I agree this is the future. In fact Apple Computer should buy Apple Records, solve the trademark issue and gain a perfert label to start signing artists themselves. Anybody know what the going price to purchase Apple Records might be?
Geez dude yourself. I think I am quite educated about OSX. I can rasterize a photo in OS9 and do others things. What have you been smoking? I can burn a CD AND rasterize a photo AND compose an e-mail. I am not saying that it's as smooth as it should be but I can do it.
As far as system stability, I haven't had a crash in OS9 in a long, long time (let alone one that brought the whole system down). I run a _really_ clean system and don't install crap software. I can't tell you how many times I have had shit freeze up in OSX and god I hate the spinning beach ball. Granted I have never had the whole system crash but I have had Photoshop, Safari, iTunes, Freehand and many other programs stall, crash and just run a hell of a lot slower on OSX. And don't get me started on the finder in OSX.
I am not saying that OSX isn't the future (I haven't had time to install 10.3) but compare to what I can get done in OS9 RIGHT NOW, it isn't quite ready. I am not about to take a step back in productivity just to move to OSX because blathering idiots like you say it is the shit. I have to take a wait and see approach because my job depends on it. Just so you know I have been working in this field since Photoshop 1, Quark 1, PageMaker 1, Freehand 1, etc....all on Macs before they even had hard drives (anybody else remember the floppy shuffle?)
So I don't think what I say is crap. I think it is quite informed.
I'm surprised that he reckons that vast swaths of Classic users are cling gin on. Even people who were held back by Quark not upgrading quickly enough are moving now. What's more OS X can provide a very classic like user experience if you want it to.
Oh I soooo want to switch to OSX but it is not polished enough to fade to the background like all good tools should. I have a G4 with loads of RAM (lots of Photoshop work) and it is not nearly as snappy as OS9.
I have all the upgraded software that I need for the switch (Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Freehand, Deamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Office, etc...) and I do boot into 10.2 at least once a day but it's not going to happen full time for at least 6 months. Maybe more. I have vendors that still accept my files. I could care less about the command line. OS9 is faster and--get this--It's more stable than 10.2.
I will get the Panther upgrade to see if it's faster and more stable but I WILL NOT SWITCH until usability surpasses OS9. Currently it does not.
But, if you look at the traditional Mac audience, the folks that have been their loyal customers all these years, the thing that's most important to them is a really well designed and stable GUI. Stable in the sense of not changing needlessly and causing confusion between revisions, not in the sense of not crashing.
I have to agree with this. In my narrow world of graphic design, OS9 was/still is as slick as an Xacto knife. It is a tool that just gets the job done without getting in the way. It allows me to be far more productive. I don't think in 5 years I will be as efficient on OSX as I am now on OS9.
The presence of Macs on the Microsoft campus isn't a secret (for everything from graphic design work to the Mac Business Unit)
So even Microsoft uses Macs for graphic design. Guess Windows doesn't cut it.
I can understand having Macs in the MacBU just as Apple has had many Windows machines for developing and testing their software and keeping an eye on the competition.
All the design software is available for both platforms AND Microsoft has preached to the design community for many years that this software works as well or better on Windows...but they still use Macs themselves. Hmmmm....very interesting.
It's the same old issue of what makes the most money for the energy companies. They don't care if it pollutes or causes war as long as they make money for their shareholders. The only real way to change is with policy. It worked in the 70's with Carter (only to be rolled back by Reagan) and it works now with ethanol in the US.
Can you imagine if the US passed a law that ALL new passenger vehicles had to run on E85? We could cut our oil use by 50-75% within 5 years.
I do think we can decentralize power production as the article states. It is happening here in Minnesota. We have 14 ethanol plants here and 12 of them are farmer-owned co-ops. Sure the big energy companies will own some (ADM, Cargill, etc..) but you will reduce the enconomic and political clout of the big energy companies and OPEC in general.
