Of course, I think you have to take the reviews from Macworld et al with a grain of salt. I remember when OS 8.5 came out, and Macworld's review ended with (something like) the words "In summary, this is a good OS update, but not a must-have one like 8.1 was." On that issue's cover was the blaring headling "OS 8.5: THE MUST-HAVE UPDATE." At the end of the day, they're still trying to sell magazines and generate site hits.
Not to nitpick, but of a number of problems with Classic mode, the initial load time isn't one of them. This only has to happen once, takes less than a minute, and when your machine doesn't ever go down, Classic can stay running forever.
It's a representative democracy, not a direct one: you would present your proposal to your representative in Congress. They would then submit it as a bill.
You certainly are allowed to prefer Windows, but obviously lots of people disagree with you, with their own excellent reasons. Generally, most acknowledge a speed penalty under Apple's GUI, but in most situations it just doesn't matter. The speed I find that I gain on my Windows box is negated, for me, by the time I spend fighting Windows itself. And if I spent 10 hours a day browsing the web, for example, I might care that my pages load one or two seconds slower than on my Win2K box; but I don't, so I don't.
One curious question: does your dual 533 have enough memory? That's the one situation I've seen where OS X does, indeed, become worse than death.
Guess what, Apple? This would have been unacceptable in any case, but now that you're charging $100/yr for this service, customers (no longer just "users") or going to start being more demanding about service, reliability, and security. It's the flip side of the coin, almost literally.
They are providing a service to you, and one that I guarantee comes at considerable expense. Absolutely go ahead--express yourself and your outrage--but I will either judge that service worth $100, and pay, or not, and quit. It's not at all clear to me why I would *deserve* free email, online storage, et ceteta.
>Pretty is as pretty does. OmniWeb doesn't. Sad. Maybe some day.
A nice pithy sentence, Twain-esque without the wit, but unfair. CSS is definitely a weak point with OW, but it's not completely absent. Depends on what sites you frequent, I guess, but I see no problems at 98% of the ones I visit, including/. Javascript support is a bigger problem in my experience.
>I don't think one should have to pay for a web browser
Surely, though, I have a right to choose to pay OmniWeb for what I think is a superior product? What exactly is so magical about a browser as to exempt the entire category from for-profit development? For that matter, why aren't word processors just as essential? This argument seems specious and self-serving.
But I absolutely agree, OmniWeb is great. I need to keep IE around for some particularly sites, but it now feels ugly and clunky to use. An update to IE is probably coming, though...
Re:New to Macs, Do They Charge for Updates?
on
Apple Drops Mac OS 9
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you're almost certainly going to have to pay for the 10.2 update, especially if "late summer" means September...which it probably does.
Historically Apple pretty consistently did NOT charge for point upgrades; I think this really changed with 8.5. Now, with the push to slow down the release schedule to improve quality and included feature set, the point updates are farther apart, too. More pressure to charge for those updates.
I think it will be interesting to see the balance Jobs, Apple R&D, Apple's PR in general, strike in emphasizing the new capabilities of Jaguar (10.2) versus improved performance.
If there's a single bitch that runs through all the Mac discussion groups and web sites out there, it seems to me to be the latter: grousing at X's torpor, while praising its stability. New capabilities (hardware compatibility, networking improvements, interface adjustments, etc.) are desired but secondary.
It does seem like an odd price point--I'm sure they've done studies and everything, but why would a buyer not go down to an old-style iMac (all in one design, plenty of speed for most things, G3, 15" screen, $750-$950) or up to the new iMac (all in one, same G4, 15", $1350+)?
Answering my own question: if you really want a cheap 17" screen machine. That's the one advantage I see.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I think you have to take the reviews from Macworld et al with a grain of salt. I remember when OS 8.5 came out, and Macworld's review ended with (something like) the words "In summary, this is a good OS update, but not a must-have one like 8.1 was." On that issue's cover was the blaring headling "OS 8.5: THE MUST-HAVE UPDATE." At the end of the day, they're still trying to sell magazines and generate site hits.
Not to nitpick, but of a number of problems with Classic mode, the initial load time isn't one of them. This only has to happen once, takes less than a minute, and when your machine doesn't ever go down, Classic can stay running forever.
It's a representative democracy, not a direct one: you would present your proposal to your representative in Congress. They would then submit it as a bill.
You certainly are allowed to prefer Windows, but obviously lots of people disagree with you, with their own excellent reasons. Generally, most acknowledge a speed penalty under Apple's GUI, but in most situations it just doesn't matter. The speed I find that I gain on my Windows box is negated, for me, by the time I spend fighting Windows itself. And if I spent 10 hours a day browsing the web, for example, I might care that my pages load one or two seconds slower than on my Win2K box; but I don't, so I don't.
One curious question: does your dual 533 have enough memory? That's the one situation I've seen where OS X does, indeed, become worse than death.
Guess what, Apple? This would have been unacceptable in any case, but now that you're charging $100/yr for this service, customers (no longer just "users") or going to start being more demanding about service, reliability, and security. It's the flip side of the coin, almost literally.
They are providing a service to you, and one that I guarantee comes at considerable expense. Absolutely go ahead--express yourself and your outrage--but I will either judge that service worth $100, and pay, or not, and quit. It's not at all clear to me why I would *deserve* free email, online storage, et ceteta.
>Pretty is as pretty does. OmniWeb doesn't. Sad. Maybe some day.
/. Javascript support is a bigger problem in my experience.
A nice pithy sentence, Twain-esque without the wit, but unfair. CSS is definitely a weak point with OW, but it's not completely absent. Depends on what sites you frequent, I guess, but I see no problems at 98% of the ones I visit, including
>I don't think one should have to pay for a web browser
Surely, though, I have a right to choose to pay OmniWeb for what I think is a superior product? What exactly is so magical about a browser as to exempt the entire category from for-profit development? For that matter, why aren't word processors just as essential? This argument seems specious and self-serving.
But I absolutely agree, OmniWeb is great. I need to keep IE around for some particularly sites, but it now feels ugly and clunky to use. An update to IE is probably coming, though...
Yes, you're almost certainly going to have to pay for the 10.2 update, especially if "late summer" means September...which it probably does.
Historically Apple pretty consistently did NOT charge for point upgrades; I think this really changed with 8.5. Now, with the push to slow down the release schedule to improve quality and included feature set, the point updates are farther apart, too. More pressure to charge for those updates.
I think it will be interesting to see the balance Jobs, Apple R&D, Apple's PR in general, strike in emphasizing the new capabilities of Jaguar (10.2) versus improved performance.
If there's a single bitch that runs through all the Mac discussion groups and web sites out there, it seems to me to be the latter: grousing at X's torpor, while praising its stability. New capabilities (hardware compatibility, networking improvements, interface adjustments, etc.) are desired but secondary.
From Akamai servers at
a ka mai.info.apple.com/iPhoto/us/osx/iPhoto1.1.dmg.bin
http://a1408.g.akamai.net/7/1408/1388/20020204/
It does seem like an odd price point--I'm sure they've done studies and everything, but why would a buyer not go down to an old-style iMac (all in one design, plenty of speed for most things, G3, 15" screen, $750-$950) or up to the new iMac (all in one, same G4, 15", $1350+)?
Answering my own question: if you really want a cheap 17" screen machine. That's the one advantage I see.
Then you'll be waiting for the 10.2 update, I'd guess.
I had no problems updating--and though it's always tempting to "see" a speed improvement after an update, not much visible difference on my Pismo.