# Extremely not impressed with the address book.



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

It sucks.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

LOL









Amen!
---


Did you get Micro$oft Office with your purchase?
If so try Entourage it has an address book. If not.....?


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*LOL 

Amen!
* 

I'm sure glad someone agrees! I thought maybe I was just being picky or demanding....LOL!

Any other options that anyone knows of??


----------



## sputnik (Jan 6, 2003)

Everything sucks when you are new.
What dont ya like?I thought it was pretty cool.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*Everything sucks when you are new.
What dont ya like?I thought it was pretty cool.* 

well i don't think I'd go *that* far. I've been pretty open minded actually. But this address book...just not user friendly at all. Picky to import to, just kinda lame in general. I know I should be more specific, but I can't be. it just has this overall lame, non user friends feeling.


----------



## sputnik (Jan 6, 2003)

I definetly agree with the importing.You actually have to dig to get that done.Not good man.
But I think that the overall appearance works well.I think it does what it should.No more,no less.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

How much did you say you wanted for that TiBook?


----------



## sputnik (Jan 6, 2003)

She doesnt sound like a "happy" switcher does she?


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

what's a TiBook?


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Titanium Powerbook - yours.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

I think they are meaning "17" PowerBook" which is often referred to as the 17" AlBook (for the Aluminimum case).

TiBooks were the predecessor (15.2" screens)

And as or the suckage level of the Address Book.

I like it, however, I don't think it's the most versatile.

I do agree that importing is a bit unintuitive, but I also discovered a few nifty things about it.

*1. Drag & Drop*

You can drag a VCard database file into the second column window and have it automatically import. Exporting can be similarly as easy by dragging one or more selections to another application or even just the desktop (or my iPod!)

But iSync is also useful for that too...

*2. LDAP functionality*

At work (Adobe) the database of names and numbers are in an LDAP directory on a server somewhere. With the proper info added, I can do a search in LDAP for anyone at Adobe. It also propagates that information in Mail.app without even opening the address book.

*3. Pictures!*

Again, drag & drop or click and choose... Have headshots added to an entry. or maybe a logo. So, I'm easy to amuse.

*4. Versatility*

There is a fair bit of customizational ability within the card/entry itself. Adding or removing fields are pretty easy and unused fields don't show when in view mode.

So Pam? What did you want your Address Book to do for you? Is it *just* importing that's the problem or is there some desired feature missing? (Or maybe cleverly hidden under 63 submenus?)


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Alec, 
she has the 17" AlBook. Another codename for a TiBook on steroids.
Robert
Okay beat out by a minute.
One has to have addresses to use the address book


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Gee Pamela you sure are grouchy about your new Mac.









Once thing's for sure about Address Book: it sucks less than it did in 10.0 and 10.1! I would have stuck with the address book in Entourage, but for one important omission: the ability to sync with isync.

Having used it for a while, the thing I've learned to love about Address Book is how you can get the phone numbers to show up in large type on your screen. Just mouse over the text to the left of the phone number and then click with the mouse. Very helpful for me when dialing. 

The thing is low-tech and low-featured and it works. Anything more and it would be useless ornamentation, IMHO.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Addressbook has some quirks but its also available, system-wide to all Cocoa-based apps. For example, Safari sucks out address info for the auto-fill feature.

But, the best thing about address book (which no Windows wimps can do!!!) is that its BlueTooth aware. Pair up your phone and activate the BT icon and incoming SMS's are displayed on-screen and you can reply from the Mac. Ultra cool. Of course, you need a compatible phone (like the T68i) and BlueTooth (but that's built into the 17" AlBook).

Sometimes Apple presumes its users are on the same wavelength and the interface simplicity hides the sophistication of the actual application. Although many aspects of the OS X interface are obvious, its a lot more that Aqua-skin deep.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Well, nobody's forcing you to use the Address Book. I hope you don't have the classic Wintel mentality which believes the only stuff for Mac comes from Apple. The Palm desktop software has a calendar/address book that is pretty good (and free). There's also Now Contact, and Chronos Organizer, all very good alternatives. Some of these products even use Apple's address book file so other apps, like Mail and iChat, can still automatically search and query for people.

I think it's probably in Apple's best interests not to make Address Book *too good* - it may tick off the third party developers. It does what I need it to, though, so I use it. The only part that bugs me is having to click "Edit", wait a second, and then edit the entry, and click "Edit" again to save the changes.

Anyway, good luck Pamela. Don't let anyone accuse you of having a closed mind. You seem to be giving everything an honest try and voicing valid criticisms. Well, once pressured for them - "It sucks" doesn't carry much weight.  . Also, be sure to send your criticisms to [email protected] so they can improve their stuff too.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I like it and have had no problems with address book. It is simple if you take the time to figure it out. You can not complain when it is for free. I can not name too many free apps from Microsoft.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Now Contact & Up To Date (the name of the product), now has support to sync up its contacts and vice-versa with Address book (So that other programs that use the Address Book can have your current info)










There's a free demo to download.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

First of all...I know what a TiBook is....do you think I'm stupid? Apparently some of you haven't heard of "sarcasm" LOL! I paid too much for my laptop for it to be called a Tibook that's for sure! 

And Strongblade...thank you for pointing out the features of the address book. I must say, I have to get used to the fact that apple "hides" a lot of their features...and trust me...i spend hours trying to get my address book to import my hundreds of vcards and so i checked *many* submenus...but for some reason i can't seem to drag and drop....anything...pictures, addresses...you name it. I have to manually type everything in!!? That's why I'm saying it sucks.


*I hope you don't have the classic Wintel mentality which believes the only stuff for Mac comes from Apple*

and you better hope I don't hunt you down and kick your butt for saying something so insulting to me. Do you think I would have spent over $10,000 in apple hardware if I was stuck in any mentality other than switching and being happy to do so? I'm not a dumb ass...I know what's out there for the mac.

The point is, I have had nothing but trouble trying to get my address book to be just that...and address book. It shouldn't take this much tweaking and be this stubborn. I mean I'm not asking for much out of my address book...don't need bluetooth or any advanced features other than it being able to import and drag and drop. But it hasn't been able to do either of those yet. I think have a right to complain and say I'm unsatisfied with the "free" "program". Haven't I paid enough?

and EhMax...thank you for the alternate suggestion...that was what I was looking for. I don't mind to pay for something that works for me.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

I simply find calling that new beauty an alBook cheapens it. After all, titanium is a premium alloy compared to aluminium. For my money, the 17" remains a Ti.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Hey Pamela... your "fresh view of the Mac" is the kind of feedback Apple really wants to hear! Please send some of your feedback to Apple. They *DO* listen to their customers _most of the time_. I think Address Book has potential and it'd be nice if they polished it up. I like how other apps have access to the Address Book. 

