 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Country Specific / UK Mac Group / May 2008Belated look at the OSXhints April Fool's front page
Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful its Finder folder-view windows were. http://www.macosxhints.com/images/OS9_full.png Cheers - Jaimie  Signature'Bother' to your simplistic linear numbering systems -- Nigel Hewitt, describing ukrs dive #100 > Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of > how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful > its Finder folder-view windows were. > > http://www.macosxhints.com/images/OS9_full.png It does try to make things seem much worse than they really were if you ask me. `Several hours' to download a 10MB file? In the OS 9 era? Get out! Assume 33.6 kbit/s and 10 transmitted bits per data byte received, and 10MB will take about 3000s - less than one hour. `Join the digital music revolution' they say - iTunes 2 etc. Oh boy... We had mp3 playing before iTunes. We had MODs and straight uncompressed sound files long before that. The advice on what to do with the system folder is for half-wits. The advice on `reduce required startup time' is for quarter wits. `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four programs running at once?' Well, I always did. VM did not make the machine act like it was broken - although I'll admit that a 475 with 4MB RAM could require the user to have some patience at times. Etc., etc., etc. I don't think it's nicely done - I think it's libel against the old MacOS line. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of >> how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It does try to make things seem much worse than they really were if you > ask me. Seems pretty acurate. > `Several hours' to download a 10MB file? In the OS 9 era? Get out! > Assume 33.6 kbit/s and 10 transmitted bits per data byte received, and > 10MB will take about 3000s - less than one hour. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The advice on what to do with the system folder is for half-wits. The > advice on `reduce required startup time' is for quarter wits. Well, I met many of them who had done bad things to their system folders. Remembering that it was a system for non computer users. > `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four > programs running at once?' > > Well, I always did. I did as well. It used to crash a lot. > VM did not make the machine act like it was broken - although I'll admit > that a 475 with 4MB RAM could require the user to have some patience at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think it's nicely done - I think it's libel against the old > MacOS line. Really don't think you could libel OS9 SignatureWoody > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of > >> how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Seems pretty acurate. Not to me, it doesn't. > > `Several hours' to download a 10MB file? In the OS 9 era? Get out! > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, I met many of them who had done bad things to their system folders. > Remembering that it was a system for non computer users. <shrug> Okay, so the world is full of half-wits and worse. The aura around Macs might have been `computers for non computer users', but that's stupidity. All modern-style (i.e., OS on disc not in ROM) PC type computers have such shoddy software that they need administrators to look after them. Macs never have been any exception. > > `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four > > programs running at once?' > > > > Well, I always did. > > I did as well. It used to crash a lot. <shrug> I generally only had crashes when I failed to nurse the machines correctly. There were patterns of behaviour that'd make it roll over - and if I avoided 'em, I was okay. For example, play Civ II, fail to reboot, crash follows (475, 7.6.1 mostly). <shrug> Non-ideal, but there you go. > > VM did not make the machine act like it was broken - although I'll admit > > that a 475 with 4MB RAM could require the user to have some patience at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Really don't think you could libel OS9 OS 9 was about as bad as it got (after the early PPC System 7 releases, anyway - wasn't until 7.6.1 that the PPCs had an okay OS IIRC). So you have a point. But still - it wasn't as bad as they make out. [Dear god I wish those bloody hooligan bikers would fit legal exhausts. Argh. There's some nasty noisy two-stroke - maybe an off-road machine - making a hell of a racket at the moment. Mind you, it's worse when I can hear the howl of the big four stroke fours screaming down the motorway for several miles and it's not like the motorway's not a mile or two away in any case. Do they have silencing at all, I wonder? (on the other hand, the fact that my exhaust system is legal means they help me get better treatment from plod as and when, if you see what I mean)] Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of > > >> how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not to me, it doesn't. seems fairly close to the mark i'd say. > > > `Several hours' to download a 10MB file? In the OS 9 era? Get out! > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > For example, play Civ II, fail to reboot, crash follows (475, 7.6.1 > mostly). <shrug> Non-ideal, but there you go. i can crash and did easly just by running more than one program or multble windows. the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. > > > VM did not make the machine act like it was broken - although I'll admit > > > that a 475 with 4MB RAM could require the user to have some patience at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anyway - wasn't until 7.6.1 that the PPCs had an okay OS IIRC). So you > have a point. But still - it wasn't as bad as they make out. os9 drove me potty, it's fine on the wallstreet for the odd game and other such sillnes. > [Dear god I wish those bloody hooligan bikers would fit legal exhausts. > Argh. There's some nasty noisy two-stroke - maybe an off-road machine - [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rowland. roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com > > > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of > > > >> how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > seems fairly close to the mark i'd say. Well, there you go. It was never like that for me. If it had been, I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that kind of crap, put it like that. [snip] > > > > `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four > > > > programs running at once?' [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > i can crash and did easly just by running more than one program or > multble windows. Well, I was using multiple open apps with System 6 and the Multifinder way back when. I used multiple applications with System 7.1 and 7.6(.1). Having more than one application open at a time was never a cause of instability that I could tell. Crashes were caused by other stuff, so it seemed to me. > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. [snip] When I used MacOS 7.1-7.6.1, I didn't have regular crashes. I had occasional, intermittent crashes - usually caused by me failing to treat the beastie with the care it needed. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > Well, there you go. It was never like that for me. If it had been, > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that > kind of crap, put it like that. 8.6 was the sweet-spot for me. After that it never really felt trustworthy[0] until later versions of 10.2 Jim [0] For small values of the word. Signature"Well, well. We've come a long way from the Prime Minister's exploding cake." - Adam West, Batman. Find me at http://www.UrsaMinorBeta.co.uk > > Well, there you go. It was never like that for me. If it had been, > > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that > > kind of crap, put it like that. > > 8.6 was the sweet-spot for me. After that it never really felt > trustworthy[0] until later versions of 10.2 I was happy from 10.0.0 SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > > Well, there you go. It was never like that for me. If it had been, > > > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I was happy from 10.0.0 Maniac. