By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 04:23 pm:

It seems that anyone hoping to continue using Mac OS9 is now out in the cold.

The new model PowerMacs can only boot in OS X, though you can still launch the Classic emulator within OS X. Apple is still quietly selling the older version 1.25GHz machine that allows OS9 booting, but this is last year's machine that doesn't come with the 4x Superdrive or Firewire800 or Bluetooth. The new 1.25GHz Powermac is OS-X only, as is Apple's new line of Powerbooks.

Now we learn that Adobe has stopped development of Photoshop under OS9. Microsoft stopped developing MS-Word for OS9 about a year ago. Worley's new G2 plug-in is OS X only.

So what about Newtek? Will Newtek continue to throw Mac development money at OS9 to support an operating system that Apple stopped developing 3 years ago? I don't think so.

It's been almost three years since Newtek stated on its website that the recommended Mac system is OS X. A three year changeover period is quite generous, and a longer time than the lifespan of most professionally used computers. Diverting development resources towards OS9 would be to the detriment of Lightwave OS X users.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.131) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 05:02 pm:

Hey Beam, wow this is really a bug for you ;-) Eeerr I hate Dreamweaver, I'm still using Claris Homepage which is about 5 years old. Plus no money to upgrade all my soft to OSX. Also a lot of my japanese friends haven't been using it becuase of some problem with fonts. Anyway will move ahead when I absolutely have too ;-)

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.19.214) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:30 pm:

I really have to laugh when the luddites complain about Apple's (and now the rest of the industry, except Quarks) attitude towards OS 9. How many more statements do you need to realize that it's an OS/Platform that is yesterdays news. If you are currently running OS 9 and it works for you, great. But don't complain when all the developers start to abandon it. You have been forewarned.

As an OS X early adopter, I've been anxiously awaiting OS 9's demise. It was a good OS in it's day, but it really overstayed it's welcome.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:38 pm:

Hey Ted I got to say you sound like a first class wanker. I don't need to be forewarned, Yeah I'll eventually switch to OSX but I'll do it in my own time.

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

Ha ha ha!!!! I don't think that most of the readers here will know what that word means!

Riki... I'm surprised you're still using OS9. In the case of Lightwave, you've only got the cost of the OS. Then again, I understand you're a true artist and not out there chasing the bucks.

Newtek was one of the only companies that offered a free upgrade to OS X, without trying to fleece some more money out of everyone. I thought that was commendable.

For Adobe users, a couple of updates released today will make the transition to OS X a bit easier. After Effects was previously unusable on OS X, but now the issues have been resolved, and it can use the full 2gigs of RAM in OS X. There is also a Photoshop7 update that brings more Altivec optimization.

In the case of Lightwave, I endured a lot of stability problems under OS9. Those problems are not there with Lightwave OS X, which is more stable than the Windows equivalent (the Lightwave Windows forum is always full of discussions about Windows being unstable). If you ever tried to set up a particle effect in OS9 you'll know what I mean!

Newtek has not yet made any official announcement about OS9, but if I had to guess I would say that they have probably already stopped developing it, and are focusing their resources on OS X.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:19 pm:

'Hi Beam' Get the joke ;-)

Yeah I bought a copy of OS10.1. It's sitting on my bookshelf and of course already out of date. I even bought an external 120 Gig Firewire HD so I can backup my whole system and do a clean intall, but just don't have the time to breath at the moment, let alone insall a new OS, learn how to use it and get all my other APPS up to speed. It is coming, like all good things. Personally I think Newtek should also abandon OS9, but for the moment it's working for me and that's all I need.

I will probably upgrade as soon as I can afford a copy of PhotoShop for OSX.

By arthur argote (Archiea) (68.164.58.150) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:00 pm:

whats OS-9?