Also, this may not help Pamela, but there are two tools I found useful (We're lucky to have such a great Shareware community to fill any holes)

Address Book Exporter is nice to export your Address Book files as Tab Deliminated files. 

And there is Address Book Importer to do the reverse.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Just an aside: I sure wish there was an application to sync the Address Book with Entourage contacts. Now that would be the cat's meow!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> *... and you better hope I don't hunt you down and kick your butt for saying something so insulting to me. Do you think I would have spent over $10,000 in apple hardware if I was stuck in any mentality other than switching and being happy to do so? I'm not a dumb ass...I know what's out there for the mac.*


Zoweeeee !

Peter S. and Dr. G., may I suggest that de-caf ONLY beverages be served in the Clubhouse? For the safety of members and to avoid messy police investigations, which invariably produce lots of bad press.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

C'mon everyone. Play nice or I'll have to pull this car over to the side of the road. LOL


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PGant,

If it's possible to access Entourage contacts programmatically, then it should be fairly straightforward to write an Entourage <-> Address Book sync utility. Getting information in and out of the Address Book programmatically is a breeze, after all.

Hmmm, I'll have to look into this....


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

I agree with Pam. Can I call you Pam? Oh sure I can, we're all friends here.  

Now, I don't want to suggest that I don't want to hear about Pam's exploits, but is there a way to merge all these Pam-threads into one "Switcher Pam" thread or something? Too many things going on. 

And yes, I also agree that Address Book sucks wind.







Entourage is the best way to go...especially if you want to feel a smooth transition from something like PC Outlook or something. 

But Pam, I must also agree with Patrick and a few others on here, you do seem extremely negative/grumpy/unhappy for someone who just purchased "more than $10,000 of Apple hardware." I would have expected a little more happiness shining through.

I mean...you have the biggest and best laptop on the planet AND a frickin' 23" HD Apple cinema display...not to mention the best damned tech support/shoulders to cry on in the world (read: ehMac). Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

Smile more...you'll like it. 
 

And yes...Address Book sucks.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

...but sucks _less_ than before (natch!)


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

"and you better hope I don't hunt you down and kick your butt for saying something so insulting to me. Do you think I would have spent over $10,000 in apple hardware if I was stuck in any mentality other than switching and being happy to do so? I'm not a dumb ass...I know what's out there for the mac."

Pam, please go back and re-read my post. From the rest of my post, I thought it was pretty clear that I was kidding. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way. But c'mon - your first post explaning not liking Address Book was "It sucks" and you don't expect a little ribbing?!?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I'm fairly ambivalent about the Address Book. I like the 'Search' function and the fact it can be accessed System Wide. However, the edit system is clunky and I'd like to be able to output to a daytimer. (Yes, I know there are third party utilities that do this.)

Another option is the Palm Desktop software. You don't need a Palm to use it and it's actually based on an old Claris application called Organizer. And it's free.
http://www.palm.com/software/desktop/mac.html


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*
Pam, please go back and re-read my post. From the rest of my post, I thought it was pretty clear that I was kidding. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way. But c'mon - your first post explaning not liking Address Book was "It sucks" and you don't expect a little ribbing?!? 
* 

Oh I was mostly kidding too...lol...don't worry. I guess that type of humour doesn't read well online. *sorry*

and for the record. I didn't expect my little comment about the address book to lead to 2 pages and counting of feedback! LOL. It was just supposed to be a mini-rant, not really worth explaining my frustrations because after all it's just a digital roll-a-deck (sp?) and isn't even worth an hour of fretting over.

Sorry if any of you took offense at my attempted harmless comment


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

ok. now back to business. I actually need help with this (as me hacking away for 3 hours trying to figure this out would be a waste of everyone's time here! LOL)

I followed apples directions for exporting/importing vcards from my outlook express to my address book. Those instructions didn't work. All of my vcards came over completely blank.

So anyway, what *does* "work" is if I export each vcard contact one by one to my desktop on my windows box and then grab them one by one and drag and drop them into my address book (after I've taken the vcards off the network). This is going to take me a VERY long time. I have MANY contacts. One by one would be soooo very painful. Has anyone else done this? Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks!


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

nevermind. 3 times the charm i guess. i did it. so bizarre. consider this thread dead...before it goes on to eternity. LOL!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

As far as I'm concerned... anyone who spends 10k on a Mac has earned the right to nitpik on any detail they like!


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Strongblade wrote:

"Pictures"

And would it not be more useful if they let you
control the size of these damn things?

This COULD be a really useful feature, if these pictures were larger. Not everyone's face looks good or recognizable at 32x32 pixels!  

G/<


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*But Pam, I must also agree with Patrick and a few others on here, you do seem extremely negative/grumpy/unhappy for someone who just purchased "more than $10,000 of Apple hardware." I would have expected a little more happiness shining through.

I mean...you have the biggest and best laptop on the planet AND a frickin' 23" HD Apple cinema display...not to mention the best damned tech support/shoulders to cry on in the world (read: ehMac). Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.
* 

Well I must apologize if I sound negative/grumpy/unhappy or unappreciative. I mean...it's not like I won the stuff in a raffle or anything. I paid for it. I invested in it. When people invest in stocks and they head south do you expect them to be happy? I am very happy...unbelievably happy...with the apple hardware....It's utterly gorgeous and perfect...and I grin from ear to ear when I walk into my office. But the software on the other hand...I will bitch and moan until my heart is content just as I would with any PC software. Why shouldn't I?? Software is the interface with the hardware...if the software is unreliable or difficult to use, or just plain bad software then I'm going to complain about it because it makes my experience with my $10,000 system unenjoyable! I consider myself a generally well informed and talented computer user...I *get* computers...I generally know where to look, how to go about doing things, and know what to play with (hack) to make things work. My hacking with the mac is rough right now yes...but doesn't apple advertise that mac's are "easier" to use?? Isn't that the whole mac advertising scheme?? Well I'll tell you something. There is no way I can hand over a mac to my parents...they would never get it. As far as I am concerned you have to be quite knowledgable to navigate in OSX. (I know I'll get flamed here) But I simply find windows xp better organized and easier to use/navigate. Luckily I don't care about that part though...I'm interested in a stable system. And *that* it has been. Which I am *thrilled* about!

