I really do not understand why you are becoming that personal immediatly. Perhaps it is as you are more beliving Apples propaganda than you thought?
Well, on the one hand you are talking about grannys for whom macs are made, on the other hand you are explaining that a usual mac has to act as a server with all the background tasks. That does not fit together. But, I think it is the main problem we are facing. Are we talking about an Operating System for single workplaces, or are we talking about a system for some real necessary services to other machines, or even clustering and such stuff?
My analysis is, that Apple did a huge mistake in choosing a Unix, that has several disadvantages for single workplaces. Also I belive that Steve wanted to use his own Next mainly because of bossiness, as he never liked Mac OS, and that he forgot about the users by doing so. Otherwise we would never had the situation that Apple created all this artificial incompatibilities. All the lies that X cannot boot on older Macs, or that newer Macs cannot boot 9 and all that crap. They simply knew that they had to force people using X as it was crap for workplaces.
As you said yourselve "is designed to please the public in order to get them to buy it" and that is all they are doing. They shifted from real tools to marketing stuff that is mainly useless for the real work. If you are really convinced that the OS provides anything that you really need for your daily work (not the programs of course), please go ahead and tell us!
So while a Unix for sure makes sense for several cases, it makes no sense at all at desktops. And as I said already, those who really need Unix, are already served with Debian, BSDs and others, they do not need any X.
Maybe I'm just getting old… Maybe I'm getting cranky too… but when I get people taking issue with facts and they don't know WTF they're talking about,
I would't be sure that I do not know what I am talking about. I would also consider that I have a complete different analysis because of good reasons, and that I have other needs perhaps and such possibilities.
1) There's nothing wrong with lamenting the degeneration of society. There are plenty of places to do that. This isn't one of them.
Why do you think so? IT technology is an integral part of our lives in the meantime. It is affecting every part of the society (what most people out there do not get). Belive it or not, one of the reasons that I never started using X was that I didn't like the possibilities of controlling and tracing and surveillance in general, and that I saw that it is going in this direction. iOS surveillance, UEFIS, "trusted chips" and all that ugly stuff proved me right.
I simply tried to explain the reality of why it's so damn hard to magically update 25-year-old code to deal with the clusterf**k that is the internet.
No, it is not hard, it is just a matter of manpower. Creating/porting any webbrowser to Mac OS 9 is the same effort than done for every other OS. It is just a question of "who likes to put how much work into it". And sadly the awareness for niche systems is very low. Not at least because of people like you who accept everything, and funnily enough talk for mainstream Operating Systmes in niche systems forums. I am quite sure that a team of 5 to 10 motivated people can keep up and maintain a perfect webbrowser for Mac OS 9 in their spare time.
2) OS9 is, repeat, IS flawed.
If you really think so, tell us where, aside the marketing speech of Apple.
Your entire response to that clearly shows you have no, repeat, NO idea how stuff works or how or why Apple did what they did. You should read a book or two.
Perhaps I did already.
There are many reasons for migrating from the old OS to OSX, not the least of which was IBM's intransigence at getting the PPC architecture to keep up with Intel.
I'd say that a Power 9 is one of the best CPUs you can get recently for your money. Yes the PPC 7448 was late.
But in general we are talking about concern politics of IBM, Freescale and Apple. Remember, at the time Apple switched to Intel, Microsoft built PPCs into the brand new XBox 360, …
OR the lack of multitasking, which also include the lack of protected memory. Really, HTF can you expect a modern computer, which MUST do many different things for many different people, to succeed without multitasking? It's just one more example of how you don't have a clue how the world works outside of your bedroom.
I asked you to not come along with memory protection. Really your memories are blurred. I could do the following on a rock solid 6100 in 1999 at the same time. Using Deck II playing 8 tracks plus a video for synchronising, downloading FTP stuff, scanning a huge picture, while Photoshop computed a file that was 5 times bigger than the RAM was. So no, cooperative multitasking is NOT no multitasking. In fact it even has several advantages in some fields over preemptive multitasking. The fact that Apple liked to gain more control over programs that are running at Macs is something different.
