no point in getting a better understanding of 9. Just USING the comptuer for extended amounts of time was new to her.
  
  She's gotten a handle on it VERY quickly. It's only crashed once, and she was able to fix it with her copy of OS X for dummies.
  
  As far as what home users want-there's no reason why new users won't be using OS X. Basic apps are all there (I'd think they'd want to start shipping AppleWorks with comps again if they can, since Office costs so much) when you install, that out-of-the-box easiness a lot of new macintosh users want is there. Making this this shipping OS was one of the smartest things Apple has done.
  
  My sister to date loves her Macintosh, and has converted her fiancee, who converted just through using her new tower. It works well for her, despite her lack of knowledge--while the primary attraction for switching to OS X is geekiness right now, there's also the desire on the part of new users to just learn one system. This is currently part of what's hurting Apple, but will eventually take off because new computers ship with OS X installed.
  
  I think the average user will be more at home in OS X than most of us think. The trick then becomes proving that.

• Leap for whose sake?
  2002-08-04 11:21:11  photomacker [View]
  
  
  Derrick, although your enthusiasm for this "leap" is inspired by something worth it, most of the unsupportive comments have their points.
  Unfortunately,that alone kills the practical value of your proposition. There obviously are valid reasons for not buying a copy of Jaguar now, period.
  
  I think we would all agree that Jaguar is an awesome OS and definitely worth more than $130, before we factor in other issues. But when the question becomes "why not upgrade now?" there is no shortage for answers, and even our huge sympathy for Apple won't make 'em go away.
  
  I'm a Mac fan, perhaps even a fanatic. But then, I guess I'm not young enough to be blinded by fanatism. I've had OSX on a partition from day one with no use for it (well, it was quite useless and even annoying in the beginning). I kept it up to date by paying but still could find no use for it. I have a feeling 10.2 is a release that I could finally use, but I no longer want to pay before making sure. $130 is not much for a "real release" of MacOS X, but it's quite a chunk if it'll keep sitting in a partition and I don't see any creativity in that.
  
  I can see why a Windoze convert or unix geek would be so crazy for X, but MacOS 9 has never been something to run away from for me (and it wasn't for any Mac user until the advent of X. Suddenly 9 is a horrible system to run?). Yes it occasionally crashes while running Explorer, but not while I'm retouching 130 + Mb image files and FTPing stuff at the same time (I'm a freelance photographer).
  
  Now I sure would still love to have multi tasking and protected memory. I love X's built in PDF capabilities and it's gorgeous eye-candy (although I'm not sure which is better: eye candy or full stereo sound effects for interaction). I totally beleive in the power and future of X.
  
  Today, 10.1.5 not only feels but also is sluggish on a G4 400 (and anyone who claims otherwise is full of it), does not run the software I already have natively, is not as intuitive and easily accessible as 9, is missing many essential features (like displaying the number of items in a folder, or revealing the original of an alias, etc.)
  
  As that reveals, the promise of 10.2 is quite irrelevant to my expectations. As a matter of fact I couldn't care less about GCC3.1, CUPS, PPTP,LDAP, and BLAH and BLAH and BLAH even though I'm sure those are great things and am glad to hear they're available if needed. Thus, unless I see 10.2 running as lively as 9.2 on a comparable machine it will be hard to justify spending for it AGAIN.
  
  There probably is a lot of freelancers in my position, for whom it will not make sense to leap anywhere until new machine and software purchases are due.
  
  
• Leap for whose sake?
  2002-08-05 09:39:10  sootmann [View]
  
  
  PM, I have one tip that should make your day--
  "...is missing many essential features (like displaying the number of items in a folder..."
  Hidden, but there: with a Finder window open, go to the 'View' menu and choose 'Show Status Bar'. Bam! Number of items and disk space, if applicable.
  
• Leap for whose sake? Well, Good News
  2002-08-04 13:27:31  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  I understand all of your points, but only have time to respond to one: speed.
  
  I was doing some work yesterday in my studio and had a couple Macs going at once. I was having a problem with a new memory card reader that was supposed to "work with all computers" and was working with none.
  
  I decided to fire up the PowerBook G3 400MHz (Pismo) which has Jaguar loaded on one partition to see it the memory card reader would work with it.
  
  A Mac user who owns a 600 MHz iBook running 10.1.5 was watching over my shoulder and remarked out of the blue about how fast the G3 Pismo was behaving -- faster than the 600 MHz running 10.1.5.
  
  I usually don't tell people which machine has Jaguar on it because of the NDA, but in light of these discussions I just couldn't resist.
  
  The speed improvement was noticeable to this Mac user on a 400MHz machine. Will it be fast enough for you? I don't know. But I certainly think it's worth taking a look.

• What is causing the "Switch"...
  2002-08-03 18:08:56  matthewmajka@mac.com [View]
  
  
  OS 9 user's may not care for some of the changes in OS X, but I can tell you from personal experience that OS X is the reason people are switching to the Mac from Windows. I know half a dozen Windows people who have bought new Macs and trashed their Wintel boxes and it wasn't the pretty color of the machines that sold them. I also know of one gov't space research facility that is replacing some Sun servers with the new Xserve. This never would have happened without OS X.
• What is causing the "Switch"... But Why?
  2002-08-04 01:22:48  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  My personal observations are consistent with your comment. Most of the people I know who have moved to Mac OS X lately have come from Windows, not earlier versions of Mac OS.
  
  So what's going on here? As you can tell from these talkbacks many traditional Mac users are really quite upset over the whole Mac OS X thing, yet new users from Windows seem to be having a pretty good time.
• What is causing the "Switch"... But Why?
  2002-08-04 17:23:54  dogzilla [View]
  
  
  Derrick - I think you're misinterpreting the tone of the responses. After reading through all the posts here, I certainly don't feel that the Mac users here are "really quite upset"...rather many of them aren't convinced that the benefits of OSX outweigh the disadvantages of upgrading. Those disadvantages can be something as serious as the expense associated with updating (and even $130 forJaguar, $60 for RAM, and the time and hassle of installing both *are* quite significant for many, never mind the added cost of updating Photoshop, Illustrator, MMX Studio, BBEdit, etc. etc.)
  
  This doesn't mean that they're upset - it just means that OSX isn't that important. And many of these people take the (appropriate) view that there's no need to spend upgrade money if your current tool works very well and there's no personally perceivable advantage to the replacement.
  
  Personally, I use OSX full-time on my 300mhz G3 WallStreet. It's plenty fast for me - I've never inderstood the ppl who complain about speed. But OSX makes sense for me, since I'm a web developer. I have MS Office to do my business work, and Studio MX, Photoshop, and BBEdit for development. My big advantage is that I can replicate my production environment (Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc.) on my laptop and not be tied to the office anymore.
  
  However, for most other people, the advantages are less clear. And to argue that it is our duty to upgrade to support Apple...well, to say I disagree is to put it mildly. If Apple can't deliver what the market wants at a reasonable price, then it will (and should) fail. Their failure will open a niche and a smart competitor will step in and deliver a better product. Apple is an inhteresting company, but it's just a company like any other, and their products are tools like any others. Being religiious about your tools is to put your focus and effort in the worng place: it's what you create with the tools that's important, not the tool sitself.
• What is causing the "Switch"... A Few are Upset :)
  2002-08-04 23:09:16  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Hi, Actually a lot of Mac users are upset. They don't like the change to Mac OS X. They don't like the pressure Apple is putting on them to switch. And they certainly don't like the costs involved. A lot of the mail sent directly to me reflects this. And I see it in some of the talkbacks too.
  
  There's nothing wrong with that. In fact it's a good way to find out what's really on people's minds.
  
  I do agree though, that for some folks, they just don't care. And that's OK too :)

• The top ten.
  2002-08-03 17:36:28  mmurray [View]
  
  
  I've got my 10.2 on order and I'll be at the shop as soon as its open. But thats because I like having the latest thing. If I was making a more rational assessment of the top ten it would be:
  
  Ten Superb Jaguar Features
  
  1.
  
  Fast Finder: Yes, there will be spring-loaded folders (who says Apple doesn't listen ;) ), but the real news is that the Jaguar Finder has been rewritten, and it's sweet.
  
  *** This would justify it alone for me - but my works pays the fee for the new system so its not so hard to buy it.
  
  2.
  
  Mail.app: This is probably the real reason that Microsoft is ticked off; Mail.app in Jaguar is better than Entourage. It's more stable, has much better junk mail filters, and it integrates with Apple's online services.
  
  ** I use Eudora. This does nothing for me.
  
  3.
  