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:06 pm:

Mac OS9 it's an operating system. Before OS9 we had OS8 etc

By Hervé Steff (Hervé) (212.76.255.180) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:24 am:

Hey Riki, same for me (except I dont run LW on mac anymore... but I'll stay Mac os9, why upgrade when everything rules here, I still have phtoshop 5, and it plenty, I dont need more, but Beam I understand and indeed yes, all dev. should stop going OS9, I dont care , for now I really dont need to upgrade anything... oh and running OSX would be impossible on that old G4 450 anyway, I've tried a long time ago, and jeeez it was that slow....

(I know what's a wanker....he he he)

Cheers, Hervé

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:45 am:

hey Herve do you think I'd notice much difference between my current G4 400 and these new Macs that everyones been raving about. I forked out a small fortune for that machine about two and half years ago. Personally I think they should quadrupel (bad spelling) in power before I upgrade. Oh I'm still using Netscape 4.8, my machine has trouble with netcape 7 let alone a new OS.

When I do upgarde it's going to cost but it should be an eye opener. Just like when I went from my Atari ST to the PowerMac 5500.

By arthur argote (Archiea) (68.164.58.150) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:45 am:

RIKI,

I MEANT THAT WITH COMPLETE SARCASM!! ;D


BTW, whats OS 9?

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:49 am:

Before OS 8 I think we had OS 7 ;-) Yeah I was being Sacastic as well ;-)

By ingo (Ingo) (62.109.114.87) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:37 am:

Hi Herve, i'm still using my old G4 450 with OS X without problems, its as fast as OS 9 (you know that system before X ;-)).

By Darthmole (Darthmole) (212.113.199.253) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:10 am:

I'm very, very fortunate in that I now have all my old apps and plug-ins ported to OSX. (The only thing I don't have is Poser and I can live without it.)

I understand some people don't have the resources to move to X, but they can't expect companies - especially in the midst of an economic downturn - to spend money supporting an OS that the original producer now doesn't support (and is openly hostile towards!)

If X wasn't such a leap ahead of OS9, I'd be lagging too; but it works so well (LW is a different program under X) that I can't face using OS 9 any more. Frankly, I'm amazed LW users aren't flocking to OS X for LW - under OS 9 it was an absolute pig. I have very few (serious) problems these days...

And it's not as if you HAVE to upgrade everything else - most other apps apart from Quark XPress work fine in Classic mode. More or less. I'm using X at work, and running most of my apps in Classic - it's just that I have less crashes now!

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:17 am:

Why do you use Poser?

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:42 am:

Be brave, riki. I've loaded OS X on a 350MHz G4 and I think it runs fine. Even on this machine, Lightwave is a more pleasant experience than with OS9.

Judging by these forums, I think 95% of Mac Lightwavers have already transitioned to OS X. Don't be a wanker, go OS X!!!

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:45 am:

Mmmm but who's asking Newtek to continue supporting OS9 into LW8?? No one that I've seen, we're all in agreement that it's a dead cow and shrinks in comparison to LW on OSX.

I reserected an old bug thread for LW7b on OS9 becuase I want it to hang around after we switch to the new forums. I think it would be useful to look back and see if any bugs have carried across from the LW7b OS9 to LW8 OSX upgrades.

Then we can say to Newtek, "hey we've had two upgrades and you still haven't addressed these issues!"

Mind you I was watching one of those consumer affairs shows on TV the other day. They were testing to see how various companies responded to custommer complaints. Anyway they bought a can of beans that claimed on the label that it had a new special ring pull for ease of opening. Anyway they tried it out and in their opinion it wasn't that easy to open. It took them a couple of pulls.

( btw thants not a "wanker joke!" ;-)

Anyway anyway they got on the phone and called up the Bean company and complained that the ring pull wasn't that easy. The company subsequently refunded the retail price of the beans and they were able to keep and eat the can that they had originally purchased.

Wow I know that's pretty tough, especially on national TV. Maybe we can call up Newtek and say "Hey I bought the LW7.5 OSX upgrade and I found that the 'Reduce Points' plugin doesn't work so great!". hehe

"Just Joking right!"