And just to be clear. The community here has been totally and utterly AWESOME in helping me with my switch (ie. not taking the bitching personally...because a lot of the time I'm not bitching about OSX..I'm bitching about the fact that I haven't been able to learn a part of it due to my stupidity).

You guys have been great, and I promise, very soon I will be knowledgeable enough to start *helping* instead of hindering.

Thank you for taking me into your mac community. I'm happy to be here, I I hope to never have to go back to that *other* side


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think there is a big difference between people migrating to X from 9 and those switching from Windows. Both encounter different ways of doing things, for sure, but people experienced with Windows have less "trust" of the system and have often learnt obscure methodologies/cludges which they take for granted (the same is true for OS 9 users, but to a lesser degree). I don't know what to suggest for switchers but I do think Apple needs to provide better support and to recognize such users have differently "wired" brains (compared with OS 9 users) for a variety of tasks. 

That might make for a neat study - synaptic linkages promoted by OS 9/X versus Win95/XP.... Whatever, such learned behaviours are easy to unlearn as long as the user can see what they must change. While the "wiring" analogy has no basis in fact, I think that Apple needs to do more to help Windows migrators since its business plan for increasing marketshare is utterly dependent on this population.


----------



## Argimou (Jan 27, 2003)

Someone should be able to help Pamela with this. I know that I imported my address book from Entourage into Mail X, but I can't remember how I did it. If I figure it out I will repost --but some of these techies must know how.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MasterBlaster, what specifically is difficult to use in OS ? Do you have any examples? (I'm sincerely curious). What should Apple change in OS X that was easier in OS 9?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sharing volumes, networking two Macs, copying a volume, windows staying put instead of disappearing, putting things away, adding a new folder, SPEED, faxing....to name a few.

Yhere are a number of things that ARE better in X but it's not up to snuff in many other areas.....did I say speed  

I think what happens - we see it here all the time - you get used to the X speed and don't realize what you are missing until you hop back into booted 9.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> MacDoc wrote:
> 
> *
> Sharing volumes, networking two Macs, copying a volume, windows staying put instead of disappearing, putting things away, adding a new folder, SPEED, faxing....to name a few.
> *


As I probably don't do the major networking that you may, macdoc, I can say that in my experience some things seem easer in X.

The first incarnations of OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were real pains in the a**. With 10.2, everything just seems to work for me. I'm just doing machine-to-machine crossover, and logging into the destination machine with the administrator accounts, which is all *I* need to do. In a larger environment, with multiple users and different permissions per user, etc., I can certainly see how 9 would be preferred. Back in the Pre-Jaguar days, I installed "SharePoints" to make file sharing in X easier, but it was all very confusing, I don't know if I managed to accomplish anything (beyond possibly making my Mac very insecure those days








)

The new OS X Finder has things that 9 didn't... like "Undo", which is faaaaabulous. The new "New Folder" command (Shift-Command-N) definitely IS annoying. Why couldn't we have a Finder preference option to switch this with the Command-N we were all used to? I know that I create a new folder about a 1000 times more frequently than I need to open a new "computer" or "home" window.

The SPEED thing I can't speak to, other than to say that OS X in all its incarnations has been more than just useable on my 300mhz G3 iBook for 18 months now.

And Faxing? Y'know, I spent a lot of time trying to replace the Fax utility I had in OS 9. But a funny thing happened... the rest of the world discovered email, and I haven't needed to send or receive a fax. Heck, even the faxing I used to do regularly to Cuba has been supplanted by email.... in my experience, at least.

And to get back to the topic at hand  

I don't really use the Address book. All of my contact info is in Eudora, which is always open on my machine anyway.

My $0.02 on a Saturday night...

M.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I miss the simplicity of the *Chooser*
servers, connectivity, printing all in one nice clean place.

And why is the keyboard shorcut to create a new folder shift-command-N instead of command-N the way it has been for years?
Just to test my reading an comprehension?









I wish Apple had allowed dual boot machines for a while longer.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

this is my 1st time i have used os x.2.5 straight thru 2 days so far.
of course no faxing
unlike cubamark, i stillneed to receive faxes and i don't even want to think about a fax machine

i understand and see the advantages of a properly implemented cooperative multitasking OS like UNIX ( i was an UNIX geek from way back) but i think apple dropped the ball on not bringing forward the look and feel that os 9 users were so used to thru to os x - this would have made the transition from 9 to X much easier for those that chose the OS 9 look and feel, as described in the above post

hell, even XP has the ability to flip over to the "classic look" - maybe apple should have taken a page out of that
steve-o isn't too worried about borowing from others, now is he?









i'm finding things out, putting more and more stuff into the dock, making the dock smaller

i still keep looking under the apple menu for items...
i still want to look for the chooser
(just reflex)

b/w G3/500 512 mb ram, mac radeon 7000 and os x is still sluggish compared to os 9 

lucky for me no real issues with classic so far

i still think apple would have made a lot more friends if they kept the dual boot machines
sales would be up for the new stuff that is only OS X bootable now


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

As someone who "switched"[1], I can say there's a fair bit of mental re-wiring that had to occur before I got used to working on Mac OS X (and before I actually enjoyed working on Mac OS X). In fact, I considered returning my PowerBook after the first couple of weeks since I found Mac OS X more frustrating than anything else. I'm not sure what Apple could have done to make the transition easier or more enjoyable, since most of the trouble came from learning the particular quirks of Mac OS X.

After eight months, though, I find Mac OS X a pleasure to use and I don't think I'd willingly give up my PowerBook ("from my cold, dead hands" springs to mind).

People that are used to Mac OS 9 or earlier might find Mac OS X slow, but I find that it's fairly snappy. The only things that I find slow would probably be slow on Mac OS 9 as well, since I think the hardware is the bottleneck, not the OS.

Right, I'm rambling. I'll stop now.

