Compact Flash Is Slow
In response to Flash Memory Really
Boost PowerBook Performance (among other articles we've posted on
the topic), Ron MacKinnon writes:
I've experimented with a CF card in my 3400. I've also upgraded the hard
drive, and the memory is maxed at 144 MB. I tried a CF card in the PC
Card slot as cache RAM for my browsers and was less than dazzled by the
performance. My hard drive (a 4 GB IBM unit) says it can present
data at 8.1 MB per second. I don't know how fast that Kanga owner's drive is, but I think
it's safe to say that it's as fast as or faster than mine.
After seeing such a lack of improvement with the CF card, I did a
little research. I discovered that most CF cards can present data at up
to about 4 MB per second and can write at about half that. So
cache (and, I presume, virtual memory) on a CF card is about half as
fast as using my drive and tossing the CF card in the drawer.
As confirmation of the above, I also tried booting from the CF card.
I copied my System folder to the card after initializing it as a drive.
I then selected it as my boot device and let it go. Boot time from the
card was about twice the boot time from my hard drive. Granted, it was
quiet, but very slow. So my CF card is in the drawer awaiting some
other use.
Hope this helps.
Yes, it helps a lot. I've got a CF card and PC Card adapter for my
TiBook, but I haven't taken the time to boot into OS 9, turn the
cache size down, and see how fast it is.
There are several factors involved here. First, there are three
standards for that slot. PCMCIA is slow, PC Card is about 2.5x faster,
and CardBus is faster yet. Then there's the CF memory itself, which
ranges from roughly equal to a 4x CD-ROM to about the same performance
as a 24x CD drive.
The third factor is important for comparison, the speed of your hard
drive. Most of the people who have experimented with this were using
much older PowerBooks with slower drives, so a CF card half as fast as
your hard drive might be faster than their hard drive.
It's possible that faster, more costly CF might be faster than the card
you used. I wish I had access to a couple dozen different CF cards to
test....
All that said, the reasons for using CF as a solid state drive varies
from user to user. Some use it so they can run the computer without
ever spinning up the hard drive, which really increases battery life.
Some use it as a way to use virtual memory when there isn't enough free
space to use their internal hard drive. How well it works depends on a
lot of variables, and it's not a solution that works for everyone.
New Mac Plans on Hold
Responding to the March 31 mailbag column, Ken Cavaliere-Klick
writes:
Great articles. Maybe because I am new to the whole Apple "thing" by
way of a rescued Bondi
iMac I don't 
have the excitement,
enthusiasm or deep rooted devotion to the platform. It's a great
platform, to be sure, great enough for me to shelve my Windows
computer. (That says something right there - I shelved a Windows
computer in favor of a Bondi running 9.2.2.)
I've used and/or owned a lot of computers over the years. This one
is "just right," to steal a line from Goldilocks.
I'm not fond of X. It's too "Windows." Too many gadgets, too many
widgets, too many effects, too many "i's." It's not enough to sell me
on Unix and virtual machines; I know about that kind of thing.
I do scratch my head wondering who thought of combining QuickTime
and Acrobat to make a front end for fast, speedy Unix. But it is what
it is.
I'm not sure what my next computer will be. I had planned a new
Apple computer of some sort this past January, but the "no dual
booting" put me off. The Jaguar reviews didn't light my lights either.
This is no small investment, and I want to feel secure about this. At
this point I plan to sit tight, maybe load up YDL3 for the experience,
but I have no intention of going back to Windows.
Thanks for the great writing.
I gave up PCs in the pre-Windows 3.1 era. My few attempts to get
around in the Windows systems at work (I work part-time in a camera
shop) have been very frustrating. I can think of a lot of reasons to
give that up for the Mac OS, either classic or OS X.
I've been using Jaguar for three months now, and I'm quite comfortable
in it. It doesn't feel as speedy as OS 9 did, but I'm hooked on
Safari, locked into Mail, and really appreciate the way it lets me move
seamlessly between X-native and classic applications.
I'm in no hurry to replace my TiBook. It turns 3 next January, and I'd
like to hold onto it that long. Quartz Extreme and a higher resolution
screen would be nice. A faster CPU and internal CD burner would also be
nice touches. At this point, I'm thinking a 667 or 800 MHz PowerBook G4
(DVI) would be just the ticket - and even boot into OS 9 if I
ever had the need.