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:50 am:

Hi Beam! But I enjoy a good toss! Damn your really flogging that upgarde. Okay I'll give it a burl. :-)

By Dave Grzybowski (Dmg3d) (65.31.104.178) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 10:29 am:

Well now I REALLY feel stupid being in the "5% of Lightwavers who haven't switched to OSX wanker club".

But not for long...

Beam, you said "new model PowerMacs can only boot in OS X, though you can still launch the Classic emulator within OS X"... so you can run OS9 apps that haven't been upgraded yet, you just can't boot in OS9, right?

I have $3000 burnin a hole in my pocket...

By matthew baldwin (Mbaldwin) (166.84.191.166) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 11:30 am:

Lightwave rocks on my Macintosh Ci. I'm able to model this um, 2d, bomb shape on my 12" screen without having to completely start the application.

Excuse me, but you'll have to pry Os 6 from my clammy little hands...

-m.

By Darthmole (Darthmole) (81.86.131.124) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:15 pm:

It's really very simple: you will be running LW on OS X. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but you will beÉ

(frowns, points menacingly, assumes spooky 'Return of the Jedi' Yoda voice)

Yooouuu wiiillllll beee.....

By Darthmole (Darthmole) (81.86.131.124) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

Surely, the people who HAVEN'T switched to OSX are the wankers...? Apple give them a state of the art engine, and they continue to peddle like crazy :-)

By Stephen Enggass (Enggass) (206.26.225.35) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:25 pm:

Not everybody adapts well to change but...
there is no comparison - and little reason at this point not to make the switch. Mostly just the hassle and time involved... most software offers an upgrade at little or no cost and the drivers are there. Don't remember the last time I had to re-boot unless I chose to. There is no reason to be stubborn - be brave.

10.1.5/G4/450
10.2.3/TiPb/500

By matthew baldwin (Mbaldwin) (166.84.191.166) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:58 pm:

If those replies were to me, I guess nobody got the joke. Maybe I should try funny next time.

for the record, I'm using OSX. and yes, it's great.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:16 pm:

Sorry Matthew I did 'GET' the Joke, I'm a lightwave 9 user, maybe I 'GET IT' next year ;-)

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:19 pm:

OS9 User "Sorry"

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

EEEEERRRRRRUUGGH See What you've done ;-)

Sorry Matthew I did 'GET' the Joke, I'm a OS9 user, 'Not a drug User' maybe I 'GET IT' next year ;-)

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:25 pm:

God Dammit

Sorry Matthew I didn't 'GET' the Joke, I'm a OS9 user, maybe I'll 'GET IT' next year ;-)

By mr. (Murdoch) (217.39.85.174) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:34 pm:

mmm... i seem to be out on a limb here.

i made the jump middle of last year, brand spanking new G4 1GHz DP/1.5Gb ram/GeForce4 Ti 4600/OSX 10.1 > 10.15 > 10.2 > 10.23. thought it would be the proverbial dogs bllx. instead i got a minefield of application quits and kernel panics, productivity went through the floor. i only really run LW 7.5 & PS 7.01 so i don't feel like i'm being that demanding. i've tried upgrading, pulling the non essential card, uninstalling non essential drivers, reformatting, reinstalling OS's and the apple hardware test disc is the most played CD that i own. just can't pin the bugger down. all in all one big wank of an experience for me, but without the money shot. not unuseable, but also not enjoyable, and NOT cheap.

in contrast my sh*tty old power tower pro 225 (with a 333 G3 upgrade card!!!) 512Mb ram/OS 8.6 sp*nks away quite happily, albeit somewhat slower.

anyone else had such grief?

By John A. Johnson (Johnny) (67.28.34.43) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:59 pm:

I've noticed widely-varying experiences people have had with OSX and with Jaguar...

I did a wipe-and-install, and have had a nearly issue-free ride since August 24th.
My machine is a 450 DP, 1.5 GB RAM, and the stock Rage card...
No kernel panics since 10.1.5. Occasional Quits of programs..in fact LW is the most frequent culprit (tho rare).
I have noticed that those who had problems tended to:

a. have done other than the wipe-and-install method, or
b. had something like a G4 card in an original G3 Mac.

have you considered the wipe-and-install method?