The fact that apps exist that run under OS9 and work well for certain, specific things that make it still usable and productive today is a different thing entirely from being an OS capable of evolving with and handling what the public believes it should. Whether you (or I) like it or not, the whole OSX / iOS enchilada is designed to please the public in order to get them to buy it. Otherwise, we're all sucking Windoze.
As said above, you are right here. It is all about marketing, planned obsolescence and shareholder value. The bad news is we are sucking Windows and Unix. All other good ideas are extreme niches (like Haiku, Mac OS 9, …)
3) OSX actually does work really, really well. I have used every single iteration of the Mac OS from System 6 up to 10.14. There were issues with permissions and unexplained kernel panics in the beginning, all of which have been cured. I run all kinds of software from browsers to audio editors to graphics design to databases…Hell I even read my own MRI's without any bullshit problems with OSX and I haven't had any since Snow Leopard. OS9, OTOH, will take a shit occasionally if pushed too hard. I live with it because over time I've learned what NOT to do to provoke it and if I accidentally do, I can tolerate an occasional restart
BTW… I DO use OS9 daily. I also use Leopard daily.
I suspect that problems with 9 depend on the machines you are using. I had extremely stable machines, especially under 8.6, and starting with the colourful machines, some are really unstable. But I can tell the same from X machines. I had more frustrating adventures with X than with 9. Hanging computers, crashing programs, crashing finder, crashing complete OS, and so on.
I also use Mojave daily (right now in fact) Yes, that's right… I am blasphemously using 10.14 to post on OS9Lives!… I'll surely burn in Hell for that.
Come on, …
* Your description of a quad G5 being "damn slow" with "ten second file openings" is screaming at you that something is seriously f**ked up and you're not hearing it. I won't begin to list the possible causes but the fact that you don't realize that's going on tells me that despite your alleged extensive experience with OSX and Macs in general, you haven't learned enough to be using vintage hardware and software that has no user support.
Well, I do not know what computers you are using, but it is always the same, that X (I used up to 10.5.8 ) are always damn slow, compared to Mac OS 9. And this doesn't change at brand new fresh installations, at well working discs at different computers. So you have to be wrong in this case, Mac OS X 10.4. and even more 10.5 are ectremely slow compared to Mac OS 9 (10.0 to 10.3 I consider as kind of public BETAs and as impudence).
It is in fact the very reason Apple twists themselves into knots trying to make the Mac usable by dummies, grandmothers and other "regular' folk.
It is exactly that behavior that made me staying at 9 since the first 10.0 installation try (it took the G3 23 (!) hours). We users recognize the problems, and wise men tell us that we are the problems. It may be that you are really convinced, that there are problems at that G5 I am using, but there are not, it is the freshly installed OS X that is sedate and crazy, but Apple must have know it all the time!
** The 10.14 GUI is hardly any different AT ALL from the previous iterations of OSX. Your "program X, Y, and Z" complaint appears to be with 3rd-party software… NOT Apple.
Yes, I just wanted to make clear, that what the OS provides is not a benefit for us, but a benefit for companys who like to boss us around.
Finally, there are a hundred reasons why webrowsing won't "work perfectly on any OS9 machine".
I can't believe you actually typed that!
Tell me a singel one! You cannot – none, that is connected to the OS. As I said, my MDD is fine with MintPPC and browsing the web perfectly, so why not with Mac OS 9, the hardware can do it as prooven.
If it was so easy to make it work, Cameron or others would have by now, if only to quiet all the whiners.
I never said it is easy (did anybody so?). I just said there are no issues of the OS why it cannot be done, and the effort will be like at any other OS.
It is just that Cameron is alone, …
Your guy "Witnicks" is going to find out, as are YOU,
Now it is getting bizarre, maybe you confused me with Roman323?