[1] I'm not sure that term is completely accurate in my case, since I still spend a lot of time working with Windows.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum,

Don't you mean pre-emptive multitasking instead of co-operative multitasking? (Yes, I'm nitpicking).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i thought that os 9 was pre-emptive multitasking - i.e. one function stops whilst another takes CPU time - whereas in UNIX they share the CPU in slices and get their fair share, of course i/o like mice and kybd. get attention quickly, and redraw and the like.

some of the os 9 (only one at a time) stuff was fixed so that you could play with word while copying files to a volume, but not to the same extent of multi-tasking that is available from UNIX

perhaps my nomencalture was incorrect and if so, i stand corrected

i hope my point was not lost in the shuffle.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Under a co-operatively multitasking OS, processes have to give up the CPU so other processes can use the CPU; a process could monopolize the CPU by failing to yield the CPU, and other processes wouldn't have a chance to run. Under a pre-emptively multitasking OS, the OS controls which process gets the CPU and for how long; it's not possible for a particular process to monopolize the CPU. 

A co-operatively multitasking OS running well-written, well-behaved programs is almost indistinguishable from a pre-emptively multitasking OS running any program. That's why it's possible to use Word when the Finder was busy copying files. Of course, if there's a piece of code in the Mac OS 9 Finder that doesn't yield the CPU properly, then you're in trouble!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

looks like i had my terminology reversed
some synaptic nerve damage


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MasterBlaster,

Errr... hope the rant made you feel better. Here are a few (hopefully useful) pointers.

To directly restart or shutdown, press the option key before selecting Restart or Shutdown. It by-passes the "Are You Sure" window (which is there precisely for new users who do inadvertantly click). The option key also works with the other shutdown methods (e.g. pressing the power button). If you check the Apple menu, pressing the option key removes the three dots normally present - indicating this is now a direct action.

Talking of the Apple menu, make use of the recent items selector which is always present. It lists recent apps and docs. I use it all the time to navigate. Use the dock as an organizer. Putting folders there allows rapid access. I have mine hidden and magnifiable. 

Drag the desktop "file" into the dock. This lists all of the files on your desktop in one place (if you click and hold).

Apple has added back various functions and shortcuts to provide a better linkage with OS 9 but many of these need activating. Likewise, the behaviour of many applications can be made semi-automatic and to adhere to your preferred behaviour. But it does mean you need to spend some time.

Drag and drop is extremely highly evolved. You can use this to move most things around between devices, folders, applications, etc. The contextual menu is also a powerful tool.

OS X is incredibly flexible. Speed is a relative issue. Personally, I'd never swap the rock solid stability of the OS for the continual crashing of OS 9 (at the worst possible times). I also think the better threading of the processes is much more efficient. You can usually carry on working while 10 other things are going on (downloading updates, surfing, virus checking, installing apps, you name it). OS 9 was a great OS but it was the product of many, many add-ons and cludges. I never want to see an extension again....

There is surely a lot to be improved in OS X but it is highly customizable and you get out of it what you put in. Maybe it shouldn't be like that, but you can never satisfy everyone.

As for parents and OS X, my 70 year old mother had no problem using OS X when she visited from England last month and asked me to install it on her iMac when I'm next over.

One more snippet: I was at a Howard Hughes Medical Institute meeting last week. Of the 30 talks, 23 were run using Macs, 19 of those using OS X. There was only one user of Keynote.

I'd highly recommend perusing David Pogue's "OS X the missing manual" or one of the many excellent OS X Jaguar books now available. Apple did do its OS and its users a disservice by trying to give the impression that OS X can be understood by a 20 page booklet.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Just noticed that the Globe and Mail website now works perfectly with Safari (after the redesign screwed the headers). Small mercies...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Personally, I'd never swap the rock solid stability of the OS for the continual crashing of OS 9 (at the worst possible times). I also think the better threading of the processes is much more efficient. You can usually carry on working while 10 other things are going on (downloading updates, surfing, virus checking, installing apps, you name it."

This is what I don't understand. We have hundreds of clients on 9 that could not afford "continually crashing". Set up properly late version OS 9 is very stable especially now that Apple has stopped fiddling.
I do multiple tasks at the same time all the time - there are a few exceptions like software installs but how often is that done and I go for days without a hiccup and then it is always something like a memory out on leaky programs like IE and I'm using some small apps like PhonePad from 1989 and they are stable. 
X is better in memory allocation and use but X is far worse for slowing down to a crawl when the drive gets full or fragmented and cleaning that up in X is far more time consuming than a simple restart to let 9 reallocate memory again and neither will recover gracefully from say a Firewire hangup.
Apple certainly has takensome steps to get the best of earlier OSes back into X and added some features but the speed is woeful. 
Isn't it worth a thought that they keep trying to get OS9 features working...might be there is some validity in Mac users expectations and work patterns.
X needs to be 
a) as good
b) as fast
c) then better

errata - virus checking ...on a Mac...why?? 

[ May 05, 2003, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Virus checking..... cos its there (I do the occasional scan).

macdoc, there are certainly stable implementations of OS 9 but its a fossil. After using X since the beta, I have a hard time going back to it. Fortunately, I'm not in a production environment, don't rely on Xpress and have been able to buy X versions of virtually everything I previously used. I dropped a few apps because OS X gave me better variants (I am largely dependent on Mail, .Mac, iSync, iTunes, iPhoto) but that's partly because I like integration.

I'm ripping my CD collection to AAC, marking exam papers, posting via Safari and syncing my iPod and OS X is lapping it up. I don't really see why Apple felt they had to cut OS 9 booting except as an incentive/stick to the software houses. The new apps/capabilities/Music store, etc. are plenty of positive incentive for running X.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I don't really see why Apple felt they had to cut OS 9 booting except as an incentive/stick to the software houses. The new apps/capabilities/Music store, etc. are plenty of positive incentive for running X.


Exactly.
Let the "market" (aka your customer base) choose.

Most will eventually get to OS X, but in hi pressure environments like production, prepress and printing (traditional strongholds for apple), they need to have a visible ROI (return on investment) before the just upgrade.

Again, the margins and profits are tight in these markets. Everyone is looking for an edge. These people are used to spending tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of dollars for presses, prepress equipment, CTP, proofing systems, RIPs, scanners and the like. Certainly they would not balk at OS X if, and that is a big IF, they could justify the expenditure.

To put it simply. "How will OS X help me make more money?"

With our own products we get that question asked all the time and we prefer to use a "show me" approach to our products.
The big boys tell their clients that what we say we can do isn't possible for less than $100K or even impossible.

We just do the demo and let the client decide.