I wouldn't want to be running OS X on a Bondi iMac unless it had lots
of memory and a faster hard drive. With a relatively slow CPU, very
outdated graphics chip, and underperforming stock hard drive, it's just
begging for some upgrades. (See Upgrading Your G3 iMac to get the whole
picture.)
Use what you've got as long as it suits your needs or can be
economically upgraded to do so. When that's no longer the case, the
best value is probably a newer used Mac of recent vintage rather than
something brand new.
Beige G3 and OS X
Will McAdams comments:
I have been following your beige G3 experience, and I feel your
pain. I also have a G3/233, the desktop model. I
purchased it in 1998. I have added a Newer Tech G4/400 ZIF upgrade
(overclocked it to 433 MHz), added a 20 GB HD, and bumped up the RAM to
512. Then I added a USB & FireWire card to just make it more
compatible.
I just made the switch to OS X. I went out and bought a FireWire HD
enclosure and a second hard drive and loaded OS X on it via my
Pismo laptop. I partitioned the HD to under 8 GB (thanks for that
tip), then did my best to optimize OS X before I swapped the two
hard drives. It was a risky move, but I went ahead, and it seems to be
working fine.
Anyway, here is my problem. I have milked every penny out of my
Beige G4. I am so wanting to get an actual G4, one with dual
processors. However the prices are so high, I really can't justify it.
The lowest Dual
G4/500 are selling for $899, but when you bump that up to
standards, it is almost worth getting the newer Quicksilver or the MDD. Sigh. So I went ahead and
ordered an ATI Radeon 7000 PCI, 256 more RAM, and a SIIG ATA 133
controller card. That cost me under $250, which is way less than $1,400
for a new G4.
I am in the graphics industry and have managed to survive, but I
also own a PC, and I know you are partial to Mac and against Windows
(my Mac is Windows free as well), but you can't deny the fact that PC
parts are soooo much cheaper. I can go out and build a multiprocessor
PC for half the price of a Mac, and it will run even faster. The PC
world is up to 8x AGP.
I guess the saddest thing is that I saw in a computer store flyer,
an ATI PCI Radeon 7000 for a PC selling for $49. I bought mine for
$119.
I hope that there is some light at the end of the tunnel. I am
holding out until the Expo to see if anything will drop the existing
prices of the G4s. My fingers are crossed, as my beige G4 is maxed
out.
Yeah, those used dual G4 models remain expensive. I don't recalls
seeing one as low as US$900 yet. Your best bet might be looking into
the 1 GHz G4 upgrade from Sonnet. For $700, you just swap out the
CPU and keep the rest of your investment in the beige G3 intact.
And your G4/400 upgrade might fetch $150-250 from the right buyer,
further reducing the cost of the upgrade.
The PC world is a very different place. Everything is a commodity:
motherboards, cases, drives, video cards, memory sticks, keyboards,
mice, printers, etc. Fact is, it's sometimes possible to flash a PC
video card and make it work in a Mac, although you have to perform the
operation on a Windows PC. Some members of the SuperMacs list have been doing this
with the Sapphire Radeon 7000 and saving a fair bit of money.
Much as a lot of us wish Apple would compete pricewise with Windows
PCs, you've got to remember that BMW doesn't compete on price with KIA
or Hyundai. Even a low-cost Mac wouldn't come close to those $200-300
Lindows boxes they sell at
Walmart.
Bad OS Xperiences
In response to Angry About OS X,
John Konopka writes:
I just read the mailbag column about people's bad experiences with
OS X. I am sorry they have had such hard times. We have had almost
nothing but great experiences with OS X on five different Macs
from slot loading 400 MHz iMacs to a G4 867 tower. I don't know why
there are problems with particular computers but it is wrong to
generalize and say that OS X works poorly on all computers.
I don't mind paying for OS X upgrades once a year. In fact, I bought
an extra copy of Jaguar for my mom. I could have just used my CD to
upgrade her iMac but I thought it was worth it to pay Apple for a good
product.