  Rendezvous: Apple's branding for Zero Configuration Networking is the most exciting networking thing I've seen since AirPort.
  
  ** I thought this would do nothing until other hardware adapted. Its a great idea I have missed being able to plug into an appletalk network and join the internet. Our local IT people will hate it as it will mean a loss of control.
  4.
  
  Integration of FreeBSD 4.4 and GCC 3.1 into Darwin: This is real Unix, and it just got better with Jaguar.
  
  ** I guess this is good.
  5.
  
  Common UNIX Print System (CUPS) for print sharing: Uses Internet Printing Protocol to manage print jobs and queues, but supports other protocols too, including SMB.
  
  ** Ditto
  
  6.
  
  Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP): Apple wrote their own PPTP implementation that includes IPsec. Macs can now easily access secure Windows servers. And it's built right in the OS.
  
  ** Won't use it.
  
  7.
  
  Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 3.0 (LDAP): Jaguar includes LDAP 3.0, which is an upgrade from 10.1's LDAP 2.0
  
  ** Doesn't excite me.
  8.
  
  Quartz Extreme: Uses OpenGL to improve graphic performance. If you have a new Mac, it really improves performance.
  
  ** Doesn't run on my Powerbook G$ 400 Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  
  9.
  
  Address Book: Becomes your core database for contact management that can be used throughout Jaguar and by any Jaguar-savvy application. At last, one address database that works with all of your applications.
  
  ** I use Personal Organiser.
  10.
  
  
  QuickTime 6: Incorporates Mpeg 4 and AAC audio for state-of-the-art multimedia. Have you seen the Mpeg 4 demo?
  
  ** I have already downloaded QT 6 and watched the
  KeyNote with it.
  
  Michael
  
• The top ten. -- I like em!
  2002-08-04 01:01:41  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Hey, these are ten things that I think are cool about Mac OS X. You could ask 30 beta testers and get 30 different lists. That's the fun of it. I'm not saying that my 10 have to do it for you. But I did want to add some substance to my advocacy so as not to be one of those windbags that's nothing more than hot air ...
• The top ten. -- not enough!
  2002-08-05 13:42:32  techx [View]
  
  
  There are some good features, but it's not a new OS. It's not ASIP -> OSX 1.x or OSX 1.x -> OSX 10.x. Period.
  
  I don't pay money for NT service packs.

• what is the user base like ?
  2002-08-03 17:30:15  mmurray [View]
  
  
  I was interested in your comment:
  
  
  If you would have told me a year ago that we would have an OS as good as 10.1, plus all of these vital applications, and only a 20 percent conversion rate, I would have told you that you just don't know the Mac community
  
  Is their public data available on what the mac user base looks like? Until you can see that its pointless to argue about who should or shouldn't convert and whether 20% is a good number or bad. I know lots of people who would never upgrade their system until they buy a new machine. They probably don't even realise you can up grade your system. Then there are those who vaguely know its possible but last time they did it to Mac OS 9 so many little app's and extensions they used broke and they don't want to go through that again. Who are the users ?
  
  (1) The ones who will never convert until a new machine ? How many are these ?
  
  (2) The home power users, running home or small businesses. How many are these ? These are probably persuadable.
  
  (3) The people using macs run by a central IT service. Here you have to convert the central IT people.
  
  Unless you know the percentages its hard to assess how much you could improve the present conversion rate. You also need to know the rate at which people turn over machines. I think that will drive a lot of the coversions.
  
  Michael
• what is the user base like ?
  2002-08-05 11:47:55  antman [View]
  
  
  Apple's userbase has tons of people with old machines that are impossible to upgrade to OS X. One of Apple's problems on this point is that they chose to have it run only on new machines. My question is, what percent of the userbase are old machines? There are a lot of people that have old Macs and would probably buy a pc for their next computer. Apple needs to woo them back.
• what is the user base like ? I have some ideas
  2002-08-04 01:07:36  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  You're right, there will always be users who don't upgrade. That's cool and I wish I could lead a life so simple.
  
  But there are many people, IMHO, who would really enjoy Mac OS X if they gave it a chance. Every day there's something new to discover, and it's quite fun.
  
  As for measuring how many are really using the new OS, I propose that software sales are a good indicator. Look at those numbers, and you probably will get a good idea of how many are using OS X seriously.

• I've Switched frm Wintel to OS9 and beyond
  2002-08-03 15:32:47  GPolich [View]
  
  
  I recently switched both my home and office machines to Mac G4 tower at home; G4 Powerbook at work. Started with OS 9 moved to 10 then 10.1 at work. *I will* move to 10.2 (Jaguar) when 24 Aug comes around. The price is worth it!
  
  I had been waiting lo these many years to switch, but because of work (a truly Wintel environment) could not easily do so without both file compatiblity with co-workers and ability to connect to Win LAN servers.
  
  OS X made connections easy; MS Office made file compatiblity easy; Jaguar makes the LAN connections easier and adds the LDAP I need.
  
  My only criticism is that I would like to get away completely from MS dependency. So my wish list is for OpenOffice to be truly file compatible with MS Office and for someone, anyone, to make a mail client compatible, connectable, with MS Exchange (tm) Server which is what my company insists on using.
  
  I switched and glad I did! We have also switched a couple of other machines at work and intend to switch a few more.

• You can get 10.2 for $69 from Apple; it costs too much at $129
  2002-08-03 13:20:18  kcar [View]
  
  
  Hi Derrick,
  
  I’d agree that Jaguar is a big deal and hope it succeeds, but I can’t see buying it for $129. At the bottom of my piece, I reveal how some (a lot?) of folks can buy Jaguar for $69. It might not be the most ethical route, but Apple’s policies seem to allow this discounted route.
  
  But first, I’d like to chip in with my thoughts...
  
  I realize that 10.2 is a big step. Most of your readers do too, Derrick, but I have to agree with the person in pre-press work that your top-10 list of reasons to upgrade don’t grab people as essential reasons. A lot of Jaguar highlights are under-the-hood improvements. Apple does such a good job of insulating the average user from these Unix underpinnings that s/he couldn’t be bothered about LDAP, PPTP, GCC or CUPS. Your piece really should have explained just what the hell these things will do for us unwashed newbies.
  
  Will these under-the-hood improvements make the average computing experience any better or easier? Why should the average user care? If you bought a new car, would you be willing to pay extra for features you’d never or rarely use?
  
  It’s great that Apple has made these improvements, but it reminds me of the problem that MS Office v.X faces. Carbonization of that uber-app was great, but there aren’t enough features that really impact the work experience of the average user. Jaguar and Office v. X are big steps, yes, but they’re mainly under-the-hood adaptations to a new OS. Many users don’t feel that they offer enough new end-user features to justify their high prices.
  
  Apple has a tendency to charge too much for its new products and services--almost as if there’s a surcharge for its being such a design-and-interface oriented company. The iPods apparently are selling quite well--but do you realize that a 20GB model costs as much as a higher-end PDA, and more than a 19” CRT or 15” LCD?
  
  You (Derrick) see all the work that Apple has put into making Jaguar what is and say that the price is justified. I remember that previous Apple upgrades didn’t cost this much, and note that Apple seems to have its hand out for each big upgrade. I also, like any rational consumer, try to think about what other things I could buy for $129 and compare their desirability with an OS X upgrade. I conclude that the price for Jaguar is excessive.
  
  Part of Apple’s problem is that the timing is wrong. Folks had pay to upgrade to 10.1 (which essentially made OS X usable), and now they’ll have to pay $129 to jump to 10.2 shortly after. If I started out at 10.0, I’d be leery of paying for each new upgrade. And Jobs announced in the same speech that iTools was now going to cost $100/year. People are still getting used to the idea of paying for services on a subscription basis. They’re not going to also keep paying $100-$130 for these periodic OS upgrades, especially when they’re hunkering down economically.
  
  I’d like to respond to two of your comments posted in this thread:
  
  > I'm astonished at the lack of creativity expressed in some of the comments.
  
  Expand on this, Derrick. What sort of comment would you consider creative? Mac users are looking at this from a dollar and cents point of view--one that seems to be a little more in vogue these days, after the .com bust, 9/11, WorldCom/Enron outrages, and a yo-yoing stock market. What do you want you want from your readers--comments like, “If I shut my eyes tight and just do it, it won’t hurt so much and it’ll really, really help Apple” or “Hey, it’s only 35 cents a day for a year”?? Most users are just running their own machines, not entire fleets of Macs--hence the all-or-nothing attitude.
  
  >True, it would be nice if it (Jaguar) were a free upgrade, but the customer numbers just aren't there yet.
  