So far, so good with this approach.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

First you claim it's unstable then it's a fossil  

X can be a treat for certain users - my daughter is one but there are holes and work in progress issues that simply do not exist in 9 right now and that counts.
10.2.5 is a case in point with a number of new "issues" - and going back to a previous version is no simple task. So my daughter puts up with a computer that doesn't want to sleep anymore - I guess until .6 comes









Audio clients are frustrated as parts of their industry is moving forward while others are not.

Apple has handled the transition reasonably well. A bit less eye candy, more speed and the continued attention to 9/X "work flow" will make for happier Mac users and migrators.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's an unstable fossil









Point being that the amount of development work being done on 9 by Apple or third parties is very small.

Sorry to hear of your daughters OS X 10.2.5 sleep problem. That's another aspect of OS X that I really appreciate - essentially instantaneous wake up.

One thing we can all count on is that there will be another update shortly.... (this is both good and bad - for people on dial up, it must really piss them off to have to spend hours dling "updates").

Just listening to my new Pod


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

MasterBlaster complained:



> *Apple added stickies from OS 9 to OS X.
> A feature that should never have been taken away!
> I have to use third party utilites to have the collapsible folders work in OS X.
> I use a product in Windows called Windowshade to enable this feature in Microsoft Windows.
> ...


*



Another feature that I miss in OS X is the top right corner being able to hide and show all my applications from there.
I use a third party utility to enable this on OS X as well.
Apple has also re-introduced exploding? folders into OS X.

Click to expand...





I ask, why was Apple so stupid to remove these excellent features which make the mac so nice and easy to use in the first place?????????

Click to expand...

*Since we are nitpicking, it really steams my cheese when people whine about how something was "taken away' from them in OSX.

*IT WAS NEVER TAKEN AWAY! IT HAS or HAD ONLY NOT BEEN ADDED YET!!!*

OS X was pretty much written from the ground up. Just because *YOUR* favourite 'feature' doesn't show up in OS X doesn't mean it was taken away. Perhaps it is being added later... a lower priority to other aspects to the OS. Perhaps they have changed the method in which you can accomplish the same kind of thing.

A "feature" was never "eliminated" in OS X. 

*FOR A FEATURE TO BE ELIMINATED, IT HAS TO HAVE EXISTED IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!* 

OS 9 and OS X are *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OSES.* In order to ADD a "feature" into OS X that currently exists in OS 9, they have to ADD it in by WRITING THE CODE FROM SCRATCH.

And if you think it's such an easy task, WHY DON'T YOU DO IT YOURSELF?!?

So, please, stop complaining that 'feature x' is taken away or eliminated from OSX. Because IT NEVER EXISTED IN OSX TO BEGIN WITH!

If you want to complain about a feature. Complain to Apple that you WANT 'feature x' ADDED.

Thank you.

I am now going to take my thorazine and have a nice little nap...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry I don' t buy your analogy.
Apple was "migrating" users to X .
That does not imply "new OS".

It'll get there doesn't cut it.
Ground up - tough that's Apple's problem not users
Taken away - yes it was it's the Mac OS....period - X or 9 or 8 ist's the Mac OS - 

X needs to be 
a) as good
b) as fast
c) then better

Wanna task - go out on the continent and find a "few" decent dual boot boxes say 466 or 533 up to Dual 867s anthing like reasonable prices.
Ain't there.......

Apple tower sales are "slow"

You know why.....


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Can someone explain why Linux is so damn fast on el cheapo machines and X is a DOG in terms of speed   WOOF WOOF.....my apologies to the canines of the world.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

Linux will run on low-end machines because Linux doesn't provide a lot of the functionality that Mac OS X provides. I'd imagine that Darwin has the same modest hardware requirements that Linux has (and provides roughly the same amount of functionality).

I'd imagine some of the slowdown in Mac OS X comes from the use of Objective-C. Objective-C is a neat language, and you can do all sorts of nifty things in Objective-C that are Hard(tm) in most other language, but it's hard to get Objective-C programs to run as quickly as, say, C programs. 

There's also the fact that Mac OS X is still a (relatively) young operating system. Determining where performance problems are and how to solve them is hard and takes time. Plus, as time goes on, more and more people will upgrade to faster hardware, which will run Mac OS X faster, so Apple won't have to worry about fixing all of the performance problems and can focus on adding new functionality to the OS.

I must admit I'm quite happy with Jaguar on my PowerBook (G4 667), and I imagine things will only improve with Panther.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

There's a neat walkthrough of A/UX here.

I don't think A/UX became AIX since AIX was out in 1986, while A/UX was released in the 1990s. AIX is a truly horrible breed of Unix; if one of our largest customers weren't using AIX, we'd drop it in a heartbeat.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

as i recall, there was some sort of deal between apple and ibm and that was the death knell of a/ux


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

back in the old days when street lights were still gas powered, i remember installing and supporting something called A/UX

Apple UNIX, very cool. Apple's tag line "UNIX for the rest of us"

had a great GUI, almost identical to the OS of the day, 7 if memory serves, easy to install, ran "classic" environment, had console...

this ran on 030 and 040 boxes and not too shabbily at that.

now we have multiple times the computing power and this rev. of UNIX for mac is slow

what happened to A/UX ( i think it became AIX from "big blue") but why did apple give up on that product?

why?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

a


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jfp - been back on 9 lately - might be worth a reality check.  
I find most X users "accommodate" and then get shocked when they see what they are missing in speed.
I go back and forth between two Cubes witht he same video card - now admitted my processor is faster but not enough to account for the immense speed difference.
Only on a 1.2 gHz Mac does X approach a modest OS9 machine


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - Using my Mac, I don't find a difference anymore. Although a few tasks in OS X are slower, most are now faster or have been brought up to speed. Like when 10.2.5 was released, using my USB floppy drive became faster then OS 9 instead of 1000x slower then 9. X is becoming much better, but on older machines, it still is a little slow. While anything 2 years or newer seems to run it quite well.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*I find most X users "accommodate" and then get shocked when they see what they are missing in speed.* 

I don't think most accomodate.. they prefer stability over speed. And its really a percieved speed with the UI. Browsing through the UI is faster in OS 9, cause its not doing 1/10th the stuff OS X is doing. You may or may not like the stuff its doing, but I sure do. When your Mac is actually chewing on rendering, OS X is as fast, if not faster. I just did a test in Photoshop running a couple of filters on the same file. First on X, then in 9. Speeds were almost the same. The thing is, in X when the filter was rendering, I could actually keep using my computer. 