Also, looking back in time this is not the first time that older
computers were not allowed to upgrade. I believe that the SE/30 and
earlier computers had a cutoff at System 7 or there abouts. I think the
68000 CPUs were differentiated from 68030 and 68040 systems.
We also have a 300 MHz Wallstreet but I have not tried to upgrade
that to OS X as I don't think it is reasonable. I have OS X on a
Pismo 500 and I think that is about the minimum for running X.
There's a reason we include "Advice presented in good faith, but
what works for one may not work for all" in our terms of service.
Whether we're talking about cars coming off an assembly line, TVs built
who knows where, or personal computers, despite the best attempts to
create items of consistent quality, some end up much worse than
average.
It is just as wrong to generalize that OS X is a nightmare from a
single bad experience as to paint it as paradise based on a few
installations. The truth is somewhere in between because every computer
- even the same model built with the same components - ends up
different once the end user starts using it. For a small number of
people, OS X has been a nightmare.
For instance, back in October 1998, I had problems with the HFS+ file format available
under Mac OS 8.1 on a couple computers - but not on most of the one I
supported. But I didn't generalize and say 8.1 was bad or HFS+ was
terrible; I looked for a solution. Readers provided a lot of feedback, and I eventually got to
the point where I was able to use it.
We need to take the broader view and realize that no matter how hard
Apple works on the Mac OS, there are going to be configurations that
just won't work right, whether due to incompatible hardware, outdated
drivers, or software conflicts. If Tony Torres needs some time away
from a frustrating OS Xperience and is willing to try it again later,
at least Apple hasn't lost him.
Rant Against Complainers
Jim Harris holds forth:
To those of you who find the need to complain about nothing:
Why is it that you people don't understand how the world works?
You decide to upgrade. Apple is not forcing anyone to do
anything... You don't want to pay $129 for a new OS? Then don't.
It is absurd to blame Apple for your cheapness. 10.1 was a free
upgrade. The following smaller updates are free (i.e. 10.2.1, 10.2.2,
10.2.3, etc.) iTunes, iMovie, and iPhoto are free!!!
What is wrong with you people? Why does everyone have to complain
about this? Since when does Apple owe you anything after you bought a
computer?
You people think that somehow you own a part of the company after
buying a Mac.
When you buy a Mac, you are buying it with the operating system that
is installed, not the ones that are going to come after it. Never does
Apple tell you that they will provide you with free software for
life.
Get real please. Grow up. Blame yourself for your mistakes.
Don't like OS X? Why did you buy it then? You have an opportunity to
use it at Apple retail stores and moreover, you have an opportunity to
find out what works well, what doesn't, etc.
How can you get mad at Apple?
I assume that Apple should simply enslave all the people that work
there so that you can have it your way and have a free lunch?
Think about the economics of it. There is only so much the company
can just give you. Look at all the incredible technologies that are in
OS X. They speak for themselves.
I have seen how people come from the Windows world in awe at what
the Mac can do and how easily it does it.
I, for one, will gladly pay $129 and even more for Panther. Why?
Because there are people hard at work to bring us incredible
products.
I understand that I have to pay them in order to get the
satisfaction that I do when I install an brand new OS. It is sad to see
that people find a need to vent in the way you have, throwing blame at
a company that supposedly you love, blah, blah, blah.
If you don't like Apple, it's OS, or its computers, there are plenty
of other options for you: Microsoft and a ton of PC manufacturer's
would be more than willing to accommodate you and charge you the same
way or more for upgrades.
Please, for your own sake, listen to what you are complaining about
and try to live happier lives.
Don't have a cow, man.
"Since when does Apple owe us anything?" Since we probably invested
over a thousand dollars in Apple hardware and over $100 so we could
install OS X on that hardware, we believe that Apple owes us
reliable products, not eMacs plagued with video problems (a local
school has a 30% failure rate during the first year) or buggy operating
systems (like the "update" to 10.2.4 that forgot how to keep track of
the time).
"Since when does Apple owe us anything?" Since Apple said they wanted
to grow market share from their pathetic 3% to the 10% level. You can't
do that by ticking off your existing customer base. People will not
switch to a product with a lot of disgruntled users.