  Oh, come on! This is all-or-nothing thinking on *your* part. Do you and Apple really expect customers to make OS X an entirely self-sustaining project? Apple clearly still has to sell this operating system to people. Lower the price a bit and subsidize OS development from hardware sales or somewhere else. The way I see it, it’s more important to get boost OS X adoption than to make money off of it right now. Let the OS X tree grow and flourish a little bit before harvesting the fruit so heavily.
  
  Apple definitely is at a crossroads, and needs to encourage people to adopt OS X. It’s simply asking too much money in the eyes of a lot of people. I imagine there’d be a lot less kvetching if this were 1998, or if Apple lowered the price tomorrow to $89 or $99.
  
  Oh yeah--you can buy Jaguar for US $69--as an academic purchase. I called 1-800-My-Apple, and the company seems to be pretty relaxed about its qualifying criteria. If you’re not in academia, ask a teacher or student to buy Jaguar for you. If this route makes you morally queasy, wait until Amazon or someone else offers a rebate again
• You can get 10.2 for $69 from Apple; it costs too much at $129
  2002-08-06 11:50:05  clvrmnky [View]
  
  
  The academic purchase only seems to qualify in the US (at least not in Canada). It just seems odd that Apple would not offer some kind of tired-pricing schedule.
  
  All this suggests is that people will find ways to create their own discounts. This is unfortunate, as it ends up punishing the truly honest.
• You can get 10.2 for $69 -- Few Thoughts
  2002-08-04 00:56:45  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Hi, just a couple notes on your comments ...
  
  First of all, Apple can take care of itself. I get a great kick out of folks who believe my advocating for Mac OS X is a charity drive for Cupertino. Fact of the matter is I'm more concerned about the developers being asked to drop all OS 9 development and switch to OS X without an ample customer base.
  
  As for a little more creativity as part of this discussion, I think your $69 upgrade idea is a perfect example of what I'm asking for here. Nice tip.

• OS X's Adoption
  2002-08-03 09:46:39  MrsMoore [View]
  
  
  Just a short note to say that I bought my Mac only because of the release of OS X and the developer tools that came along with it "as standard". I do love the GUI and all the media applications that came with it, but it's what's under the hood and how it's all been put together that I find really exciting.
  
  I think OS X is great for people that want to develop software and want to work in the "open" environment. I can download loads of UNIX software source code and build it locally, such as GNU software and binaries such as MySQL are turning up on Web sites more and more. For me Java software development is a breeze and with a 1.3 SDK installed as part of OS' architecture I have very little problems having fun developing software that can be used on other platfroms as well.
  
  In the past I looked at buying a Mac but never got a warm feeling that I'd be able to do what I wanted to do with it. I think the last time I booted up into OS 9 was about two months ago and that was only to check software update!
  
  Bill

• Nice analisys BUT...
  2002-08-03 05:31:45  luketypefaces [View]
  
  
  Derrick,
  thanks for your analisys, it is nice to see that there is people appreciating OSX. I am an OSX customer since day one, and I played with Jaguar too on a friend developers machine. Jaguar is great. The problems with Apple are more complicated than a 129$ fee fro jaguar.
  
  1) Hardware: expensive and behind PC competitors. Don't know what Apple plans to do, but if switching architecture (to intel/AMD, the only switch that will make sense) that will upset developers and customers (not counting expensive multiple CPU support), if not they should develop, without Motorola, a PPC cpu, that will be costly too and translates in very high HW prices....
  
  2) Developers: a lot of apps are missing because developers are not interested very much in OSX. Since Mac advent typographic design was an Apple field, today no Font Design Apps are on X, and Apple doesn't care. Yes it is a small nice but a prestigious one. Same with Xpress. Lot's of customers are really upset for this absence.
  As for Font design app, Apple should develop a great iFont app, it doesn't should be that difficult and will gain a lot of prestige.
  
  3) Customers: it is increasingly difficult to convert ppl to Mac platform. I try to do it all the time, but I cannot explain anymore why ppl should change theyr favorite platform (Windows), to a new one that has slower machines, less software, expensive hardware... switching campaign is not enough...
  
  Obviously thre are lot more points, but I tried to simplify. Sorry form my bad english.
  Regards,
  Luca Panaro (Italy)
  

• Why many mac users are relectant to switch
  2002-08-03 04:06:53  djfern [View]
  
  
  Okay, I think I can shed a little light on this issue, being a graphic designer and knowing enough people doing similar work.
  
  First of all, I've switched. I switched WAY back on the day it came out. My problems have been few, but I am admittedly a lot more tech saavy and adventurous than your average mac creative.
  
  5 reasons why folks I know haven't switched from os 9:
  
  1) Many are still using 8.6 or 9.xx. They are suspicious, almost superstitious folks who believe if they're computer is running well, and their software is up-to-date enough to get through the printer's, then there's really no reason to learn how to drive again. They're comfortable, busy and don't have the time to learn something new, even if it is remarkably better. These are folks who learned their trade using wax machines, knives and paste-up boards - they know little about their macs and like it that way, as long as it works.
  
  
  2) Costs. Upgrading to OSX does mean for most people, buying a new machine, a requirement that Apple obviously had in mind. Though most would love new machines, they often don't have the power to do this themselves, and need to either convince a purchaser or justify for themselves spending 10-12 grand on new hardware and software. My experience with older designers, like late 30's and up, is that they use their macs until they are obsolete. Then they go all the way with new gear to last them another 5-7 years.
  
  3) Quark is the publishing industry standard, as much as it drives me nuts. Though it works fine in classic mode (though much slower), the fact that it is not yet carbonized and that some major publishing industry leaders have expressed concerns about OS X, are both reasons why people will hesitate. No one i know actually LIKES using os 9 in classic mode, and until they can go ALL OSX, they'd rather not bother.
  
  4) The folks I know doing video and TV / documentary work are a particularly suspicious crowd, probably stemming from the voodoo needed to make legacy AVID systems work right. Though most of the people i know are now using Final Cut in some capacity (and loving it), again, they're familiar with os 9, are busy, and won't switch till they have to. That and many of they're little plug'ins and one-timers aren't available on os x, or will take a significant amount of time to regather and get they're systems configured the same way as in os x. That time and bother alone is a reason to stay with what works.
  
  5)Finally, and I think this is a biggy, many artists and creative folks doing higher to high end work really are waiting for the holy grail. We're well aware of the discrepancy in speed between macs and pcs and have been waiting and will likely wait until Apple releases some next-generation, kick-ass, compelling hardware. ipods and itunes alone won't do it.
  
  And to wrap up, I suspect that Apple already knows it has the creative market pretty well tied up. It is focussing on exciting those customers about the future and putting it's real energy into the consumer market where it stands to make the largest short-term gains. The creative fields will fall in line over the next few years as software makers (and Apple) give them more compelling reasons to upgrade.
  
  djf.
  
  
• Why many mac users are relectant to switch
  2002-08-04 00:51:33  geertdeg [View]
  
  
  Your 3rd reason makes sense! Although I hate Quark and there ridiculous custumer support and expensive updates, I couldn't convince many users to use InDesign. That's the great problem: if everyone should be prepared to use InDesign, no one in the graphics industry should hesitate to make the switch.
  I'm working for an advertising agency and we just can't deliver our InDesign-files to the printers, they simply refuse it! Some print shops or service bureaus use beige G3's to make films or plates, InDesign simply runs too slow on this hardware. And why should they replace their old G3 for those few InDesign users? Our only solution is to export our work as a Certified PDF-document to get it published. But the real problem with this is that is almost not editable by the print shop (and most of the times most clients do last-minute correction, which require access to the layout application). It's not as simply as many people think: we can not simply choose a print shop or service bureau who accepts InDesign files; sometimes our clients choose the print shop and service bureau.
  
  I said it already elsewhere: most print shops are just too lazy to learn a new OS and InDesign, which is the better application than Quark XPress. There's also another last reason for the graphic designer to stay at OS9: when Adobe carbonized Acrobat, they didn't do the same for the important Distiller-application. The Enfocus PitStop plug-in - which is used for Certified PDF - also doesn't work when Acrobat is running in OSX native mode. It's amazing how many users here consider the OS9-stayers as old-fashioned people, but we really have just no other choice to stay at 9.
• Why many mac users...not all OS 9 old fashioned
  2002-08-05 07:55:08  ethanbrand [View]
  
  
  >>It's amazing how many users here consider the OS9-stayers as old-fashioned people, but we really have just no other choice to stay at 9.
  