I think for new users, OS X is very easy _if its explained to them_. I think navigation is confusing right now and Apple needs better tutorials. But once users know why they have a home folder, and two library folders etc... its makes sense to them. 

The tutorials Apple has now on .Mac are excellent. This should be included with every new Mac. I strongly think Apple should have a better tutorial. Put it on DVD or something. 

David Pogue's Mac OS X: The Missing Manual is excellent, even for Mac veterans who think they know it all. 

The folder structre in X was a hurdle for me, as I was used to 9, but once you know why things are where, it is 10x better. (No pun intended)


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

I've not used Mac OS 9 on my PowerBook, nor do I care to since Mac OS 9 lacks two features I require: pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection. I've no desire to have a rogue app either monopolize my CPU or start stomping over other processes memory. In fact, I wouldn't have bought a Mac in the first place had Mac OS X not been out.

Of course, I also use Windows XP on a variety of different systems (the fastest being a P4 2.26GHz), and Mac OS X seems to hold up fairly well speedwise compared to those systems (the notable exceptions being 3D performance and reboot time).


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macdoc, maybe there is some accommodation but I don't think so. The integration of OS X with wireless, multiple network configurations, Bluetooth synching, iPod managment and integrated programs makes OS 9 a hobbled and limited system for me. Sure, I could give up most of those conveniences, but it would be a down-grade.

OS 9 was a fine OS as of 2001. Even now, being a couple of years behind the curve can be an advantage if you are using tried and tested procedures and legacy software. But it has stopped evolving and it is by no means perfect. Apple hasn't disabled OS 9 and there should be a reasonably active market in machines capable of booting into 9 (such as the brand new eMacs). So we can have our respective cakes and throw them at each other!









As a person dealing in Macs, do you still recommend OS 9 machines to people who are not in a legacy environment? If so, please explain the rationale (new users, old users, etc.).


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Gotta chime in now:

A/UX was Apple's UNIX. Discontinued before the PowerPC came out. I think the Quadra was the last machines it ran natively on.

AIX is IBMs UNIX - it is still developed today. It had no ties whatsoever to A/UX. The only reason Apple chose that to ship on their Network Servers (used to have one, those were huge) is because AIX was already PowerPC Native. It only needed a few new drivers.

MacOS X is not slow because of Objective-C - NeXTStep used Objective-C and it was lightning quick. There is a bit of UI lag in MacOS X that gives it a perceived slowness - it is due the layers of APIs that an app has to communicate through to display. But it's just a perceived difference. Any tasks that don't constantly update the UI are not slow compared to other machines at all.

Encode a DVD with iDVD and compare it with a Windows PC - you'll be impressed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JFP since you have not used OS9 you have no reference point on speed.
"A co-operatively multitasking OS running well-written, well-behaved programs is almost indistinguishable from a pre-emptively multitasking OS running any program."

Exactly - multitasking on 9 works very well as does releasing from nearly all individual program crashes with the exception of file transfers which neither does well. X can get very difficult on a FW or network hangup.

•••••
Ehmax - the biggest complaint is slow response - of course within a program like PS things get settled down it's really finder/task switching speeds that are sluggish and much of it is the graphic overhead.
New users are a different matter and X has much to offer including a lot of truly "plug and play" as JW notes.
He is also correct in the "tried and true" aspect as that is a huge factor for many users.
I had though iPhoto might be the "pull forward" app but it looks like video editing/DVD authoring is turning out to be the big draw.
Adding X and a DVD burner for $550 or so gets a real reason to explore. Safari helps too offering some real speed.

Your last question is a good one.
New users I answered.
With 19 years in the Mac biz we have quite a depth of Mac clients and not so many "consumers" in the sense of the iMac/iPod crowd.
Video users go to X period - it's wonderland for them with a few grumbles about finder speed.
Audio guys jumped to X earlier then back and are buying dual boot boxes
Graphic clients don't want to know about X unless they are on inDesign and have no RIP issues. And yes they've tried work arounds and yes it's getting there but yes they buy dual boot which is one reason we are up 20% year over year when Apple sez tower sales are slow.
EVERYBODY loves X as a server.  

Since I'm not alone in my grmbling as evidenced by the very large amount of it on forums etc I'm quite secure in my assessment.

It's getting there, it's getting better, it's not there yet for many Mac users and Apple by and large has done a good job on a difficult transition.
They ae hurting there own sales by banning 9 boot right now for no good reason. They would for sure be selling more 1.42s with OS 9 boot - instead they offer a slower 1.25 at the same price - just what message does that send.

When the iBM 970s hit X will be fast, there will be good reason - right now there isn't and it's showing in their tower sales number and in the market where mid level OS9 booting 133 bus towers are just impossible to find.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Your a wise man Macdoc.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

The problem is that there are poorly-written programs out there. When I used Mac OS 8.6 I often had to reboot the machine by pulling the plug out of the wall. Not exactly user-friendly. 

Even well-written programs don't always behave properly and hog the CPU (or stomp on memory). With OS X this isn't a problem since the OS protects processes from one another. With OS 9, well, you're on your own.

As for speed, as I said in my previous post I've used a variety of different operating systems on a variety of different platforms (so I think I've got several points to compare against) and OS X seems pretty fast to me. 

Oh, and PowerMac sales have been declining overall for the last two or three years, so I don't think you can pin the decline entirely on Apple removing support for OS 9.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Your a wise man jfpoole!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

8.6 has no resemblance to9.2.2 especially the one Apple uses for classic support which has beent weaky for stability.
X on a transfer hangup requires plug pulling too.....we see it everyday - remembe we do many machine and many on X each day - we see the issues and benefits with both.
I had a high end photographer in tonight - doesn't NEED 9 - has a 867 PB with a gig of RAM - HATES X - no prompting from me - has the horsepower - doesn't cut it for him.

People say well there is no development - there actually is a lot of lower end development the MS Office replacement. Working with a fixed system gives developers time to fine tune quirks....you see dozens everyday on version tracker.

Sales of OS9 bootable towers are very strong and sales of X only towers are very soft. That has nothing to do with over all trends. Of course many clients have moved to portables entirely but mid and high level OS9 bootable towers are just about impossible to find on the market - that has nothing to do with trends it has to do with choice.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

macdoc countered:


> *Sorry I don' t buy your analogy.*


Fine by me. It wasn't for sale. There is a lease, with an option to buy though...

macdoc rebutted:


> *Apple was "migrating" users to X .
> That does not imply "new OS".*


Implications are subjective. I was speaking from a more objective point. 