"Since when does Apple owe us anything?" Since Apple wishes to remain
profitable and not go out of business, they owe us products worthy of
our money and our loyalty. Anything less will get people to stick with
the classic Mac OS, switch to Linux, or join the teeming masses of
Windows users - none of which helps Apple's bottom line in the
least.
"Since when does Apple owe us anything?" Since they made their first
sale to a customer.
The question isn't whether Apple owes its customers anything, but what
it owes them and what we deserve. If Apple wants to have the computer
for the rest of us, Apple shouldn't treat us worse than the
competition. If Microsoft offers discounted upgrades and Apple used to,
Apple does itself no favors when it switches to a full price only
program.
If Apple wishes to be perceived as the company worth the price of their
computers, they had better offer the best quality components, best
customer service, and lowest failure rates in the industry, not leave
it to Sony.
Please, for your own sake, think about what you're complaining about
and try to understand why people who pay more expect more.
Angry Mac Users
Rob Fairchild has this to say:
I'm a regular reader of Low End Mac and
have been since discovering it during the summer of 2002. This site in
particular was quite influential in feeding my newfound interest in
Apple computers. I enjoy the insights that your articles provide,
particularly for users of older computers.
I bought an old SE this
summer to get a sense of the Macintosh experience and was so impressed
by what such an old machine could 
still do that I
vowed to make my next computer a Mac. I bought a G3 600 iBook this past fall and
never looked at computers the same way again. It is far and away the
best computer I have ever used.
So I must say I am quite astonished to read as much as I do in the
context of furious Mac users who feel outright betrayed by Apple. While
Apple has not been a perfect company, it seems to be held to impossibly
high standards. One of the letters I
read in the March 31 mailbag went so far into hyperbole as to say that
Apple was "far worse than even Enron" because it made the move from
OS 9 to OS X and has decided to exclusively market, support,
and develop X (and all the versions to come afterwards).
Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I am a new adopter and
never had the opportunity to become attached to the older system (or
invest heavily in software for it), but I think it's important to
remain mindful of the things Apple has done right as well.
For myself, I was a longtime Windows user, and one of the many who
was never well disposed towards Macs. My first job as a Web designer
had me working on machines running what had to be OS 8 many years
ago, and I hated it. Like anyone exposed to a new operating system, I
found it cumbersome, counterintuitive, and slow. I was also a
technically oriented user who preferred to muck about inside the
machine and spent years swearing he'd never invest in an
"out-of-the-box" computer - especially not a Mac.
Contrast this to the my experience in the summer past, when some
articles and advertising about the new Unix-centred OS, the stylish
iPod, the ease of networking, and (above all else) the fanatically
devoted users persuaded me to give the Mac a second chance. The
"switchers" campaign has been somewhat less intensive here in Canada,
but the concept certainly made an impact.
I began reading up on the platform, the company, their shared
history, and the modern state of Apple computers and its software. I
played around on my old SE and admitted it was really an elegant
concept.
I'd had enough of Windows and the attendant system
failures, security holes, driver updates, and the inherent instability.
I've never regretted the switch for a second.
|
When I bought my iBook, it was a tremendous leap of faith for me, but I
was convinced I'd made the right decision after the research I had
done. I even sold my Dell laptop just to afford it. I'd had enough of
Windows and the attendant system failures, security holes, driver
updates, and the inherent instability. I've never regretted the switch
for a second.
My computer is elegant, stable, simple, and beautiful. I have found
OS X to far surpass any Windows environment in terms of security,
stability, ease of use, and functionality, up to and including XP.
While it is only 6 months old, it has never yet given me a bit of
trouble, despite being used intensively at school and all the knocking
about that entails.
This is far more than I can say about my Windows desktop machine.
Within a few months of buying it, I had to have the power supply
replaced, and now I have to replace the darn thing again. Let alone the
nightmare of trying to add new hardware to the machine and
wrestling for hours with drivers and software updates to get it to work
properly (particularly when I can now simply plug my iBook into
something and, well, it just works).