  I don't believe *all* OS 9'ers are old-fashioned. Many have legitimate reasons for staying where they are. But there is also a crowd that refuses to go for many just plain stubborn reasons. Those are the old-fashioned ones.
  
  Yet, there is a bottom line to be considered. This post thread mentioned people who don't have the time to switch because their work demand won't allow it. Do you think that will ever change? So why not do as Derrick suggests and get just one workstation up and running for everyone to tinker with? Those who wait until they are forced to switch, and everyone will at some point if they are to stay Mac, are going to be put in a tough situation. One test workstation could help alleviate the pains of a forced transition.
  
  As the nails go into the OS 9 coffin, everyone has to realize that they will one day have to switch. You can do it cold turkey in the middle of an important project (hard), or you can do it over time, figuring out the nuances of what you need to do along the way (easy). The choice is yours.
• RE: relectant to switch -- Consider This
  2002-08-03 09:06:15  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Your points are excellent, no doubt about it.
  
  I provided Mac support for a full service communications department for 9 years, so I'm well aware of the voodoo involved with these types of users. (This is also where I learned to hate Quark and its rotten business practices.)
  
  The idea I continue to reject is the "all or nothing" concept. I think it's good business to set up a Mac OS X workstation or two and bring them online. See what they can do in your particular environment. Use them for your Photoshop work, to create your Flash animations, for Illustrator jobs, etc. If they're on the network and contributing, as they can in so many ways, then the switch can be an evolutionary process instead of revolutionary.
  
  You could manage the costs of upgrading applications as your budget allowed. There are many low cost alternatives too, especially for personal use, that we are gathering up to write about. Those articles will show you that you can have tons of power for little $$$.
  
  I'll say it again: a little ingenuity goes a long way.

• Responding to the Criticism
  2002-08-03 01:06:03  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  I'm getting a fair amount of email in addition to the TalkBacks, and I'd like to address some of the themes expressed in those notes.
  
  1. Do you really think Apple is ripping us off by charging for 10.2? I paid for my first copy of OS X more than a year ago. 10.1 was a free upgrade. Apple is spending lots of money to bring this operating system along as quickly as possible. I don't like the upgrade costs either. But, for example, I see how much it costs to do business here at O'Reilly, and I understand how hard it is to balance the books. I think Apple is trying to do just that.
  
  2. If Apple's OS X customer base were larger, then they wouldn't have to charge as much for upgrades. This is a standard problem in technology. Until you have a critical mass, the early adopters have to pay more. This is a central point I'm trying to make when advocating for the switch to Mac OS X. Let's get that customer base large enough so we can all save.
  
  3. Jaguar is a major upgrade. Don't let the naysayers fool you. Apple has taken a major step forward with this version, and it reflects the tremendous amount of work they've invested in it. True, it would be nice if it were a free upgrade, but the customer numbers just aren't there yet. I'm suspicious of people who claim to have used Jaguar and say it is not major. As I understand it, a beta version of 10.2 was released under NDA at WWDC. That's where I got mine. A few other Apple developers have it too. Most of the negative Jag comments in these threads don't seem to be from developers. Where are these people getting 10.2?
  
  4. We will only be held hostage by Quark if we let ourselves. I understand that entire OS 9 publishing systems are centered around Quark. They will have to stay in place for some time I imagine. But there are great options out there, including InDesign. And setting up a OS X workstation or two with InDesign to test its viability is a reasonable business move.
  
  5. I'm astonished at the lack of creativity expressed in some of the comments. The Mac community is facing a true challenge and a difficult time. This is a community that is reputed for being smarter and more creative than the Windows world. If that's true, why doesn't more of that ingenuity creep into these types of discussions?
  
  6. Once again, I'm not proposing that you destruct your entire workflow and switch to Mac OS X. I'm proposing that you look at where you can begin to incorporate it into your computing life so that it can grow and evolve by us nurturing it along.
• Responding to the Criticism
  2002-08-06 12:05:44  clvrmnky [View]
  
  
  From what I can tell from the various opinions I've surveyed, the majority of users do not balk at paying *something* for Jaguar. If I had paid for OS X 10.1 a year ago, you'd get no complaints from me.
  
  I work in the enterprise software industry. If we demanded *any* kind of upgrade cost from a customer who had moved from a competing product within the first year, they would draw and quarter us. We wouldn't be able to hire Tech Support people fast enough to keep up with the body count.
  
  There is an unwritten rule in software business that suggests that new customers get special treatment. I was a bit surprised Apple wanted anything for 10.2 from me, and that somehow those useless "coupons" would be used.
  
  That being said, I am willing (and eager! Quartz Extreme! Woo-hoo!) to pay something, but I would have expected some kind of discount.
  
  The fact is I bought it, and a new G4 system, not more than 4 months ago. No discount. No "thanks for switching". No nothing. Oh yes, and your "free" iTools account is now $100. Thanks for switching.
  
  Additionally, Apple sells product world-wide. Not all the same price advantages are available to other nations. This means that the cost of Jaguar is $199 in Canada, with no education discount (that I can find). Well, at least $199 is less than $129US converted to Canadian dollars (today). Good luck getting Amazon, et al, to honour rebates from any other country than the US.
  
  So, basically, I have one choice: full price from Apple.
  
  As I said to Apple: "come on guys, throw me a bone here".
  
  All that Apple is going to do is create bad feeling, and punish the honest for paying full price. A number of people who are usually honest will just find ways to create their own discounts for Jaguar.

• 10.2 is probably great. It's just not worth $129
  2002-08-02 19:19:33  digs0 [View]
  
  
  Derrick's article does a great job of summarizing why 10.2 isn't worth the price Apple is charging for it. I'm glad he left Sherlock (Watson ripoff), iChat (what does it do that Fire.app or AIM don't? nothing), and Inkwell (who has the equipment to use this?) off his list, but the other features are equally unimpressive to the basic Mac user. Derrick follows the common Mac fan thinking that we have to support Apple. Wrong. We owe Apple nothing. Apple owes us. No, not free software. They owe us a compelling reason to pay $129 for 10.2 if they want $129, and Jaguar ain't it. Let's look at those features:
  
  1. Fast Finder: Fast compared to what? OS 9? This is an incremental upgrade feature, not a full one.
  
  2. Mail.app: more stable than Entourage? really? the Entourage that hasn't crashed once on me? How much more stable do you need to be? And so it integrates better with Apple's proprietary services. That argument only makes sense if you think paying $99/year for .Mac makes sense. It doesn't.
  
  3. Rendezvous: Great, only who can use it yet? No one. And by the time you CAN use it, Apple will want you to pony up another $129 for 10.3. Why not just wait?
  
  4. Integration of FreeBSD 4.4 and GCC 3.1 into Darwin:
  5. Common UNIX Print System (CUPS) for print sharing:
  6. Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP):
  7. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 3.0 (LDAP):
  The average O'Reilly reader may care, but you *know* this means nothing to the average Mac user.
  8. Quartz Extreme: Yeah, maybe it improves performance, but the truth is that as with the Finder, software-based performance enhancements are generally just not noticeable to the average user. For better performance, how about a G5?
  9. Address Book: This is really the lamest advertised feature of 10.2. No one has yet explained why this is so much better than the "horrible" Address Book in 10.1. Fine, it integrates with your apps--when they're rewritten to do so. The current address book already integrates with mail.app. Yawn.
  10. QuickTime 6: How, exactly, does paying for 10.2 gain me any advantage on this? It doesn't.
  
  The simple truth is that by all accounts, what 10.2 offers is a bit of a performance improvement, a bunch of "new" apps that aren't any different from things you can already use in 10.1, and some networking bells and whistles that nothing (including Apple's latest iPods) supports yet. To reiterate, by the time those things DO come along and are inexpensive enough to buy, Apple will be asking you to shell out another $129 for 10.3.
  
  I'm a Mac fan, but I'm not a Mac fanatic. I'm not just going to give them my money because they ask for it. As many, many people have pointed out, there is simply no incentive for a current 10.1 user to pay $129 to upgrade. If I'm going to have to pay full price for 10.3, I'll pass on 10.2, thanks.