*MAC OS X IS A BRAND NEW OS. NOT AN 'UPGRADED' VERSION OF OS 9.* 

And migrating to a NEW OS is EXACTLY what they are doing. The simple term of migration does not imply it HAS to be a newer version of the older one. Except in a very subjective view of the phrase.

macdoc stated:


> *Taken away - yes it was it's the Mac OS....period - X or 9 or 8 ist's the Mac OS*


Again, no it is not. Period. X and 9 are extremely different all the way down to it's core. The GUI may have similarities, but that's pretty much where the sameness ends.

As ehMax mentioned in his post, OS X does a whole lot more than OS 9 does. Most of that is under the hood or invisible to the user. The Quartz Rendering of Graphics is a prime example. OS 9 has none. OS X uses it. The difference can be night and day for some aspects of the GUI.

macdoc flat out demanded:


> *X needs to be
> a) as good
> b) as fast
> c) then better*


I agree with you 200%. And given enough time to develop, grow, and mature it will be.

MasterBlaster countered:


> *So Apple is trying to make its users switch to an incomplete OS?*


If by incomplete you mean missing desired features, then I would say 'yes' simply by all the griping about what has been 'taken away'.

If by incomplete you mean to imply that OS 9 or even something like Windows XP is considered 'complete, then I say 'no'.

On the flip side of the coin, I want my Dock in OS 9. Where is my DOCK?!?! WHY HAVE THEY 'TAKEN IT AWAY' to use the same phrase.

You can also say that Apple didn't complete OS 9. They abandoned it. Why? Why couldn't they give me my protected memory or pre-emptive multi-tasking in OS 9? Why did they take it away?!?!

Completeness in an OS isn't something we will really ever see. There will always be some feature we will want added in.

MasterBlaster, in response to my comment to complain to Apple about missing features:


> *I did.
> I had exchanged many emails with them and spoke to some Apple Grand Poobah in Cupertino at length twice (Not Big Steve).
> 
> He agreed with me and said that there were a lot of complaints similar to mine about OS X*


Excellent! It's a good thing to give Apple feedback, good or bad. If they know we want something, there is a better chance of getting it added.

Out of curiousity, which specific feature(s) did you request?

MasterBlaster countered the DYI with a clever reposté:


> *I did. With very popular shareware programs.
> So have a lot of people.*


Again, EXCELLENT!

It's good to see that desired features can be implemented with 3rd party software. It's also good that Mac Users don't rely solely on Apple for a solution to every desired feature they want.

Would it be good if Apple integrated "Desired Feature 'X'" into OS X? Sure, in most cases it probably would kick serious butt.

But.

The Mac user base is a community. We all love Apple products for a multitude of reasons and we can all work together to come up with solutions and enhancements to our favourite computer and it's beating heart, the OS.

MasterBlaster opined:


> *I disagree with your Mickey Mouse analogy.
> Glad you're on medication.*


I never made an analogy to Mickey Mouse? My analogy was that people state a feature was taken away when in fact it simply hasn't been added. I then backed up that statement with evidence to prove my statement.

I did make a reference to steamed cheese though.

And the meds were great. Thanks.

Of course, all this can really be summed up under "Perception is Reality".

Those used to Mac OS 9 could perceive a missing feature as have been taken away as opposed to not implemented yet. But in truth, Mac OS X lacks certain OS 9 features. Some features are in the works to be added, others may never surface.

Thank you for allowing me to vent, and of course, giving me the opportunity to use the oddball phrase, "steamed cheese".


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Standing-O from me for that post Strongblade!!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Long time Mac users tend not be "objective" when it doesn't work they way they are used to especially when it's slooooooow. It's THEIR perceptions that count and X is slow and incomplete.

QE might make the desktop pictures move nicely but that's hardly a "whole lot more" - it's eye candy - that's half the problem.

"given enough time to develop, grow, and mature it will be."
Yep - just as we said it ain't there yet and Apple needs to invite not force.

grading X 
a) as good - mark C+ improving
b) as fast - mark D - improving slowly
c) then better mark B+ shows promise
d) looks pretty mark A but needs to focus more on work


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Part of the problem is that Apple doesn't have the resources to do everything I'm sure they'd like to do. 

At some point Apple has to stop spending resources on what's essentially a dead operating system, and start spending them on their current operating system. Apple decided the best point to make that switch was January.

I can't really see how Apple is forcing people to upgrade to Mac OS X, though. It's not as if Mac OS 9 suddenly stopped working on hardware it had worked on the night before


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

"I can't really see how Apple is forcing people to upgrade to Mac OS X, though. It's not as if Mac OS 9 suddenly stopped working on hardware it had worked on the night before"

Bingo. If you want to use old software, you gotta use old hardware. It's all over eBay, so if you really don't want to upgrade, then don't.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I am going to have to agree with jfpoole here, as long as Apple was still working on OS 9 it was still hindering the development of OS X.

Now that they have officially stopped 9 they can finally get on with making OS X as good, as fast and then better.

If you think that 9 is a better OS for you, then just wait to upgrade (like you already have).

--PB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Strongblade - I'm just teasing - of course it does more in some areas but QE is just part of the eye candy issue so I figured a needle or two was worthwhile  

No one is askig Apple to do anything further on OS9 - it's blessing they aren't. I don't think there is an OS on the planet that was left alone along enough to let the application development get all the bugs out of the major programs let alone the little apps









Apple IS forcing people because it's Apple's CHOICE to not allow OS9 bootable machines - it's Apple's choice not a necessity at this point in hardware development and that's where the issue is and where the slow tower sales come from and it will hurt them on the lower end portable sales too.

As for eBay go find a 933 or 867 single or any upper end dual boot boxes. Not there because those users are prevented from buying newer hardware and it's APPLE's choice in putting that road block up.

As for the Mom test - yep X is terrific as long as Mom stays close to the core use. 
But let Mom trash a few files and you'll be on a much longer support call than with 9.