I feel like a walking advertisement for Apple in all my law classes,
or wherever I go for that matter. People constantly want to touch,
hold, and use the machine and have no end of questions about it. My
school is a sea of Dells, and when colleagues complain about their
computers because they're heavy, noisy, unreliable, drain the batteries
too quickly, and the customer support at Toshiba or HP (or wherever)
treats them like crap even in the face of a design flaw, I'm reminded
again of why I made the right choice. More than one person has said
they would have bought a Mac - except someone told them they were too
expensive or weren't compatible with anything, and I like to set them
straight on such points.
As much as my experience is limited and anecdotal, I felt like I had
to speak up. I know that a lot of users are just frustrated and angry
by Apple's about-faces on various policies (like .mac) and its
overcharging for upgrades to the OS, but there are lots of happy users
out there, too, and we shouldn't lose sight of that.
Well said, Rob. Windows users don't tend to get too concerned about
Dell, Gateway, HP, Toshiba and the dozens of other companies that make
Windows computers. So what if the manufacturer makes some boneheaded
moves and goes out of business - there are still plenty of models to
choose from.
In reality, of course, they are as wed to Windows as we are the Mac OS.
As I see it, the only reason they don't get incensed at Microsoft is
that they don't perceive themselves as Microsoft customers. For the
most part Windows is something already installed when they buy the
machine. They see themselves as Dell customers and Windows users.
There's no such dichotomy on the Mac side. We know Apple makes the
hardware and the operating system. We know we have chosen to follow a
different path than most computer users, acknowledge that it has made
all the difference, and are personally invested in our decision to use
a Mac.
I think that's why Mac users can get angry with Apple. We've paid a
high price both for the hardware and for walking a different path; we
do not want to be abandoned by the company that convinced us to diverge
from the mainstream.
Sometimes we need to let off steam. Sometimes we need to get a
different perspective. And sometimes we need to be reminded that
despite the frustrations we have chosen the better way.
Thanks for that reminder.
A More Positive Tone
Kevin Bataille
It's always fun to see what people have to say on your site about
OS X. I guess the people that still think OS 9 is faster than
X only use one app at a time or are running it on underpowered systems.
For those of your readers that are having speed problems with X, you
should be telling them how to upgrade their systems to handle X.
I have an old 7500, and
it runs X v10.2.4 fine. The key is that [OS X] likes to have lots
of memory and drive space. I've been upgrading my system for years. Now
it has 768 megs of RAM, a UW2 SCSI card with two 18 gig drives, an ATI
Radeon card, and a 450 MHz G4 card.
If you want to run X on anything lower than a B&W G3 Mac and
don't want to spend much money, load up on RAM.
I just wish your site had a more positive tone. It does no one any
good to just bitch about performance issues without offering ways to
help your readers overcome the issues. The facts are that OS X is
the current Mac OS and all development is going into it and not
OS 9. This is true with both Apple and other software developers.
OS X requires more computer horsepower than OS 9.
OS X is far better than anything on the Windows side for a current
Mac user. Apple software updates are far cheeper than Windows upgrades.
No one but SJ knows how much Panther will cost. The IBM 970 won't run
on anything lower than Panther V10.3.0
Low End Mac is not an OS X advocacy site, nor is it anti-X. We
reflect the different experiences of our writers.
The hype led us to believe that OS X would be all things to all users -
the ease of use of the Mac, the stability of Linux. That would have
been fine, but then Steve Jobs decided it needs a Pixar-inspired
horsepower-hogging interface. The underlying OS is efficient; the
overlying interface is bloated.
You can tell when AppleScripts for classic apps can be far faster than
they were in OS 9, and when Carbonized software (such as
AppleWorks) is much pokier running in X. Mac OS X is a powerful OS
hobbled by an overly demanding front end.
I love OS X, but it sacrifices the elegant simplicity of the classic
Mac OS interface so it can look prettier than Windows. That would be
fine as an alternate appearance for those who want it, but Apple has
made sure that Aqua is the only interface available for
OS X.
Of course, Apple is in the hardware business. A powerful OS with a lot
of graphical overhead can help sell a lot of hardware.
We've done our part in helping people know how they can upgrade their
old Macs, both desktops and portables, to best run OS X. When we
looked at the G3 PowerBooks and the G3 and G4 Power Macs in Mac Daniel recently, one of the most
important factors was whether these could be decent OS X
platforms. Did they support enough memory? Was onboard video up to
snuff? How much would it take to turn it into a decent OS X
machine?