• Parity Pricing anyone ?
  2002-08-02 17:12:23  dadegroot [View]
  
  
  Last year, I bought one of the "new" iBook's with Dual USB (and it was new, I'd ordered a Blue one, but Apple Australia offered me a white dual usb one with better specs for $700 less).
  It came with OS9, and about a month or so later all new Macs came with OS X, needless to say, I was a little perturbed, but only a little.
  So not long after that, I purchased the retail 10.1 package, repartitioned my hard disk and pretty much haven't used OS9 since (rarely use classic either). But 10.1 wasn't cheap. In Australia it goes for $229, still, I was happy to be supporting an wonderful OS.
  Now Jaguar is coming and Apple have announced an upgrade plan for users that bought the Retail version post July 17th this year or rec'd 10.1 on a new Mac after that date. Fair enough, but where's the early adopter discount? I did the "right thing" and supported the OS as soon as I was able, and yet, I'm up for another $229 only a year after I forked out for 10.1
  Mind you, I'd gladly pay $129 Australian for it. Considering the cost of living is comparatively the same between the US and Australia (yes I've been to the US and seen for myself), why isn't the cost of software ? Big Mac's cost pretty much the same here and there, why not technology ?
  If Apple instituted a price parity scheme across the globe, even if they required proof of residence/citizenship, I think they'd get a hell of a lot more sales in countries outside the US.
  
  Dave

• QuarkXPress
  2002-08-02 15:38:17  stmpjmpr [View]
  
  
  I've seen a lot of mention of Quark here, so here's my $.02. I've done plenty of press work, and use InDesign. Anyone who's had to deal with Quark can tell you that no matter what the "industry standard" is, Quark as a company is terrible. Why keep giving money to a company that continues to treat it's customers like they aren't the most important thing to it?
  
  One argument for XPress is that service bureaus don't support it. Guess what? The service bureaus will support what we demand! If they don't support InDesign, find one that will and give them your money! I had the luxury of being a big account, and did just that. If there's demand, they *will* support you. Then we'll be able to flip the same bird at Quark that they've flipped us for years.
  
  Other than Quark, X is better at everything on a modern computer, IMO. The only argument against X is if you have a really old Mac, and can't upgrade. I hate to say it, but the rest of the community can't wait for everyone, and we'd be happy to have you back when you can catch up.
  
  But as for Quark, let's support the companies that hustle to support us. Yes, Adobe waited too long for Photoshop, but they're here and so are a lot of their big apps. Let's reward that.
• QuarkXPress
  2002-08-02 20:39:23  digs0 [View]
  
  
  Quoting stmpjmpr: "Why keep giving money to a company that continues to treat it's customers like they aren't the most important thing to it?"
  
  Surely you see that for many of us, this is the key question about Apple itself. Announcing an OS upgrade on July 17 and declaring that *no* buyers even the day before are entitled to it free, *or* to any upgrade price... am I wrong, or is that unprecedented in computing history? Even if it isn't a first, it sure doesn't count as valuing your loyal customers, does it?
  
  The funny thing is, if they just gave the upgrade price to those who had bought machines or OS X in the last couple of months, I wouldn't qualify, but I'd personally be *much* more inclined to buy 10.2 if they'd done it. I'm more mad about that than about anything.

• OS X is AWESOME!
  2002-08-02 15:10:04  arin1 [View]
  
  
  I've got to tell you I've been using Macs since the 512, and Apple II's before that... and OS X, (unix) is the best thing that has ever happened to Apple.
  
  I do web and database design, as well as some digital video work, and OS X cannot be beat.
  
  I run database servers on OS 9, Win2000 and OS X (10.1.5) and the one thing I NEVER have to worry about is the OS X machine crashing... OS 9 will drop on occaision, and Win2000... well 1 month of uptime is amazing if/when it happens.
  
  I was running OS X Server v1.2 several years ago as a web server, and (although I LOVED the stability - hundred's of days of uptime without a glitch) I can see where complaints could be made about the GUI on that system, but OS X 10.1.5... the only real, valid complaint I can see is that it is a tad slower on older machines (I happily use it on my 266 wallstreet), but I think the trade offs (and time not spent recovering files) is well worth it!! I've got 4 Macs running one version of OS X or another, and only one running 9, and as soon as I get the cash for the OS X apps I need for that one I'll switch it over.
  
  As for Tim's comment about Quark being the hold up for a majority of the mac community, what I can say is this;
  
  Quark has been a headache for Mac users for years, and there "new" releases always seem to be 12-18 months behind what the should be doing. InDesign is here for OS X now. I don't use it a lot, but for what I do use it I dumped Quark 4 for InDesign 2... I for one was GLAD to finally be able to work without Quark.
  
  Yes it took some time to learn the tricks of the new app, but the headache's of Quark are behind me now...
  
  OS X is the future... OS X is the best OS out there... A few years I wouldn't have been able to say that, I would probably have talked about NeXTSTEP, a future version of BeOS or linux... But OS X has topped them all...
  
  -a

• why 20% is an astonishingly HIGH number
  2002-08-02 14:41:27  tsenecal [View]
  
  
  the real reason people are not moving to OSX is the following:
  
  it has been stated elsewhere that as many as 85% of all macs purchased are used for one thing:
  
  Desktop Publishing.
  
  as of today, 90% of those "desktop publishers" use Quark Xpress.
  
  Until a working stable, reliable OSX version of that software exists, there is no reason for those people to switch.
  
  Tim
• why 20% is an astonishingly... No way, do the math
  2002-08-02 15:54:11  ethanbrand [View]
  
  
  Get real. 85%? Check your sources. Quark's website claims it has 2 million users worldwide. So given the "25 million Macs" stat that Apple uses, you're looking at just over 8% for desktop publishing on Quark. Maybe your source said 8.5% percent instead of 85%.
  
  Regardless of Quark (which seems to be the only major app yet to port), every OS 9/8/7 user has a simple choice: upgrade to 10, stay at 9, or switch OS. If you stay at 9/8/7, you accept that your apps will eventually stop getting new releases and patches, and you accept that you eventually won't be able to use new products (hardware & software). If you switch OS (Windows/Linux), you will face the same "switch" costs for new hardware/software (though the $$$ values might differ per platform) that you'd face if you went to 10. This is a no-brainer for any individual or company with any foresight, regardless of your budgetary limitations. Pay now under your own control, or pay more later when you're forced to.
  
  Personally, I'm beginning to think that most OS 9 users who are whining about 10 are as lame as the Windows users they chide. Talk about drones stuck with "beige" thinking. Derrick is right when he notes the lack of creativity here. But I disagree with the "need" to unite. Those stubborn fools who want to rot in OS 9, good riddens. Quality supporters, not quantity (a la Windows) is what will best serve the Mac community.

• Why Derrick is right
  2002-08-02 13:49:19  weberik [View]
  
  
  We need to support OS X because Apple has cast the dice already. It's the future of the platform. Without OS X, there is no Apple, there is no Macintosh.
  
  I have never encountered anything like the instability issues some people report with OS X (I've managed to make it crash only twice since I loaded 10.0 on my iMac DV SE), but I'm sure some people are having problems. Those issues are being addressed as quickly as possible by Apple, but they need the assistance of Mac developers like -- QUARK.
  
  It's a two way street. Quark helps the Mac platform succeed in the graphic design/ prepress market, but without the Mac, Quark wouldn't exist as a company or as a product. And let's face it, Quark has been resting on their laurels for a long time. They're coming out with an OS X native version some time around the end of 2002, which isn't exactly speedy development.
  
  The other side of this issue is that while Quark users are a big part of the Mac market, Apple is trying to get out of that "Macs are for designers only" bind that has stymied growth of the Mac for years. Now here Apple is really putting out tremendous effort to move the platform forward and provide value to all of its existing customers (not to mention convert home and business users from Windows), and the graphic design and prepress community is loudly complaining about OS X.
  
  I think that makes the Mac look like a platform beholden to a very specific niche market. Prepress folks are notoriously slow to adapt to change - witness how long it's taken InDesign to grab a foothold in the market. I understand the reasons why, but Apple has to do whatever it can to get developers on board with OS X. It's the only way to get the Mac out of the frustrating position it was in for years.
  
  As a web developer I am thrilled with OS X. I can *finally* create all the content I want - text, video, audio, Flash, you name it , create the database, develop the scripts and apps, run Apache, test everything, and deploy *all on a Mac*. With OS 9 this simply wasn't possible.
  
  It just seems like its in our best interest as Mac users to push on software developers as hard as possible to get those OS X apps out the door. The best way to do that is to dive in and embrace OS X.

• Not as easy as it sounds...
  2002-08-02 13:30:48  ratter [View]
  
  
  I love OS X. I use it at home and at work (when possible). I'm in IT (~100 employee publishing house), and here's my story...
  