There are many alternative energy sources and have been for a while. It is ENERGY POLICY that keeps us dependent on oil. If we insist on keeping oil subsidized then how do we expect other energy sources to surpass it. It won't happen.
Tax breaks, small producer incentives, better CAFE standards, subsidize clean energies and not dirty ones, etc...would go a long, long way in solving our problem in the least amount of time.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree this is the future. In fact Apple Computer should buy Apple Records, solve the trademark issue and gain a perfert label to start signing artists themselves. Anybody know what the going price to purchase Apple Records might be?
And you'll see me everyday during the lunch hour at my local McDonald's asking every car exiting the drive up window:
"Umm...sir, are you going to use that free song sticker on your fries?
"Umm...excuse me miss, are you going to use that..."
Think of how many you could collect in one hour!
As far as system stability, I haven't had a crash in OS9 in a long, long time (let alone one that brought the whole system down). I run a _really_ clean system and don't install crap software. I can't tell you how many times I have had shit freeze up in OSX and god I hate the spinning beach ball. Granted I have never had the whole system crash but I have had Photoshop, Safari, iTunes, Freehand and many other programs stall, crash and just run a hell of a lot slower on OSX. And don't get me started on the finder in OSX.
I am not saying that OSX isn't the future (I haven't had time to install 10.3) but compare to what I can get done in OS9 RIGHT NOW, it isn't quite ready. I am not about to take a step back in productivity just to move to OSX because blathering idiots like you say it is the shit. I have to take a wait and see approach because my job depends on it. Just so you know I have been working in this field since Photoshop 1, Quark 1, PageMaker 1, Freehand 1, etc....all on Macs before they even had hard drives (anybody else remember the floppy shuffle?)
So I don't think what I say is crap. I think it is quite informed.
Oh I soooo want to switch to OSX but it is not polished enough to fade to the background like all good tools should. I have a G4 with loads of RAM (lots of Photoshop work) and it is not nearly as snappy as OS9.
I have all the upgraded software that I need for the switch (Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Freehand, Deamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Office, etc...) and I do boot into 10.2 at least once a day but it's not going to happen full time for at least 6 months. Maybe more. I have vendors that still accept my files. I could care less about the command line. OS9 is faster and--get this--It's more stable than 10.2.
I will get the Panther upgrade to see if it's faster and more stable but I WILL NOT SWITCH until usability surpasses OS9. Currently it does not.
I have to agree with this. In my narrow world of graphic design, OS9 was/still is as slick as an Xacto knife. It is a tool that just gets the job done without getting in the way. It allows me to be far more productive. I don't think in 5 years I will be as efficient on OSX as I am now on OS9.
So even Microsoft uses Macs for graphic design. Guess Windows doesn't cut it.
I can understand having Macs in the MacBU just as Apple has had many Windows machines for developing and testing their software and keeping an eye on the competition.
All the design software is available for both platforms AND Microsoft has preached to the design community for many years that this software works as well or better on Windows...but they still use Macs themselves. Hmmmm....very interesting.
It's the same old issue of what makes the most money for the energy companies. They don't care if it pollutes or causes war as long as they make money for their shareholders. The only real way to change is with policy. It worked in the 70's with Carter (only to be rolled back by Reagan) and it works now with ethanol in the US.
Can you imagine if the US passed a law that ALL new passenger vehicles had to run on E85? We could cut our oil use by 50-75% within 5 years.
I do think we can decentralize power production as the article states. It is happening here in Minnesota. We have 14 ethanol plants here and 12 of them are farmer-owned co-ops. Sure the big energy companies will own some (ADM, Cargill, etc..) but you will reduce the enconomic and political clout of the big energy companies and OPEC in general.
There are many alternative energy sources and have been for a while. It is ENERGY POLICY that keeps us dependent on oil. If we insist on keeping oil subsidized then how do we expect other energy sources to surpass it. It won't happen.
Tax breaks, small producer incentives, better CAFE standards, subsidize clean energies and not dirty ones, etc...would go a long, long way in solving our problem in the least amount of time.