Some people are content with OS X on 233 MHz iMacs and WallStreets; I
find it slow on a 400 MHz PowerBook G4 with a fast hard drive and 512
MB RAM. Of course, some users only run a few programs; I usually have
8-12 active at once, including several classic applications.
My writing is going to reflect my joys and frustrations with OS X.
I am not a cheerleader. Apple has a great defense (customer loyalty)
but is seriously lacking on offense (getting Windows or classic Mac
users to switch). I call 'em like I see 'em, positive or
negative.
Although I see myself as a Mac advocate, I'm not going to get into a
dysfunctional relationship with Apple and refuse to see or speak about
problems. We owe it to Apple and each other to be honest about the
strengths and shortcomings of both Apple Computer and the company's
products.
OS Allegiance
Christopher Iwane
I think a lot of the complaining about OS X would go away if
people stopped trying to run it on anything less than a G4 and faced
the truth that early adopters of technology always get burned.
When OS X came out, I loaded it onto my B&W G3. Three months later
I'd sold my Mac and was using Windows 2000 on a home-built
dual-PII/400. A few weeks ago I loaded 10.2 onto a G4 iMac at work, and within
days it was my primary work computer. I'm even hankering for one at
home, though I have no real need for it as my PC (now running Windows
XP) is still more than capably handling what I throw at it.
The answer, ultimately, is to use whatever works for you and not be
so silly as to pledge allegiance to a company.
Windows has given me less trouble than any flavor of Mac OS that I
threw at my B&W G3 and gave me back the stability I lost when I
upgraded to the B&W from a IIcx.
I see all of the Windows-bashing taking place and, for the most
part, it's ridiculous. I started using Windows 2000 just weeks after it
was released, and the improvement over Windows 98 or Windows NT
Workstation was immediately evident; this was not the case in comparing
Mac OS X to Mac OS 9 when most people couldn't stop
complaining about issues such as speed and application
compatibility.
At this point Windows vs. Mac is a toss-up. There's isn't a
significant enough difference between the two platforms to make it
worth arguing about. In both cases you'll get a stable, mature OS with
a wide selection of applications running on hardware fast enough to
almost always make the user the bottleneck.
Gotta run. All this thought about Macs has made me want to fire up
my 128K.
I got into the Mac in 1986 and missed the era of the 128K. I'd love
to find a nice clean 128K or 512K (not the enhanced
version) along with an external 400K floppy just so I could live the
experience that was so quickly eclipsed when the Mac Plus introduced double-sided
floppies, SCSI hard drives, and expandable memory.
You're right in asserting that there is no right answer for everyone.
What works best for me may not work best for you. Lots of Windows users
are still content with Win95, and a small minority of Mac users still
thinks System 6 was the best Mac OS ever. It's your tool; it has to
work well for you.
For those unfamiliar with the Microsoft side, Windows 2000 was the
third generation of Windows NT, much as Jaguar is the third generation
of Mac OS X. The entire NT family was designed to compete with
Unix, and it was not designed on a DOS foundation. It's far more stable
than the consumer versions of Windows (3.1, 95, 98, and Me) and paved
the way for Windows XP, just as Jaguar paves the way for Panther.
Comparing OS X and OS 9 is, pardon the pun, comparing apples and
oranges. The classic Mac OS was conceived as a single user, single
tasking operating system; the Unix which underlies OS X was
conceived as a multiuser, multitasking operating system. As the classic
Mac OS evolved to support multiple tasks, it sacrificed stability, just
as consumer versions of Windows sacrificed stability when it moved
beyond its single user, single tasking DOS foundation.
Today we have three stable, mature operating systems to choose from.
Windows XP, the choice of the masses from a monopolistic company and
laden with security holes. OS X, the choice of 5-10 million Mac
users that's remarkably stable and has a bloated GUI. Linux and the
other *nixes, which runs on more types of hardware but doesn't present
a single user interface and has never been called user friendly.
Whether we're dealing with activation schemes, .Net, viruses, Trojans,
so-called secure computing, Big Brother invasiveness, or just a
nonconformist streak, I can't see pledging my allegiance to the Beast
of Redmond no matter how stable or user friendly Windows has
become.