  We've got approximately 100 machines, the most recent of which are G4 400's. The vast majority of our machines are rev. D iMacs (333). It's pretty much just me running the show here as far as desktop support and maintenance goes, so naturally not all of the machines are as optimized as they could be (read: they're sometimes painfully slow and unresponsive even under OS9). In this economy, we're not likely to do much upgrading of hardware anytime soon. In this regard, Apple has almost painted itself into a corner by producing quality hardware and software (relative to Wintel) such that we're in a if-it's-not-broke-don't-pay-to-upgrade-it cycle.
  
  I can't imagine that we're alone in this - we at least have some fruit-flavored machines. I know personally of many, many shops in this city that are all beige, all the time. Like another poster said, there's still a lot of pre-G3 out there.
  
  It's a hard, hard sell in this economy to put a new OS (and new apps) on the desktops when there isn't a severe performance benefit visible. And for the majority of our clients running Office, web, and email - OS X doesn't offer this great benefit. For me, doing more networky stuff, it does, so I use it.
  
  When Jag's released, I will be thoroughly testing it on our rev. D's. I hope against hope that it will be as fast (or nearly so) as OS 9. If so, only then can I start to push for it's adoption here and start selling its other good features without being stopped cold at the "god, it's slow" first impression. I would love to have a more stable, simple, and easier to maintain OS for some of our less computer-savvy clients, and I think OS X could be it.
  
  But these are only some of the problems and associatied costs. The ridiculous price of Office is a problem. We'll have to upgrade Retrospect, FileMaker, and a pile of other software (using Classic or a dual-boot system is something I am NOT prepared to do with our clients). And it's not really ready for adoption by our production staff, for sure. Quark? Font management? Printing issues? We'll have to contend with all of this...
  
  Gah...now I've got a headache... :)

• Bit the bullet
  2002-08-02 09:16:30  doggo [View]
  
  
  I quit using the Mac platform in the mid 90s after having a series of hardware disappointments (PB 5300, Performas, etc.). But I also wanted the Intel platform to get on the Linux bandwagon, and I used Linux as my home OS almost exclusively until Dec. 2001.
  
  When OS X became a shipping reality, I went out and bought an iBook, and convinced my GF to get a new flat screen iMac.
  
  OS X is a geeks dream come true. The power and stability of UNIX, and the "it just works" engineering Apple is famous for.
  
  Coming from the Open Source/Freeware world makes it difficult to through down cash on an OS, much less an upgrade. The difference is, of course, OS X works they way it's supposed to 99% of the time, unlike nearly any Linux distribution I've used. And the OS technology is awe inspiring. Set up an Airport network in your home and you'll see what I mean. It's just so elegant.
  
  Anyway, I'm not the richest guy out there, and the upgrade to 10.2 is more than I'd like to pay, but I pre-ordered it on the day of the keynote because Apple's finally done something that really is "Insanely Great".
  
  So, people, quit whining about how expensive 10.2 is. You get a COMPLETE operating system for $139, and with all the discounts being offered, you're not gonna pay that much unless you're just plain lazy.
  
  Try getting a complete OS with the quality and flexibility of 10.2 from any other vendor, save the Linux vendors for that price. Not to mention the ability to add thousands of free application with OpenSource. Heck, with the discounts, OS X 10.2 is competitive with the retail boxed editions of some Linux distributions.

• It's not the upgrade it's the price
  2002-08-02 08:49:09  ellem [View]
  
  
  Nothing in 10.2 is particularly new. Much of it IS better, but they are things that are not worth 129.00USD.
  
  This IS NOT A NEW OS. This is a patch to an existing OS. This is NOT 9 --> X.
  
  Now some months back when I pre-Ordered 10.0 I got a slow, buggy and software free OS.
  
  Then came 10.1.2 -- give me 20USD Apple said. Fine, none of the CompUSAs in NY/NJ seemed to have any of the "Free" copies around anyway.
  
  Now they are finally fixing Finder and they want me to pay for a whole new OS.
  
  Screw that. My won't Apple be surprised when their precious OS is being trading across the internet faster than a new Britney Spears song.
  
  They need an upgrade price. They found one with iTools, I suggest they find one quickly with X.
• It's not the upgrade it's the price
  2002-08-02 16:48:25  Michael Brewer | [View]
  
  
  Apple's "full price" is about the same as Microsoft's "upgrade price." Would you be happier if Apple charged $300 for OS X and offered it to you at a discounted $129?
  
  OS X is not simply a service release, there are many, many new features in it. It's worth it!
• It's not the upgrade it's the price
  2002-08-02 15:29:35  arin1 [View]
  
  
  If you don't think it's worth it... Don't buy it...
  
  As for me if I can spend $129 and have my machine double in speed I'd rather do that, and PAY APPLE than shell out $500+ for a CPU upgrade.
  
  Are you saying that the programmers that have been busting their #sses to improve YOUR OS don't deserve to get paid?
  
  Ask a window's user if they got their free upgrade from Microsoft for Win2k, or WinXP...
  
  If we don't unite and support Apple, we could end up in line for Windows ZZ before too long...
  
  Unless you want to save your pennies and wrestle X11 with linux... but that would seem to be more of a stretch for most os9 users than X is...

• APPS and MONEY...
  2002-08-02 06:24:31  unclepain [View]
  
  
  OK, for the record- I like OSX. I don't love it, but it has some nice features that I feel will get even better in the future. I support about 30 Macs in our corporate environment and I'll tell you why we will not be upgrading to OSX anytime in the near future.
  No Quark for OSX. No scanner support for our Umax scanners. No printer drivers for our Image setters. Then, lets factor in the costs. OSX.2- $129. RAM- $60 Software upgrades for all the apps my clients use in OS9- anywhere from 500 to 1500 bucks depending on the user. So, theoretically that could be over $50,000 just so our Mac guys can "upgrade". Will OSX make my clients $50,000 more productive? Even if all of our apps and hardware were updated to run under OSX, we wouldn't be able to afford to upgrade.
  
  What else do most folks use their Macs for? Audio and video. Well, premiere is still no where to be found and lots of folks still use it instead of FInal Cut. Midi support will finally make it into OSX.2 which means the pro audio apps can finally start to port. That's alot of Mac users who have no reason to switch other than...."please support Apple- your mostest favorite computer company in the whole world." We need faster machines before we need Free-BSD with a candy coated shell.
• APPS and MONEY...
  2002-08-02 13:48:58  elastic [View]
  
  
  Premiere 6.5 has been announced last week and is carbonized for OS X. Give it a month or two to ship if it isn't already and you will have that option.
  
  MOTU has released a flurry of drivers for their audio and MIDI hardware that seem to work well with a few freeware MIDI apps. Digital Performer has been announced for "4th quarter 2002". Emagic will probably be sooner than that with Logic. Audio apps are appearing right and left such as Peak and Spark. No mention of ProTools though...
  
  Things are coming together and not long after the 10.2 release I suspect that releases will accelerate.
  
  Other than cost, the software is appearing exponentially.
• APPS and MONEY... $50,000? C'Mon!
  2002-08-02 07:45:31  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  I get so tired of this "all or nothing" type of thinking. $50,000 to switch to Mac OS X? C'mon!
  
  Using your own numbers, how about $200 for Jaguar and a RAM upgrade. Load OS X on your computer and take advantage of the tools and applications that come bundled free. Get to know it.
  
  You can always boot back into 9 when you need to use the other apps that you're not ready to purchase for OS X yet. I still have an iMac that's all OS 9, and will probably remain so for some time. But I was able to switch my laptop to OS X, and I'm having a ball with it.
  
  I can't believe the lack of creativity I'm reading here.

• The 80% group...a voice of change
  2002-08-02 06:17:02  10281028 [View]
  
  
  well, I agree that your article Is on target..but for a different reason...."The Change to OS X, is not to support Apple...but to finally receive some of the technology advances on our platform...maybe a step ahead.
  BUT, first let me address an IMPORTANT issue....I have been a loyal mac user since 1989...mac's in my business, macs at home and I bought mac performas for 2 employees and 4 neices and nephews....and have watched all 4 neices and nephews but PC's..".because they do more"....in the meantime...I have upgraded to a 9600, 5300c laptop, G3 laptop(kanga), and Pismo.
  I am very proficient in photoshop, Illustrator, live motion, and the MS Office suite along with a host of others....I have upgraded my 9600, 4 hard drives,usb,fire wire, ata card, newer 466,loads of ram, networked with 3 printers and I do video and sound apps as well.....now this is not to impress anyone...just set the stage....I have a going marketing business and we do all our graphics....but I have to agree with my neices and nephews...that everytime I see a new program...I have to look to see if it supports Mac....not OS X....
  But being the flaming optimist that I am...I KNOW the unix base (os x) will bring more to the New Mac Platform....
  Now If you read all that....I'll Give you that point of View from One of the 80%...
  Re Learn a New OS, No call-in for help 800 #,learn it on your on....The missing manuals???....buy a new system, buy new software....and we will bring you up to speed with the windows world.....oh, and by the way...we're getting the bugs out ! Working Hard to Improve OS X....just Jump In and a Kernel-Panic...uh, you'll learn about that....no problem.
  Well, I have bought Photoshop &, Illustrator 10, Live Motion 2 and the MS office 10 software...but be damned if I'll Buy OS X UNTILL IT WILL WORK AS WELL(fast) AS 9.1.
  