[ May 09, 2003, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Could Apple be ready to release new towers that can only run OSX? I mean, a new computer that would need extra components if it were to be able to run OS9?
I'm thinking that these things take years to develop and when it gets close to a release date, they start pushing the move to OSX though software updates and such. The G4 chip is old. So maybe the "new computer" will tap into the power of OSX that couldn't be tapped with the G4 chip. Then we would see the speed increases and such that people "think" they have now with OS9.
Just a thought,
Robert
ps: Strongblade, great responses. I wish more would follow your lead. You can learn more from your way than from some of the "spats" we've seen on this board.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummmm Robert you might want to cruise some of the rumour sites....the next processor WILL be an IBM 970 variation......it's about bloody time.

Yes it's a factor for that chip.
NO it's not a factor for the current boxes....it's Apple's choice and they are suffering the consequences.
With 6 billion in the bank it's not a big factor for Apple and many clients just continmue to use their current machines quite contently.
And several have said bluntly they will wait until the new chip justifies the effort to move to X since they are not about to be bludgeoned by Apple into moving for little reason.
The 970 is rumoured to run Windows in emulation faster than current top of theline Intel chips.
The universal platform perhaps 

[ May 09, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

macdoc commented:


> *QE might make the desktop pictures move nicely but that's hardly a "whole lot more" - it's eye candy - that's half the problem.*


Well, the point is QE isn't the only thing. It was simply my example. It is far from the only thing OS X does that OS 9 doesn't. And to site my example as the only advancement for OS X is not really a great way to debate things.

I view OS X with a rating system I call "The Mom Test".

It's given a percentage score based on how likely it is I *WON'T* get a daily call from my own mother when she uses OS X on her computer.

Currently I judge that score at about 85%

Subjective? Yes. But considering my mother still hasn't quite figured out that tricky 'when to double-click" part of using the frickin' mouse, OS X is scoring pretty well for a 2.5 year old...

If only OS 9 could get such a high score... My long-distance phone bill would be much lower every month...


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Just about every time Apple updates its hardware (even minor updates) Apple has shipped a new version of Mac OS. Even if an update isn't required you still have to thoroughly test Mac OS to make sure it runs on the new hardware. That takes time and energy. 

Apple doesn't have an unlimited pool of resources to draw from, and made the decision to stop supporting Mac OS 9 on recent hardware. It's not as if Apple introduced an gratuitous incompatability into the hardware, nor did OS 9 stop working on existing hardware. They simply stopped spending the necessary resources to make OS 9 work on new hardware. 

Apple didn't stop supporting Mac OS 9 to spite its users. Apple stop supporting Mac OS 9 for business reasons.

If you really need to keep using Mac OS 9, you can either stick with your current hardware, pick up some used hardware, or purchase one of these PowerMacs. 

As for the rumor that the 970 will run x86 code faster than current Intel chips? I'd say that's impossible.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Macdoc, I know about the rumoured IBM chip. I just thought that there is more to the computer than just a chip.
I'm not technically up on the goings on inside a computer, so I kept my comment vague. 
As far as keeping secrets goes, Apple can and does it all the time. ie. 17" AlPB. So why not a new type of computer.
Robert


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jfp - tha'ts an accurate assessment that there does need to be tweaks each time and in this cases it was Airport extreme and FW 800 but really the tweaks are minor compared to a processor introduction.

BUT Apple is also missing sales as a result so it's a double edged sword = FW 800 and 811-G will both run on earlier boxes via PCI cards so it's not a huge issue code wise. Yes it was a business decision that Apple waffled a couple times on and I'm sure there are oodles of Quark images on dartboards to be hurled at in frustration.

Robert
Indeed there is far more but it's a MAJOR task to switch processors, Apple is one of the few to do it successfully in the early days.

Apple indeed is better at keeping secrets but you can bet they don't WANT this kept a secret as Mac users are begging for competitive speed and Apple wants them not to give up hope.

••
JFP - apparenlty the IBM chip interacts with the latest Windows software very tightly ( makes sense )so it's less of an emulation as it is an alternative kernel both taking advantage of the chip capabilities. Makes sense that IBM would design it in that manner and RISC ultmately SHOULD go well beyond CISC in raw horsepower tho' Intell has done wonders wringing the last ounce from the architecture.

I don't pretend to understand the details but the philisophical approach to the design make sense

Here's a look

http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jfp - tha'ts an accurate assessment that there does need to be tweaks each time and in this cases it was Airport extreme and FW 800 but really the tweaks are minor compared to a processor introduction.

BUT Apple is also missing sales as a result so it's a double edged sword = FW 800 and 811-G will both run on earlier boxes via PCI cards so it's not a huge issue code wise. Yes it was a business decision that Apple waffled a couple times on and I'm sure there are oodles of Quark images on dartboards to be hurled at in frustration.

Robert
Indeed there is far more but it's a MAJOR task to switch processors, Apple is one of the few to do it successfully in the early days.

Apple indeed is better at keeping secrets but you can bet they don't WANT this kept a secret as Mac users are begging for competitive speed and Apple wants them not to give up hope.

••
JFP - apparenlty the IBM chip interacts with the latest Windows software very tightly ( makes sense )so it's less of an emulation as it is an alternative kernel both taking advantage of the chip capabilities. Makes sense that IBM would design it in that manner and RISC ultmately SHOULD go well beyond CISC in raw horsepower tho' Intell has done wonders wringing the last ounce from the architecture.

I don't pretend to understand the details but the philisophical approach to the design make sense

Here's a look

http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

The tweaks may be minor but there's still a lot of work involved in rolling out even minor updates to an operating system. Plus, while this might have had a negative effect on PowerMac sales, dropping support for OS 9 is a savings across the entire line of Macs. 

I'm not sure why the IBM 970 would have "tight integration" with current Windows software. Windows hasn't run on the PowerPC for quite some time, so I'm not sure why (or how, for that matter) IBM would provide this integration.

Oh, and it turns out that CISC has some unexpected advantages over RISC (dense instruction encoding being one of them, which results in smaller executables and more efficient use of memory and cache), so it's no longer clear that RISC has any advantages over CISC


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

> so it's no longer clear that RISC has any advantages over CISC


Pipeline bubbling still exists in CISC. Whenever your instructions aren't in uniform length you will get this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ah the famous RISC vs. CISC discussions

it's like deja vu all over again.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

hayesk,

Pipeline bubbling isn't unique to CISC chips since it also occurs in RISC chips, too (e.g., data hazards will introduce pipeline bubbles regardless of architecture).


----------