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >> > > Well, there you go. It was never like that for me. If it had been, >> > > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Maniac. It was stable. I could forgive all else. SignatureWoody > > Well, there you go. It was never like that for me. If it had been, > > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that > > kind of crap, put it like that. > > 8.6 was the sweet-spot for me. Never used that - I went straight from 68K 7.6.1 to 9.0.4. > After that it never really felt > trustworthy[0] until later versions of 10.2 > > Jim > [0] For small values of the word. 10.2.8 was the first decent MacOS X version as far as I'm concerned. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of > > > > >> how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that > kind of crap, put it like that. by that time, i was waiting for macosx to work. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cause of instability that I could tell. Crashes were caused by other > stuff, so it seemed to me. always too much running here, oh the whole. which is why as i got dialup and such it got worse as i starting running more, and at the same time. > > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > occasional, intermittent crashes - usually caused by me failing to treat > the beastie with the care it needed. well thats the point, macosx and to be honest windows doesn't need such kid cloves. > Rowland. roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com > > > > > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A > > > > > >> reminder of how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > by that time, i was waiting for macosx to work. Me too, more or less. If it hadn't been for the promise of MacOS X, I think I'd've been thinking about how to migrate to a different platform. > > > > > > `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four > > > > > > programs running at once?' [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > always too much running here, oh the whole. which is why as i got dialup > and such it got worse as i starting running more, and at the same time. It's just struck me that if your dyslexia takes you anything like the way it takes my little bro, I suspect there's no way you'd've been able to do what I did to keep the old MacOS stable. There was a lot of spotting and remembering arbitrary patterns that needed doing. Come to think of it, I'm not sure how the hell I managed it. > > > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > well thats the point, macosx and to be honest windows doesn't need such > kid cloves. Well, Windoze 3.blah in some installations was horribly unreliable for many - and there didn't seem to be any way round it. Not that I ever investigated myself - this is just what I heard. In the case of my use of Sys 7.1 - MacOS 7.6.1, I found that generally speaking, provided I avoided particular patterns of behaviour that I could avoid without significantly affecting the way I used the machine, everything worked nicely. Yes, it needed a skilled operator - mostly, one who could remember to reboot at key moments - to get reliable operation, but at least reliable operation was available. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > > > > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A > > > > > > >> reminder of how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Me too, more or less. If it hadn't been for the promise of MacOS X, I > think I'd've been thinking about how to migrate to a different platform. the thought did cross my mind, it has to be said. > > > > > > > `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four > > > > > > > programs running at once?' [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Come to think of it, I'm not sure how the hell I managed it. os7 was reltivly okay though it's useage was less but os9 really was creaking at the seams. mainly memory really. > > > > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > many - and there didn't seem to be any way round it. Not that I ever > investigated myself - this is just what I heard. 3.1 was okay, i was thinking later os9 -win xp where windows was better at handling memory, i could and still can make windows box's wimper if you run enought doesn't tend to crash out. > In the case of my use of Sys 7.1 - MacOS 7.6.1, I found that generally > speaking, provided I avoided particular patterns of behaviour that I > could avoid without significantly affecting the way I used the machine, > everything worked nicely. i'd rather a system could work the way i'd like rather than i trying to change my ways. > Yes, it needed a skilled operator - mostly, one who could remember to > reboot at key moments - to get reliable operation, but at least reliable > operation was available. > > Rowland. roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com [snip] > os7 was reltivly okay though it's useage was less but os9 really was > creaking at the seams. mainly memory really. How do you mean? [snip] > > Well, Windoze 3.blah in some installations was horribly unreliable for > > many - and there didn't seem to be any way round it. Not that I ever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at handling memory, i could and still can make windows box's wimper if > you run enought doesn't tend to crash out. Uhuh. > > In the case of my use of Sys 7.1 - MacOS 7.6.1, I found that generally > > speaking, provided I avoided particular patterns of behaviour that I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i'd rather a system could work the way i'd like rather than i trying to > change my ways. <shrug> I make 'em work the way I want 'em to, insofar as I can. The patterns I had to avoid were not awkward to avoid - mostly, all I had to do was to remember to reboot at certain times. A bit of a pain, but it beats the pain of a frozen Mac. > > Yes, it needed a skilled operator - mostly, one who could remember to > > reboot at key moments - to get reliable operation, but at least reliable [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > roger SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > [snip] > > > os7 was reltivly okay though it's useage was less but os9 really was > > creaking at the seams. mainly memory really. > > How do you mean? normally my os9 crashes are progam leaks memory and takes down the rest type of crash. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > do was to remember to reboot at certain times. A bit of a pain, but it > beats the pain of a frozen Mac. i like to keep a fair bit running, with os9 thats not terribly pratical. with osx and even xp that is as one program will not take out the rest, and with os9 that useage will cause a crash sooner rather than later. > > > Yes, it needed a skilled operator - mostly, one who could remember to > > > reboot at key moments - to get reliable operation, but at least reliable [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > roger roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com > In the case of my use of Sys 7.1 - MacOS 7.6.1, I found that generally > speaking, provided I avoided particular patterns of behaviour that I > could avoid without significantly affecting the way I used the machine, > everything worked nicely. That was certainly my experience, all the way up to 9.2, although my favourite was 7.5.5 on my IIfx. The problem was that most of my adaptations were subconscious, which meant that I wasn't always able to tell other people why they experienced constant crashing, and my machine almost never crashed. I probably had scores of little habits and avoidances that I was never aware of. SignaturePd > That was certainly my experience, all the way up to 9.2, although my > favourite was 7.5.5 on my IIfx. Mine was 8.1 on my beige 233/G3. For much the same reasons as you give. A lovely machine, a great OS, both flyers. SignaturePeter > > That was certainly my experience, all the way up to 9.2, although my > > favourite was 7.5.5 on my IIfx. > > Mine was 8.1 on my beige 233/G3. For much the same reasons as you give. > A lovely machine, a great OS, both flyers. I'd've thought 7.6.1 would have been better on a IIFX. 7.5.5 was a bit pants in many ways. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > > >> Rather good, actually - not a prank, just nicely done. A reminder of > > > > >> how much "fun" it was to work in the Mac OS, however much more useful [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'd've been a Windoze person. No way would I have ever put up with that > kind of crap, put it like that. Well, I almost was heading fulltime windows back then. I didn't like it but I could get stuff done. Then OSX came out. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cause of instability that I could tell. Crashes were caused by other > stuff, so it seemed to me. What other stuff? Anyway, I found 7.x stable. The article is about OS9. > > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. > > [snip] > > When I used MacOS 7.1-7.6.1, I didn't have regular crashes. Me neither. I had irregular and largely predictable crashes. By system 9 they became regular and unpredictable (well, apart from the predictable ones that were still there). > I had > occasional, intermittent crashes - usually caused by me failing to treat > the beastie with the care it needed. I have never been one for treating a computer with care. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com [snip] > > > > > > `Run only one program at a time' `Why push fate with three or four > > > > > > programs running at once?' [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What other stuff? There were some bits of software that screwed up some aspects of the machine when used at all - for example, Civ II would run fine, but I had to reboot before doing any 'net stuff or I'd get a crash. That's the main one I had to look out for. And there was something I had installed as a control panel - can't remember what, but it hooked into disc operations for some reason. Anyway, that caused problems due to a minor disc error that Disk Utility and NDD couldn't even see not to mention the fact that the `off' switch didn't unplug all the software, just stopped it doing its main thing (I wish I could remember what the hell it was now). Combinations of factors, rather than running multiple apps, if you see what I mean. > Anyway, I found 7.x stable. The article is about OS9. Oh aye - the thing is, the first OS 9 machine I had was unreliable for all its life due to hardware flakiness (as far as I could tell - it's a long story). It got replaced with a Mac that used OS X from the start although it could have booted into OS 9, so now I think about it I've no idea how stable OS 9 was generally. > > > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly regularly. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they became regular and unpredictable (well, apart from the predictable > ones that were still there). Righto - so it seems that OS 9 was as crap as all that. Oh well. > > I had > > occasional, intermittent crashes - usually caused by me failing to treat > > the beastie with the care it needed. > > I have never been one for treating a computer with care. <shrug> I look after all the tools I use - treat 'em appropriately given their application and how robust they are. The Avo 8 doesn't get used as a football; but I've got no problems using an adjustable spanner as a light duty hammer. Anyway, given that I found that Macs can't be treated as casually as a BBC Micro, I did what I did. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > although it could have booted into OS 9, so now I think about it I've no > idea how stable OS 9 was generally. I had a similar issue. I had a G4 400, which i bought with 9.04. It was always useless, crashed all the time and I used to slag it off in here as a rubish machine and how apple didn't make the machines they used to. It litterally crashed every day. I tried everything to fix it, as at that point it was the most I had ever spent on a computer. Then the Public beta of OSX came out. I put it on there as a dual boot. Obviously OSX couldn't do much, althought it was fascinating. After a while I realised it never crashed in OSX, so maybe all those people who said about bad memory etc were wrong. Then OSX10.0 came out. I ran it, sab prefered os9. then OSX 10.1 came out, and we went pretty well full time to OSX. In the life of that machine, it only crashed twice running OSX. Once when I turned on a scsi device when it was powered up, and once when I turned a scsi device on when it was powered up, panicked as I thought it would crash, turned it off, realised it didn't and turned it on again. The machine wasn't unreliable at all. It was system 9. System 9 pretty well drove me to windows. OSX brought me back again! >> > > the old wallstreet, is happy running but it falls over fairly >> > > regularly. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > used as a football; but I've got no problems using an adjustable spanner > as a light duty hammer. Well, yes, I didn't mean hitting them. > Anyway, given that I found that Macs can't be > treated as casually as a BBC Micro, I did what I did. I never found that. SignatureWoody > The machine wasn't unreliable at all. It was system 9. > System 9 pretty well drove me to windows. OSX brought me back again! Just the opposite here: I use 8.6 (and occasionally 9, which isn't generally as good for my purposes). Recently I had to buy an Intel iMac to meet a customer's specification for a particular job; as soon as that job is over, the iMac goes out the door. OSX is the reason, it is driving me up the wall. Computing on 8.6 is an enjoyable experience but on OSX is is a frustrating chore. It's not because of the differences from what I am used to, I expected them, it's because the OS and the stupid software (and mouse) gimmicks keep getting in the way of doing the job. Signature~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk > > The machine wasn't unreliable at all. It was system 9. > > System 9 pretty well drove me to windows. OSX brought me back again! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > used to, I expected them, it's because the OS and the stupid software > (and mouse) gimmicks keep getting in the way of doing the job. do you mean the dock? you can turn most off, if they get in your way. there shouldn't be any mouse gimmicks? you can turn off expose/dashboard from activating from any mouse funtions. roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com > > > The machine wasn't unreliable at all. It was system 9. > > > System 9 pretty well drove me to windows. OSX brought me back again! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > there shouldn't be any mouse gimmicks? you can turn off expose/dashboard > from activating from any mouse funtions. It's much more than that, it is the lack of thought which becomes apparent at so many places when you actually have to use the system - and which Apple had already sorted out long before OS 8. e.g. A mouse with hidden buttons in the sides which make things jump around and change colour on the desktop. It also doesn't work reliably on a lot of surfaces. One false edit in the work I am doing could create half a day's extra work - or it might go unnoticed until the customer found it. My business reputation depends on getting things right and I can't rely on this machine to do it. Icons with poor contrast which move around. A wastebasket which moves and cannot be put where the user wants it. Scroll bars which are all-but invisible. I don't want curves, I don't want transparency and 'style', I just want something with easy and obvious controls which work consistently every time. Slavish copying of Windows features such as 'minimise', which requires a mouse search to get the window back, when 'windowshade' was much easier and user-friendly. Replacement of Cmd-N with Cmd-Shift-N to create new windows which makes hard work of setting up a filing system and contradicts the use of Cmd-N inside applications. Consistency has been sacrificed for an illogical whim, just like Windows. Something I haven't been able to identify which prevents me from re-naming files unless the folder containing them is selected first. Not only is this utterly incomprehensible, but the name of the file reverts to the previous version and all the filename edits are lost without any warning to the user. The use of file extensions where none are necessary - and then concealing them from the user, just like Windows, so that you are only told what the system wants you to know. At least that one can be circumvented - but why should the user have to fight the system, that's a Windows trait. If I had wanted to use a Windows-like GUI, I would have bought a Windows machine. I paid extra for a Mac and all I got was Windows with an arty-farty appearance which is difficult to use. Virtually every application and every feature which made Mac special and which would allow OSX to drop into an existing Mac network has been lost or deliberately removed. I have used Macs for over a decade, I love Macs - and I loathe OSX because it promises Mac and delivers Windows. I am voting with my chequebook and getting rid of this horrible system. Signature~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk > > > > The machine wasn't unreliable at all. It was system 9. > > > > System 9 pretty well drove me to windows. OSX brought me back again! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > found it. My business reputation depends on getting things right and I > can't rely on this machine to do it. optical mice and it has to be said apple ones tend to be more skittish over some surfaces but to be honest all optical rodents tend to like a nice plain surface, you loose the ablity to roll over papers and what not, but don't have to clean the ball. but if so get a usb non optical mouse, and you can turn the mighty mouse to just be a one click mouse. > Icons with poor contrast which move around. some icons are a bit wishy washy but most i find perfically readable i don't find any differnce in reconisable between old icons and the osx type and i'm very much icon based. turn off magnification on the dock and they will not move. > A wastebasket which moves and cannot be put where the user wants it. for a system that will have a number of applications and thus windows i can't see really how they could allow that with out breaking every thing else. the loss of wastbasket to trash is more clunky language which is a shame. > Scroll bars which are all-but invisible. I don't want curves, I don't > want transparency and 'style', I just want something with easy and > obvious controls which work consistently every time. scroll bars should be a light blue and very visable. if not that window isn't the one in focus. > Slavish copying of Windows features such as 'minimise', which requires a > mouse search to get the window back, when 'windowshade' was much easier > and user-friendly. minmise was probably more next and unixy in hertage than windows, i don't use minmise though i perfure it to window shade, i work better with icons than blobs of text. i orgnise windows via expose. which works for me. > Replacement of Cmd-N with Cmd-Shift-N to create new windows which makes > hard work of setting up a filing system and contradicts the use of Cmd-N > inside applications. Consistency has been sacrificed for an illogical > whim, just like Windows. pass i don't use short cuts and never will. > Something I haven't been able to identify which prevents me from > re-naming files unless the folder containing them is selected first. > Not only is this utterly incomprehensible, but the name of the file > reverts to the previous version and all the filename edits are lost > without any warning to the user. os9 and below works the same way, the files do need to be selected, not sure how you would rename a file/s with out going though the folder in the first place, assuming your renaming via the finder. > The use of file extensions where none are necessary - and then > concealing them from the user, just like Windows, so that you are only > told what the system wants you to know. At least that one can be > circumvented - but why should the user have to fight the system, that's > a Windows trait. having the extention shown or not can reduce the clutter or allow one to see what type of file. > If I had wanted to use a Windows-like GUI, I would have bought a Windows > machine. I paid extra for a Mac and all I got was Windows with an > arty-farty appearance which is difficult to use. Virtually every > application and every feature which made Mac special and which would > allow OSX to drop into an existing Mac network has been lost or > deliberately removed. no what you have is essentaly a next box with a bit of mac. > I have used Macs for over a decade, I love Macs - and I loathe OSX > because it promises Mac and delivers Windows. I am voting with my > chequebook and getting rid of this horrible system. i have also used macs for over a decade and couldn't wait to get to osx once it started to arrive. i have mac's that run os9 but i wouldn't want to do any work on them, this said the way i work/play was never good for os9 as i use too many apps which was allways a good way to bring it down. roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com [snip] > optical mice and it has to be said apple ones tend to be more skittish > over some surfaces but to be honest all optical rodents tend to like a > nice plain surface, you loose the ablity to roll over papers and what > not, but don't have to clean the ball. but if so get a usb non optical > mouse, and you can turn the mighty mouse to just be a one click mouse. Roger, repeat after me 1,000,000 times: "lose, lose, lose, .." > > Icons with poor contrast which move around. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > turn off magnification on the dock and they will not move. A small bit of mag I find helpful. > > A wastebasket which moves and cannot be put where the user wants it. > > for a system that will have a number of applications and thus windows i > can't see really how they could allow that with out breaking every thing > else. the loss of wastbasket to trash is more clunky language which is a > shame. I used iCab until Leopard broke it but then Rowland put me on to DragThing which I now use. > > Scroll bars which are all-but invisible. I don't want curves, I don't > > want transparency and 'style', I just want something with easy and > > obvious controls which work consistently every time. > > > scroll bars should be a light blue and very visable. if not that window > isn't the one in focus. Agreed - I found the OS7/8/9 scroll bars quite OK. And they worked. [snip] > > Replacement of Cmd-N with Cmd-Shift-N to create new windows which makes > > hard work of setting up a filing system and contradicts the use of Cmd-N > > inside applications. Consistency has been sacrificed for an illogical > > whim, just like Windows. > > > pass i don't use short cuts and never will. I find memorising more than the basic few that never change to be a waste of brain cells, except perhaps in the extreme short term when doing something repetitive with some app. [snip] > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Roger, repeat after me 1,000,000 times: "lose, lose, lose, .." Mice should have one button only. That's the `win' position. What we've got now is - well, silly in many ways. On the other hand, I do like that scroll ball thingy in the top of the Mighty Mouse. I'd like it better if it were practical[1] to pull the thing apart for cleaning. And once upon a time, when people said `optical mouse' they mostly meant `optically encoded mechanical tracking' - what Macs had from the start, and since Macs had the first mass-market mouse, that's where it all started. Mechnically tracked electrically encoded mice were cheap, unreliable bodges that came along later. (Sun used to do a purely optical mouse, back in the late 80s IIRC. It needed a special mouse mat.) > > > Icons with poor contrast which move around. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A small bit of mag I find helpful. No here, it ain't. I keep my Dock hidden and more or less never use it for anything - unless I've accidentally minimised a window, in which case I go to the Dock to pull it out. To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work around and I'd love to not have it at all. [snip] > > > Replacement of Cmd-N with Cmd-Shift-N to create new windows which makes > > > hard work of setting up a filing system and contradicts the use of Cmd-N [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > waste of brain cells, except perhaps in the extreme short term when > doing something repetitive with some app. I once used Emacs for all my text editing. Keyboard shortcuts are worth learning in any application you're going to use a lot, I find. Rowland. [1] I'm doing no dismantling that means I have to glue it back together. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking In article <1ifg1yq.t7s3n71usjhh4N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>, > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mice should have one button only. That's the `win' position. I was actually referring to "loose" vs. "lose". Oh well. > > > [snip] > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Oh well. Ah. He's slydexic. There is little point in concerning yourself with his spelling. If he wants to learn to spell a particular word, he can put the effort it - but I suspect like most slydexics, he's taken the rational line that it's just not worth the bloody effort[1]. Rowland. (who ignores the spelling mistakes of known slydexics, unless they're very funny. He's had a lot of practice, what with a slydexic little bro and dad - I think I run a background process to deal with it.) [1] And if you have an opinion on whether or not this is possible, keep it to yourself. I've observed at close hand how it works. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > ...I keep my Dock hidden and more or less never use it > for anything - unless I've accidentally minimised a window, in which > case I go to the Dock to pull it out. > > To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work > around and I'd love to not have it at all. Seconded! Signature~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk > > To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work > > around and I'd love to not have it at all. > > Seconded! Okay. I used to think the same, but then I made it a lot smaller, switched off magnification (and much later put just a bit back in). In fact it works extremely well I think by refusing to embrace it, you're both depriving yourselves of a real pleasure and a useful tool. -- Peter > > > To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work > > > around and I'd love to not have it at all. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fact it works extremely well I think by refusing to embrace it, you're > both depriving yourselves of a real pleasure and a useful tool. I need the full screen as an audio editing window and don't want anything appearing unbidden on top of it. This is another example of OSX disobeying the basic rules: if the user has put something in the background, that is where the user wants it to stay. The OS must never over-ride the user's wishes. Signature~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk > I need the full screen as an audio editing window and don't want > anything appearing unbidden on top of it. In which case you can go most of the way and hide it; it'll only show if you mouse over it. I don't like doing that at all, but it certainly frees up the screen space, and I guess if I put the dock at its smallest size at the bottom, instead of on the right hand side as I do, it would hardly ever appear. SignaturePeter >>>> To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work >>>> around and I'd love to not have it at all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > has put something in the background, that is where the user wants it to > stay. The OS must never over-ride the user's wishes. Do you object to the space used by the menu bar too? Cheers, Chris > >>>> To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work > >>>> around and I'd love to not have it at all. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Do you object to the space used by the menu bar too? No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the user has set. That is a Windows characteristic and there is no place for it in a properly thought-out GUI (which is what Mac used to be before OSX). Signature~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk >>>>>> To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work >>>>>> around and I'd love to not have it at all. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for it in a properly thought-out GUI (which is what Mac used to be > before OSX). I understand what you're saying, but, the dock does serve a useful purpose and, if you really dislike it, can be turned off completely but a useful feature is to hide it until needed.. The other features you mention can, AFAIK, also be disabled if you really don't want them but they do, over time, prove their worth. However, I would admit that no amount of discussion with other users managed to convince me at first - I resisted OS X until 10.2.8 [ish] - and only your own experiences can convince you, one way or the other, of their worth or lack of it. In article <UbOdnf6P59eneZjVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>, David Kennedy <davidkennedy@nospamformethanksverymuchyoubastards.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> To me, the Dock is a major pain that I have to evade and avoid and work > >>>>>> around and I'd love to not have it at all. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > purpose and, if you really dislike it, can be turned off completely but > a useful feature is to hide it until needed. The trouble with hiding it is you have to let it be exposed before you can complete your navigation, since, I dunno about you, but I don't intend to memorise the locations of 20 icons that are in an off-screen object (and this objection to the "hide" method would still be valid even if the stuff in the dock didn't move). With the duck hidden you have to: 1) mouse over to it 2) see where the icon you want is and then move the mouse there whereas with it permanently exposed I just mouse over to it. > With the duck hidden you have to: > > 1) mouse over to it > 2) see where the icon you want is and then move the mouse there Yeah, I'd like the appl menu back. I take your point, but I find, on balance, I prefer the dock hidden. BTW, one of the Finder-tweaking appls (I forget which OTOH) allows you to have the dock at the bottom right, which means that the wastebacsket is pinned to the bottom right of the screen and makes it liveable with. >> With the duck hidden you have to: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wastebacsket