  I own a Cadillac but GM doesn't beat me to death with Support GM or we will fall by the way side....APPLE IS A BUSINESS, I AM A CUSTOMER...Give Me Some Support,
  Where IS A Manual
  Where Is A Call-In # ...for OS X support
  Where Is The Ease of Use Explanations
  IF I Have to RE Learn Computing....How 'Bout Some Help!
  P.S. I Paid Full POP for the first MS Office $499,and NO Manual or PDF Manual...and guess what..I Up Graded to MS 10 and NO MANUAL....well they may save on printing...but they LOSE BIG on SALES!
  Thank You for Listening .

• OS 9 is Way Too Old!
  2002-08-02 01:39:15  sognante [View]
  
  
  I agree completely with your article. I must say however I'm very surprised that so many Mac users have yet to upgrade to OS X. Why anyone would want to use such an antiquated OS is beyond me. I would have thought that the vast majority of Macs would be running X by now. To be quite honest if Apple hadn't come out with OS X I would no longer be a Mac user. OS X is light-years ahead of OS 9 and more stable (not to mention stylish) than Microsoft's latest offerings. With 10.2 coming up I see no reason why the majority of Mac users should not upgrade to X.

• OS X is great, but 10.2 is too expensive
  2002-08-02 00:42:28  maarky [View]
  
  
  I agree that OS X is great and that people should upgrade, but I won't be upgrading to 10.2 any time soon and I'm not happy about it.
  
  Four months ago I spent $120 on 10.1. That was a lot of money for me, but I was more than happy to do it. However, I cannot afford to spend another $130 to upgrade to 10.2 after such a short time. I would gladly upgrade if they offered a reasonable price, but as it is I just can't. Not for another 6 months at least.
  
  If I had known that 10.2 would be out so soon after buying 10.2 and that it would cost me another $130 dollars I would still be using OS 9 and waiting for 10.2. I should not have to spend so much money to upgrade my OS more than once a year. And since I can't afford to, I won't.
• OS X is great, but 10.2 is too expensive
  2002-08-02 11:18:43  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Well, keep your eyes open for deals on Jaguar because discounts will be available. When we spot one, we'll be sure to report on it just like I did for the temporary Amazon rebate.
  
  Hopefully something will show up that's within reach for you ...

• Meh - forget OS9 users....
  2002-08-01 20:09:50  dogzilla [View]
  
  
  IMHO, ppl who are still using OS9 aren't the real target. They'll come along. What I'd really find useful is help on converting Windows users. I have a bunch of friends who currently run Windows but are becoming more and more disheartened with....well with issues that don't need rehashing here. They have almost to a man (or woman) expressed an interest in OSX and the current crop of Mac hardware.
  
  But what to say to these people to help them convert to the Mac? Without sounding like a fanatic? I've been using OSX since it arrived, and I rarely need OS9 anymore now (except for Quark), but I can't escape the feeling that OSX is still not the best solution for the average, non-power user.
  
  Maybe I'm not giving these folks enough credit. But OSX without the command line strikes me as too much of a compromise, and I'm not likely to convince, say, my wife to learn anything so esoteric as "ls -al | more". I'm hopeful that Jaguar will change my mind about this. Until I can afford and test the upgrade I can't honestly recommend OSX to the average Mac or Windows user, and I sure can't take them to task for not upgrading/switching.

• missing the point
  2002-08-01 19:48:54  robis@robis.org [View]
  
  
  I appreciate your sentiment on switching to OSX, but you're overlooking a few major points.
  
  1) A lot of people have to upgrade their machines to use it. I have a beige G3, which technically can run OSX, but only at a painfully slow clip. I can't afford a performance drop like that and haven't been able to afford a new machine with this economy. I'll go X when I get a fast G4 (this fall!) Don't forget there are actually people out there who have pre-G3 machines, they can't go X.
  
  2) A lot of people use Quark as their #1 application. What's the point of "upgrading" system software that can't run your most valuable app? Blame Quark, but this is a major issue for Apple. Quark still dominates the design and publishing world-- that's a lot of workstations...
  
  3) Version 10 was an alpa, 10.1 was a beta and now maybe we're getting somewhere releaseable with 10.2
  
  4) I freelance in a shop with about 200 mac workstations. It's a big project to upgrade all those machines and explain to a bunch of artists who are computer dumb why the application switcher isn't there anymore. This is really 2 points.
  A) why should IT depts go for such a headache (or myself for that matter, when their really not getting that much out of it and
  B) why did Apple have to change the finder in such fundemental ways-- it's confusing to me and I'm good with computers. I know a lot of designers who are going to be very upset (and calling tech support) when the have to switch and so many things are different.
  
  5) Did I mention Quark?
  
  6) This "upgrade" is a weekend project. Who has that kind of time? I use my computer to pay my rent. I can't risk having it down while I tinker the OS. 9 works great. It's stable and it's fast. Why take the risk for so little gain?
  
  Like most "geeks" (and I mean that in a complimentary way) you have an amazing ability to emphasis what the majority of people don't care about and downplay whats really important to the majority of "real users". That list of 10 superb features of Jaguar reads like a tech spec. Uber geek speak. Give me a break. Does Mom, Dad, the college student, the web surfer, the artist, musician, designer really care about BSD, CUPS, PPTP or LDAT? They probably care about iChat and Sherlock 3(which I think is a travesty too, Apple should have given the Watson folks a lot of money for that idea) and the address book .
  
  What about those poor AOL users? They certainly don't have the whereforall to deal with all this. Like Mr. Jobs said, we should be thankful we've gotten 20% already.
  
  Go to a UNIX system that needs to run a whole other OS just run the gamut of apps that I use?
  No thank you.
  
  Best,
  Robert Israel
  NYC
• Missing the point? I don't think so.
  2002-08-01 23:30:34  Derrick Story | [View]
  
  
  Actually, I don't think I'm missing the point at all.
  
  Let's start with all those "poor AOL users." The AOL client for Mac OS X is just as easy as on any other platform. You turn on your computer, launch AOL, and do your thing. Those folks have it made.
  
  As for Quark, you can't tell me that 80 percent of the Mac user community is relying on Quark as their main application. It just ain't so. Those who do rely on Quark won't be able to switch to Mac OS X outright until January or so. But those same people can still buy and install Mac OS X and start getting comfortable now. You can run both OSs on one computer.
  
  Here's what I'm trying to say: Software vendors aren't going to hang around and wait forever for the Mac community to reunite under Mac OS X. Take Microsoft. They've already said that they will not write any more software for OS 9. Period. If their OS X titles don't sell, then they pull back. Money is a big part of this conversation. And we are going to have to part with some of our money to keep our platform. Believe me, I did not like shelling out my bucks to buy an Office upgrade. I'm a writer for a living, and writers don't earn a lot of dough.
  
  The point I'm trying to make is that it's time for us to start using Mac OS X in whatever capacity we can. We are at a crossroads, and I want this platform to succeed. I'd like to hear fewer excuses and more creative thinking on this issue.
• Missing the point? I don't think so.
  2002-08-02 03:16:01  geertdeg [View]
  
  
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Missing the point? I don't think so.
  2002-08-26 18:37:09  adamrice [View]
  
  
  Don't be disingenuous. Relaunching an application is much faster than rebooting a computer. If you're suffering chronic crashing, this adds up pretty quickly.
  
  I've had very few application crashes. The only times I've been forced to reboot is after major software installs. I've had to do a few logout/login cycles (still much faster than rebooting). This amounts to time saved and less hair pulled.
  
  I'm running a 400 MHz G4 that I bought in Nov 2000 (I think). I've been running X since 10.1.4 was available--a few months now. Some tasks on this system are faster than under 9, some are slower. Some system behaviors are annoying (file renames in the finder, open/save dialog navigation), some are a little weird at first but not necessarily bad (the dock). I've modified the system with a few tweaks from Unsanity to make it more comfortable.
  