But that's my choice. In a free society, we can each choose which way
to go. And sometimes the majority follows a beast, as Germany did when
their democratic system put Hitler in power.
It's the User's Fault
Good old anoymous (yes, it's always the same person) knows where to
put the blame when OS X seems slow:
Mac OS X isn't slow, anymore than Mac OS 9 isn't slow after you
rebuild the desktop. To learn what you need to do to make sure Mac
OS X stays optimized, visit:
http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html
I have a PowerBook
G3/233 with 512k backside and an iMac G4 800 MHz.
On neither machine is Mac OS X slower than Mac OS 9.
Obviously there is something wrong with the setup of the people
whose machines is slowing to a crawl. They should look at the
optimizing routines on the above website to make sure their machine
doesn't go to a crawl.
Sarcasm on.
What a fool I've been for thinking that it might be Apple's fault that
OS X is slower than OS 9. Thanks for setting me straight;
it's my fault.
C'mon, get real. If Apple can't design an OS that runs fast when
installed, why should that be the user's fault? Really, can the
presence of a shared computer on my network or using a mousepad with
too little texture make OS X slower? If that's true, why is my
TiBook just as slow when it's not on the network and I'm using the
trackpad?
If you honestly believe OS X is just as fast as OS 9 on your
WallStreet, you must have the most bloated System Folder in OS 9
or be running third party hacks (like Shadowkiller, which speeds up
Aqua but makes it hard to tell where some windows end), 16-bit video,
and only native applications under OS X.
Nobody else on God's green earth has ever claimed that OS X is as
fast as OS 9. You should publish a book. If you can prove your
contention, millions of Mac users would gladly pay for the information
needed to make OS X as sprightly as OS 9, especially on older
hardware like your WallStreet.
Sarcasm off.
Good News and Bad News
After reading Good News and Bad News
About the Jaguar Update and Other Thoughts on OS X, Jack
Russell says:
As always, a great column. In reading your thoughts on the dock, I
agree completely with your comments. Especially about similar shaped
and colored icons. The best solution I have found to dock management is
TinkerTool,
which let's you place the dock at the top.
It pretty much keeps it out of the way for most all the applications
I use and when it's hidden it's hard to accidently click it with the
mouse. You might want to give it a try. I found it a little counter
intuitive at first, but now I am very comfortable and efficient with
the dock at the top.
It's a nice freeware option for the dock.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm now living with my dock on the right
side and firmly rooted to the lower right corner - so the Trash is
always where it's supposed to be.
I don't think I could live with the dock at the top of the screen. Too
many programs have toolbars up there.
Regardless, I think everyone using OS X should experiment with the dock
in different locations to find what works best for them.
Address Book
In response to the same article, Eric McCann writes:
Two things caught my eye - I can't afford a new (or recently-used)
Mac - the economy where I am makes the rest of the country look fat and
happy - but I had to comment on these:
iChat
I tried it. I didn't like it. Cartoon bubbles for chat text? What was
Apple thinking?
This sounds suspiciously like Microsoft Chat - something MS (wisely)
dropped by Win98. You would essentially go to IRC (you could possibly
use it directly, like most IMs, but I really don't recall right
offhand), and it would give everything in a cartoon-strip-like
interface. The problem is, for other people using IRC (Internet
Relay Chat) it would introduce some weird characters. And given how
fast IRC chats can go, I couldn't see keeping up with it in a "Cartoon"
interface.
My bet, don't plan on seeing it like that for long.
Address Book
If this is an application, I sure can't figure it out. I really like
the idea of having a single address book used across various programs,
but this feels like a beta.
Ever use BeOS? Something similar existed there - "People." Every
person was a file, essentially, and given Be's searching capabilities,
it had the potential to be very powerful. (Or cluttered.) Be was
modularlized, something that makes me wish Apple had purchased it
anyway instead of Palm (of course, if they'd buy Palm...) There
were other addins that could be used across any application, such as a
spell checker, as well.