is pinned to the bottom right of the screen and makes it > liveable with. That's the pinning pref that I posted about. Cheers, Chris [snip] > The trouble with hiding it is you have to let it be exposed before you > can complete your navigation, since, I dunno about you, but I don't > intend to memorise the locations of 20 icons that are in an off-screen > object (and this objection to the "hide" method would still be valid > even if the stuff in the dock didn't move). The trouble with the Dock is that you've got to memorise things anyway, since the Dock keeps text labels hidden. > With the duck hidden you have to: > > 1) mouse over to it > 2) see where the icon you want is and then move the mouse there Nope - you have to see where the icons are, mouse over the candidate icons until the pop-up name tells you which is the right one, and *THEN* you've got it. The lack of permanently visible text labels is a major design defect in the dock. As is the transparency. > whereas with it permanently exposed I just mouse over to it. I can't - I need to search the text labels by mousing over them one at a time. Why Apple decided that was better than letter me do a scan in sub-second time using eyeballs alone, I cannot imagine. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My > objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the > user has set. That is a Windows characteristic and there is no place > for it in a properly thought-out GUI (which is what Mac used to be > before OSX). Adrian, I think you protest too much. What moves and changes its properties, exactly? Having used and loved the Classic Mac systems from 7.1.2 onwards, and then run a dual boot machine (a TiBook which I still use) and now various flavours of OS10, I can say that (1) I haven't booted into OS9 on the TiBook for several years and (2) I haven't run Classic for months. OS10 just works better. I've configured it to be visually quite similar to to my OS9 setup, because that's what I like, and both feel perfectly familiar. And 10.4.11 (and 10.3.9 before it) were *so* much more stable, and actually apart from simple Finder actions like window opening, every bit as quick. In every other way, I'd say it was quicker. And far and away better. SignaturePeter > > No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My > > objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Adrian, I think you protest too much. What moves and changes its > properties, exactly? The Dock and windows which have been left open on the desktop. It took me ages (and help from this group) to find out that there was something which disobeyed the basic rules of a GUI turned on by default, which was responding to me picking up the mouse by its sides. Windows were changing in colour and moving around, some I had put in the background suddenly appeared over the top of others I was working on and got in the way. A Mac GUI should never behave like this under any circumstances and it certainly shouldn't be turned on by default. It shows that the people who wrote the GUI had no idea about Mac behaviour and just thought that badly thought-out Windows gimmicks were all right as long as they could be made to look Mac-like. Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and amateurish. >...I've configured it to be visually quite > similar to to my OS9 setup, because that's what I like,... Exactly. So why doesn't OSX come with that option for loyal customers who bought a Mac because a Mac was what they wanted. The Windows-like option could also be made available to encourage switchers who want to continue the abusive relationship they have grown to expect from Windows computers. >... And 10.4.11 (and 10.3.9 before it) were *so* much > more stable, and actually apart from simple Finder actions like window > opening, every bit as quick. In every other way, I'd say it was quicker. > And far and away better. With an extra 1 GB of RAM (that's 1000MB, not 128 MB which made the previous OSs fly) mine is definitely a lot slower than the beige G3. I find I am constantly pausing and waiting for things to happen. Even with only one app. running, it feels about the same as an LC475. (It is faster at copying big files, but that is not an OS thing) Signature~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk >>> No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My >>> objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which disobeyed the basic rules of a GUI turned on by default, which was > responding to me picking up the mouse by its sides. That's Expose. It doesn't disobey the "basic rules of a GUI" any more than dashboard does. It's a separate environment that allows you to view all your open windows at the same time so if you've got lots open you can find one that's buried. By default squeezing the mighty mouse will open this level of Expose (there are 2 others). If you don't like it turn it off. Learn how to control the settings of the OS and you might get more out of it? Stewart > >>> No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My > >>> objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > view all your open windows at the same time so if you've got lots open > you can find one that's buried. Shame that it fails in that task - any time I've got lots of windows open, Expose is useless because if I use it, the windows are too small to identify and that's when spread across two 1024x768 monitors. > By default squeezing the mighty mouse > will open this level of Expose (there are 2 others). If you don't like > it turn it off. Learn how to control the settings of the OS and you > might get more out of it? I think Adrian's point is that it's a pain to find the default setup so damned hard to use. I have had to develop a new way of operating my mouse to use OS X - I shouldn't have had to do that. It's not just a matter of controlling the settings: the OS X UI is such that you *need* at least two mouse buttons, when one of the whole points of Macs-as-was is that they're one button only... Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > any time I've got lots of windows > open, Expose is useless because if I use it, the windows are too small > to identify and that's when spread across two 1024x768 monitors. I didn't use Expose for about a year after it was introduced, now I use it constantly. Mostly f10, which is show all windows for just this application, but also occasionally f9 and f11. Most people reach a point in their lives where they transition from being excited by and embracing change, to being conservative. Nothing wrong with that, but if you use computers and don't want to get "left behind", you gotta keep changing, keep with the programme. As Bob said "he not busy being born is busy dying". SignaturePd >>> No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My >>> objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which disobeyed the basic rules of a GUI turned on by default, which was > responding to me picking up the mouse by its sides. The dock yes; but, as has been said many times, that is easily dealt with, turn the dock or any of it's properties on or off with the Dock Preferences. As for windows moving, it's simply not the case. Your Mouse, if not set up correctly, might be doing it, nothing else will. Surely you wouldn't expect to use any other piece of your equipment without familiarising yourself and the mouse is exactly the same; you are aware of the changes in OS X, we've been discussing them here for years and you've joined in, similarly, the mouse has changed, you noticed that immediately. I can't believe that you didn't bother to check the preferences, can't believe you struggled on without looking for a solution. It doesn't fit in with your normal work practises. > Windows were changing in colour and moving around, some I had put in the > background suddenly appeared over the top of others I was working on and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and just thought that badly thought-out Windows gimmicks were all right > as long as they could be made to look Mac-like. Then the machine is badly set up; either by you or by the dealer - or, possibly it's faulty. If so, junk it. > Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any > consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and > amateurish. I've never noticed that. >> ...I've configured it to be visually quite >> similar to to my OS9 setup, because that's what I like,... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > continue the abusive relationship they have grown to expect from Windows > computers. It's called progress. You might just as well ask why ford stopped making the Model T. >> ... And 10.4.11 (and 10.3.9 before it) were *so* much >> more stable, and actually apart from simple Finder actions like window [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with only one app. running, it feels about the same as an LC475. (It is > faster at copying big files, but that is not an OS thing) Hmmmm. I think you had made up your mind in advance and are now justifying the decision... > As for windows moving, it's simply not the case. Your Mouse, if not set up The only time I can think of that a window moves temporarily, is if it needs to display an attached sheet that would otherwise be partially off-screen. But the window moves itself back after you close the sheet. Open TextEdit, move the window near and off the edge of the screen, and choose "Other..." from the Style popup menu to see. That's just one example - most sheets should behave similarly in most applications. Cheers, Chris > > As for windows moving, it's simply not the case. Your Mouse, if not set up > > The only time I can think of that a window moves temporarily, is if it > needs to display an attached sheet that would otherwise be partially > off-screen. But the window moves itself back after you close the sheet. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but Finder windows do move all by themselves, and annoyingly so. It usually happens when dragging an icon from one window to another... furtle furtle... okay, it seems to be when you have a window that's partially offscreen. It doesn't matter that the position within the window you want is visible - if you pause for a split second, the window slides out under your mouse. Dang! <http://www.indigomoon.org/stuff/moving_windows.mov> SignaturePd On 16 Apr, 17:40, David Kennedy <davidkenn...@nospamformethanksverymuchyoubastards.invalid> wrote: > As for windows moving, it's simply not the case. Your Mouse, if not set > up correctly, might be doing it, nothing else will. Oh, I don't know: the "accidentally squeezing the side of the mouse" thing caught me by surprise too. These are the default settings, so as far as most people are concerned, it *is* set up correctly. I think the defaults for the mouse should have been bindings for the left & right button and everything else should have been left to the user. A GUI design principle is that you shouldn't surprise your users. > > Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any > > consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and > > amateurish. > > I've never noticed that. I have: there's no standard for placement of confirmation &c dialogeus as there were in the old days, but even back then, they were not enforced by the OS, so there were always appls that would bring up their dlgs in non-standard places (particularly noticeable if you had multiple displays). > > With an extra 1 GB of RAM (that's 1000MB, not 128 MB which made the > > previous OSs fly) mine is definitely a lot slower than the beige G3. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hmmmm. Even allowing for hyperbole, he's not far off: my iBook G3/500MHz running OS9 pretty much keeps up with the dual-G5 next to it esp at things like launching appls. On the other hand, the G5 can play EyeTV, burn a CD/DVD, download stuff and do all sorts of other stuff at the same time, But for what Adrian's doing, the co-operative multitasking model of OS9 works much better: the frontmost appl gets practically 100% of the CPU and gives him a dedicated audio-editing box. > On 16 Apr, 17:40, David Kennedy > <davidkenn...@nospamformethanksverymuchyoubastards.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > right button and everything else should have been left to the user. A > GUI design principle is that you shouldn't surprise your users. Maybe, I didn't like the thing myself and ditched it PDQ. However, you know Adrian and I find it hard to reconcile someone as meticulous as him not taking care with his set up. Maybe he assumed it would be the same but it would become apparent very quickly that this was not so. >>> Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any >>> consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their dlgs in non-standard places (particularly noticeable if you had > multiple displays). But the behaviour you mention is app rather than OS related surely? >>> With an extra 1 GB of RAM (that's 1000MB, not 128 MB which made the >>> previous OSs fly) mine is definitely a lot slower than the beige G3. I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > model of OS9 works much better: the frontmost appl gets practically > 100% of the CPU and gives him a dedicated audio-editing box. AIUI, the way Adrian works he wouldn't have much going in the background anyway but I maybe wrong. However, you're right in what you say, stability and multi-tasking are very much improved with OS X whereas raw speed has dropped away as less important.[something I noticed yesterday when it took me 10 hours to encode a DVD...] [snip] > > > With an extra 1 GB of RAM (that's 1000MB, not 128 MB which made the > > > previous OSs fly) mine is definitely a lot slower than the beige G3. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > running OS9 pretty much keeps up with the dual-G5 next to it esp at > things like launching appls. My 2.5GHz 4G5 with two big discs, 2.5GB RAM, and a monster graphics card is about as snappily responding as a System 6.0.8 Plus. But it wasn't until I got that beastie that I met a colour Mac responding as snappily as the System 6.0.7 Macs I first met. And a System 6.0.8 Plus is a deeply snappy beast. (6.0.8 came out after System 7 - a few mods to make 6.0.7 work better in a System 7 world, if you see what I mean) [snip] Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > No, the menu bar is part of the system and does not get in the way. My > > > objection is to things moving and changing their properties which the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and just thought that badly thought-out Windows gimmicks were all right > as long as they could be made to look Mac-like. I cursed the gimmicks, and did what I could to eliminate them and get back a sane UI. > Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any > consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and > amateurish. What I really, really hate is the open and save dialogues that appear at attached to the title bar of the window you want to save - so it's impossible to see what the bloody hell you're trying to save when you're trying to save it. I often have to cancel a `Save' operation, go back and check a point in the window, and /then/ get on with it. Yes, really - that sort of thing's just so gratuitously annoyingly pointless painful. Why not leave it the way it was? Why not? Because The Steve `knows' that the MacOS UI has to be flashy and to behave the way Windoze users feel comfortable with in order to succeed in the marketplace. So we get flashiness and idiocy on the surface. <shrug> I put up with these downsides because the upsides of OS X are /very/ big upsides for me. > >...I've configured it to be visually quite > > similar to to my OS9 setup, because that's what I like,... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > continue the abusive relationship they have grown to expect from Windows > computers. Because The Steve provides his loyal followers with The One True Working Method Which We Shall All Love. (listen carefully and you will hear the sound of grinding teeth) > >... And 10.4.11 (and 10.3.9 before it) were *so* much > > more stable, and actually apart from simple Finder actions like window [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with only one app. running, it feels about the same as an LC475. (It is > faster at copying big files, but that is not an OS thing) This 'ere 4 core 2.5GHz G5 running 10.4.11 is pretty much as snappy in response as a compact Mac running System 6.0.8. The 1.25GHz 2G4 we had before (it died) was not as snappy in response as an 8MHz 68000 Mac running System 6.0.8. VM hits do not cause significant slowdown with 2.5GB RAM. I remember waiting for tens of seconds - sometimes considerably more - when my 475 was swapping data in and out. VM performance under OS X is orders of magnitude more efficient than on that old 68LC040 running 7.1 or even 7.6.1. *Seriously*. Okay, OS X uses more RAM. <shrug> That's the way of it - the OS is designed to use lots of RAM. RAM keeps getting cheaper. I don't like the idea of the apparent inefficiency that it represents (IYSWIM), but slapping a huge dollop of RAM in yer computer is the right thing to do these days. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > Adrian, I think you protest too much. What moves and changes its > > properties, exactly? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which disobeyed the basic rules of a GUI turned on by default, which was > responding to me picking up the mouse by its sides. That's a mouse problem- nothing to do with the OS. Any cheap and cheerful 3-button USB mouse should suit you better- I'm using a 3 button and scroll wheel Logitech mouse and although I find the extra buttons useful you don't have to use them unless you want to- in fact you can disable them. But I'd find that a nuisance. > Windows were changing in colour and moving around I really don't understand that bit- they don't do that here. > some I had put in the > background suddenly appeared over the top of others I was working on and > got in the way. That's just different behaviour. I very quickly learnt my way round that and have no problems with it at all. > Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any > consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and > amateurish. I'm still trying to work out when this happens, and I can't. It may do, but if so it never disturbed me at all. > >...I've configured it to be visually quite > > similar to to my OS9 setup, because that's what I like,... > > Exactly. So why doesn't OSX come with that option for loyal customers > who bought a Mac because a Mac was what they wanted. Because it's remarkably easy to do for yourself. What the new GUI gives you is the choice to do so- and then it stays the way you set it. There are probably a few small respects in which I've adapted to the system rather than the other way round, but I suspect that they are trivial, and the adaptation is so complete that I can't remember them. There may be a very few ways in which the Classic GUI worked better than the OS10 one, but again I really can't think of any. Yes, there is a little adaptation needed when making the transition, but the advantage in stability is so marked that it's infinitely worth while. > With an extra 1 GB of RAM (that's 1000MB, not 128 MB which made the > previous OSs fly) mine is definitely a lot slower than the beige G3. All I can say is that there may be something wrong with the OS10 setup you are using. For years I used a beige G3 with the classic OS and a load of extra RAM, and liked it a lot. But once Apple had got OS10 up to 10.2.8, and especially with 10.3.9 and 10.4.11 (both of which I use) I simply couldn't imagine reverting to OS8.n or 9.n. The amount of time I lost through crashes of various kinds, and the modal behavious of the Finder which kept me waiting while I did certain things, was far and away greater than any possible niggles in OS10. SignaturePeter > > > Adrian, I think you protest too much. What moves and changes its > > > properties, exactly? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > useful you don't have to use them unless you want to- in fact you can > disable them. But I'd find that a nuisance. It's an OS UI problem, because the OS's UI is designed to be driven by a multi-button mouse now whcih is a mistake. Apple should still be giving us a one-button UI - but gave up on that long before giving us multi-button mice with that blasted contextual menu thingy. Thing is, once upon a time, one could access the contextual menu with `click and hold' if one had the right system extension, whatever it was. I had it prior to OS X - but it took a long time before we got the ability back in OS X even as a third party option. > > Windows were changing in colour and moving around > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's just different behaviour. I very quickly learnt my way round that > and have no problems with it at all. How can one workaround that problem? > > Even the dialogue boxes move, change shape and don't appear at any > > consistent place on the screen; it looks so cheap, gimicky and > > amateurish. > > I'm still trying to work out when this happens, and I can't. It may do, > but if so it never disturbed me at all. Save dialogues appear attached to the window you're saving, obscuring their contents and not movable relative to the window. > > >...I've configured it to be visually quite > > > similar to to my OS9 setup, because that's what I like,... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because it's remarkably easy to do for yourself. But it's not. >What the new GUI gives > you is the choice to do so- and then it stays the way you set it. But you don't get the choice - you're stuck with the new way. > There are probably a few small respects in which I've adapted to the > system rather than the other way round, but I suspect that they are > trivial, and the adaptation is so complete that I can't remember them. > There may be a very few ways in which the Classic GUI worked better than > the OS10 one, but again I really can't think of any. I can list dozens off the top of my head. I've been using OS X for pretty much everythign for many years and I still haven't adapted to it because it's Just Plain Crap in so many important respects especially when compared to Classic. If I had a couple of 30" monitors, and a third 17" off to one side as a `monitor' monitor (maybe 8GB RAM and 8 CPUs cores) - okay, then that'd let me deal with more of the problems of OS X. I've noticed that the OS X UI is horribly inefficient when it comes to using pixels. It's designed for huge LCDs with tiny pixels. The 17" monitor on my desk feels smaller than the 15" monitor I used to use with the 475 running 7.6.1 (although larger than the 9" mono compact Mac displays). In terms of `what fits on the screen in a usable fashion', it the 17" job is smaller than the old 15"er. > Yes, there is a > little adaptation needed when making the transition, but the advantage > in stability is so marked that it's infinitely worth while. Scrap `infinitely' - that's just hyperbole, innit? Innit, eh? Eh? > > With an extra 1 GB of RAM (that's 1000MB, not 128 MB which made the > > previous OSs fly) mine is definitely a lot slower than the beige G3. > > All I can say is that there may be something wrong with the OS10 setup > you are using. I doubt that very much. We've got a 768MB iLamp downstairs with its single CPU. If there's more than one `significant' application open, VM comes into play. And with only one CPU, that me |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message