  Some of the software updated for X is not really an upgrade, and some is actually a downgrade (Quickeys). There are a few tasks that have become more annoying due to the lack of independent software on par with the OS 9 equivalent, but on balance, I think my productivity is at least as good as before. Some programs are flat-out better: Chimera is a much better web browser than anything available for 9, and it's only at version 0.4, fer crissakes. Office X (I can't believe I am praising it for this) has yet to corrupt any of my files, which was a major time-waster before.
• Missing the point? I don't think so.
  2002-08-09 23:39:41  dlattari [View]
  
  
  I too, am a graphic prepress professional. I chose to partition my drive and experiment with 10.1>10.1.5.
  Within an hour of my first taste of it I was planning my full switch (which will become complete when Quark finally shows some loyalty to its traditional user base and release an OSX version).
  To summarize my experience:
  1. No crashes now for over 6 months - ALWAYS ON. This is worth the price of admission right there!
  2. Quark runs in classic mode only marginally slower than in OS9 and freezes less.
  3. Suitcase is more than adequate for font management.
  4. Illustrator is a dog, but has ALWAYS been a dog!
  5. PS performance is comparable and mostly better in OSX.
  6. FTP, web design, mail and surfing is smooth as on OSX.
  7. PDF creation using Distiller is speedy and reliable on my rig.
  8. Not one kernel panick ever... don't even know what it looks like (I presume it's a sys wide freeze?)
  9. My Epson worked like I never switched OS.
  10. My AGFA scanner worked like I never switched OS
  11. All still and video cameras plugged and played with an ease that was almost disconcerting - and jawdropping for the PC nuts looking at my box secretly wishing it would fail (gotta be the most satisfying demo one can do to a Mac-hating PCnut. You'd have to shoot me to go back to OS9... and I loved OS9. Sure you've got to 'think' about how to transition smoothly.... but sticking one's head in the sand is only going to give one a much steeper learning curve later... and there WILL be a later.
  
  In case you're wondering I have a G3 B&W 450MHz with a bog standard Rage 128 video card.
  My 2 cents on what will improve performance of OSX?
  RAM, RAM and more RAM. I have 1Gb on board and my rig rocks with this SPECTACULAR OS!
  For productivity losses you perceive would result - here's my take on that. Nothing will increase productivity more when working in Quark and most other prepress production software like more RAM to keep more apps open and ready for action, and twin 21" monitor setups.
  Enjoy now... or later (but you vill enjoy ;-)
  Good luck
  
• Missing the point? I don't think so.
  2002-08-02 21:39:58  elastic [View]
  
  
  I do production, and I manage the IT of a multi-platform marketing communications company, so I feel I need to add my experience to this.
  
  No, we don't us X in the graphics/production area yet, but we've been running OS X server since it was still based on the NeXT GUI. It hasn't crashed for three years running.
  
  Under 9 Quark runs OK, but with certain situations is highly unstable and sadly even undependable. Frankly I've been unimpressed with Quark overall because it costs a great deal and only with version five did Quark actually start using the Mac OS window defs that were introduced in OS 8!
  
  Quark is almost a metaphor for what OS 9 is going to suffer from if Apple keeps patching it: unscalable code as the world moves to 64-bit processing and multi-processor computing.
  
  OS X suffers from having little documentation or track record, but developers have been keen and quick to learn that porting clean code to X isn't so bad.
  
  As to crashing, rebooting 9 is a cumbersome process. I run X %90 of the time at home where I do graphic design and web development and I hammer my G4 500 MP and it's never crashed. Apps will crash, but rerunning them is better than restarting when you have several processes running at once. I can copy, burn, rip files and still type without a hiccup. Doing batch jobs in 9 ties up my machine even if all I want to do is check a web page or write an email. Basically it makes one computer more useful. You should save often, regardless of OS or platform, the work you lose from apps crashing is always a risk no matter what. So why not save the hassle of rebooting and getting back to where you left off? Rebooting inhibits creative flow more than anything else I can think of.
  
  No, I don't think OS X is a prime time OS right now, but it will be. I've run it since beta and watched the development skyrocket. I can already do things OS 9 never did so really we're looking at a whole new land of developer opportunities.
  
  OS development is a huge amount of work, especially at stages of transition like the one Apple is doing now. Still I'm very appreciative of the speed of improvement 10 has gone through.
  
  When I upgraded to a Radeon video card 10 got better, then ATI started doing monthly driver updates and most of those up the 2D a bit. There are tricks to speed X up too, but the GUI creates a *perceptual* speed issue. Disk access, file copies and other I/O operations are at least 1/3rd faster on the same hardware from what I've seen — they just seem slow. The foundation is there, The GUI is catching up. So I think that old hat *NIX folks and techies are fine with 10 but Apple can only move forward or they won't be able to sustain themselves. Basically after adjusting to all of the changes I've been able to work better and look forward to 10.2 (which *is* impressive when you see a beta in action).
  
  Looking at Google, most of the Windows users are still using Windows 98! Windows 2000 is substantially improved from 98, yet a huge slice of the pie is still using older versions and now MS is pushing XP as hard or harder than Apple pushes OS X (you must buy a recent computer to run it, etc.). It's not that different, just a larger slice of the pie.
  
  Just had to say all that. Really I feel that every point is valid here, it's about what you do and what works for you, and as such obsolescence is not something that should get in the way of what you do. OS X will get there. It has more options and expansion in it's source code than OS 9, but the painful transition must happen.
  

• OS 9 is long gone...
  2002-08-01 17:18:03  jepar [View]
  
  
  I've switched to OSX two years ago and ERASED OS 9 completely last fall. I've never looked back. I'm perfectly happy with 10.1 but I want to stay current with the new developments.
  
  There is a great opportunity for ayone to switch to OSX (even just part time) with a second-hand copy of 10.1 from eBay. Jaguar is better but it does not make 10.1 bad.
  
  I'll be giving my retail version of OSX to a friend who can't afford Jaguar.
  
  Doing my part for the installed base.

• Mac OS X adoption
  2002-08-01 16:35:04  digitalczar [View]
  
  
  Derrick,
  
  I don't think the real issues have been stated better or more correctly! You've hit ALL the nails on the head squarely!
  
  I hope the Mac community takes your insight to heart and realizes it is a time to support Apple, especially in these more than difficult economic times.

• Amen, brother!
  2002-08-01 16:05:14  TheBum [View]
  
  
  I get so sick of the whiners who say OS X isn't as fast as OS 9 and they won't switch until it is. That observation is usually based solely on the GUI performance and not on the behind-the-scenes performance. Quartz Extreme will go a long way toward solving the GUI gap, but, people, there's more to a computing experience than speed.
  
  I, for one, am thrilled with OS X 10.1.5 running on a 466 MHz iBook. I admit that I'd like the GUI to be faster, but then I think about all the time I'm saving not having to suffer through frequent reboots. I plan to clone my system to my Firewire hard disk, install 10.2 on it, and run some hardware compatibility tests. If all those pass, I won't hesitate to then upgrade the system on my internal disk.
  
  OS X Rules!
  
  Alan Somers

• I agree 110%
  2002-08-01 14:28:28  gaeldesign [View]
  
  
  Great article Derrick! I'm a "PC switcher" from back in April 2001, and I just can't understand why the Mac community isn't jumping on OS X like it's a pot of gold. OS X is the ONLY reason I started looking into getting a Mac. Now I love the hardware like anything, but OS X was the initial selling point for me. OS X is clean, modern, robust, and built for the future. OS 9 is dead. Why anyone is still using it for any reasons other than pure compatibility issues is beyond me. If my software and peripherals all worked in OS X (and they do), then I'd never use OS 9.
  
  Go Apple! Jaguar is going to be an unbelievable release from what I've heard, so a good PowerMac speed bump is all that I need for me to say that PCs are a rotten value in every way.
  
  Regards,
  
  Jared White
  President and Art Director of GaelDesign
  http://www.gaeldesign.com
• I agree 110%
  2002-08-02 17:18:07  dadegroot [View]
  
  
  I too switched from PC to Mac because of OS X and yes, it is a wonderful OS. I was/still am into things like Linux and BSDs on PCs but OS X does what Linux has been trying to do for years - bring Unix to the Desktop.
  
  My only beef is with slow peripheral vendor support. I'm still waiting for HP to release OS X drivers for my USB ScanJet 5400C, and it's mildly annoying that my Cannon PowerShot A5 Zoom doesn't work with the KeySpan adapter I bought (not that I bought it for that purpose, I use my iBook to connect to routers and firewall console ports and the like).
  
  But yes, I can't see why anyone would *want* to run OS9 anymore if they can run OSX.
  
  Dave