The thing that will make this (or any "module" like this) is
application support. If a good number of Mac developers (say,
Qualcomm with Eudora, Apple's Mail, perhaps some enterprising Maczilla
developer, etc.) decide to use it as a source for addresses and contact
information, it could be very powerful. Or we could end up with it
being roundly ignored, and every application (say, contact management,
email, PDA sync. software) having its own address book and being
thoroughly inconvenient. It'll have to at least have its data
accessible for Classic apps as well, which I think will slow anything
like this happening - they'd need to be rewritten (or updated) for
that, and I don't see that happening.
Just my two (maybe six) cents.
I played around with BeOS at one point, and I'd love to have a copy
of the latest Mac build, but that was an awfully long time ago. I wish
Apple had bought BeOS instead of NeXT, because I think Apple would have
been better served by a personal operating system than by a server OS -
but that's territory I've covered several times in the past.
I think it would be brilliant for Apple to buy Palm, get BeOS in the
bargain, and begin to incorporate elements of BeOS into OS X and
of OS X into the Palm OS. Imagine the TabletPC killer they could
develop....
Whatever, I think Address Book is great, but it doesn't have much of a
front end. Given time it could grow into something really useful,
something more than a repository for information. You know, like maybe
it could print envelopes....
Unsupported OS X Workhorse
Mike Jarve
I must say that I thoroughly enjoy your site, and you are a credit
to all Mac users everywhere. It is one of three sites that I always
find time to visit every day, the others being StarTrek.com and Tom's Hardware Guide. I have been
reading your piece on the unfortunate practice of Apple not fulfilling
its obligations when it comes to OS upgrades and other readers'
responses.
I own several fine specimens of Macintosh. I actually collect them
as a hobby. Among them are a P'Book G3 WallStreet 233 (with lv2 cache),
and the crown jewel and workhorse of my collection, a Power Macintosh 8600/200.
Here we have what I consider to be the last two great generations of
Macintosh. These were, for lack of a better term, the "geek" Macs. The
ones that are now disregarded as being old hat. The ones sitting in a
closet or propping up a table.
Without further ado, here are my two cents: Now here is the
disturbing part. The "officially unsupported" Power Mac 8600/200
actually runs OS X better than my "officially supported" P'Book
G3! I do have to admit that some of the specs of the 8600 far surpass
those of the WallStreet (480 MB RAM vs. 256 MB, 10,000 RPM SCSI HDD vs.
5400 RPM IDE, etc.), but that is not the point.
There is no sense in powerful 604 machines not being supported, at
least in name, by OS X. Throw in a G3/G4 upgrade card and maybe an
ATI Radeon 7000, and you have a six-year-old Mac that can run all the
latest software - and competently at that. That is but for one little
problem: "officially unsupported." Two little words that draw a stark
line between the world of compatibility with the next generation OS and
being an extinct dinosaur, trying to hold together a glorious era with
patches and hacks (thank you XPostFacto!).
I also decided to forbid myself from making Wintel compairisons, but
I may save that for another day ;-)
I may be one of the last Macintosh dinosaurs, clinging desperately
to an existence that is no more. I am trying to squeeze out every last
bit of life out of my poor Power Mac 8600. I do admit, if I squeeze
much harder, it may break. But why not? I all but mortgaged my birthday
to get it!
While the PM 8600 is not the oldest Mac in the book, it is from what
I consider to be the heyday of Macintosh design. Much in the same way a
classic car aficionado may prefer a 1948 Buick Roadmaster to a new
Volkswagen Beetle, I prefer the almost 1920s sky-scraper design of the
Power Mac 8600/9600/G3MT to the sleek, translucent, and soft-edged
appearance of the new G4s and iMacs.
But that is not entirely it. I think that there is a certain pride
to owning an older, high-end Mac.
There's a reason we declared the Power Mac 7500 a best buy years ago - it was the least
expensive Mac to accept processor upgrade cards. We consider every
Power Mac in that series a good buy because you can easily power them
to 500 MHz G3/G4 and beyond, drop in a much better video card, and turn
a workhorse into a racing horse.
I haven't yet used XPostFacto, but I'm tempted to give it a try on one
of my SuperMacs, probably the one I use to run network backup. I run
the UnsupportedOSX email list,
and members of that list rave about the product and what they can do on
their "unsupported" hardware.
Well, that's another dozen emails down. I'll try to do the same
tomorrow.
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