J

By mr. (Murdoch) (217.39.85.174) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 07:12 pm:

hi Johnny,

a. yep, wipe-n-install just last week, most recent kernel panic, just last night.

b. everythings new and with most current drivers. my suspicions lay with the GeForce4. *apparently* the driver for this only enables 64Mb of the 128Mb available. trying to get any info about this and the driver has proved more than a tad difficult.

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:43 pm:

Hmmm. riki, yes I know what a wanker is. It's someone who doesn't read a post fully, and thinks that a complaint was pointed at him.

You didn't whine in your post about having to upgrade to OS X. You stated your case as to why you haven't yet. That's understandable and perfectly acceptable. As I said...

"If you are currently running OS 9 and it works for you, great. But don't complain when all the developers start to abandon it"

Since you DIDN'T complain about developers abandoning it, I really don't see how you though I was taking a dig at you.

But obviously I touched a nerve there. So hey, go about your business of hurling insults at people for no reason. Makes for a friendly forum.

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:51 pm:

mr. Murdoch -

If you are having kernel panic problems, 9 times out of 10 it is RAM releated. I noticed you said you had 1.5GB of RAM. Is it all Apple supplied, or third party? For some reason, OS X is very picky about RAM speeds. RAM configs that worked fine in 9 can cause routine panics in X.

I would revert to a single stick of RAM (I'm assuming you have 3-512MB DIMMS)...

Run with 1-512MB DIMM for a few days, and see if the panics disappear. Then add a second one. Run for a few more days. If all is well, add the third stick.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 08:55 pm:

I haven't seen anyone in this thread complaining about developers not supporting OS9. Maybe you should read your own post a few times if your worried about people talking your message the wrong way.

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:00 pm:

The sentence referring to Luddites may have been taken the wrong way, at first glance.

As for "wankers"... I think the term is used mainly by British and Australians. A piece of trivia: the Germans refer to these people as Wichsers (pronounced like "Vixers"). So if a German calls you a Vixer, you'll know what he means!

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:08 pm:

hehe damn those Luddites, the little buggers always complaining about OS9 problems.

By matthew baldwin (Mbaldwin) (69.3.194.224) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:10 pm:

feel the love, you wankers.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 09:14 pm:

I felt it a minute ago, it needs a rest now K

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 06:42 am:

>> I haven't seen anyone in this thread complaining about developers not supporting OS9. Maybe you should read your own post a few times if your worried about people talking your message the wrong way.

Precisely. It wasn't directed towards anyone here - it was directed towards people on OTHER forums complaining about OS 9 being abandoned by Apple and it's developers.

Since were throwing about British slang, I'll chime in with my own...

Sod off!

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 07:15 am:

HEY TED GO F UCK YOURSELF

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:32 am:

Ouch! Man down! Highly volatile aussie using strong language! Contain! Contain! You got me with that one riki (btw - did you lose that number?). And oh - so clever, putting a space after the F so the profanity filter wouldn't catch it. That's the kind of ingenuity that you'll need while figuring out which extension is causing all your type-2 crashes...

Really, do you want to enforce the stereotype that all aussie's are criminals and degenerates?

G'Day Mate!

By Darthmole (Darthmole) (212.113.199.253) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:24 am:

Fight! Fight!

By John A. Johnson (Johnny) (199.4.20.2) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:34 am:

gentlemen...where is the LOVE??

J

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:50 am:

What do other people say when they want to tell someone to "take a dump and fall back in it??" Is there a PC version for sensitive types??

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

Here in America we just say "Eat s hit and die"...

By Stephen Enggass (Enggass) (206.26.225.35) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:41 pm:

How old are you guys?...

By james a powers (Glendalough) (209.188.109.25) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:48 pm:

The precarious state of OS X

By james a powers (Glendalough) (209.188.109.25) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:50 pm:

Hi People/Guys,
I think it is important to stand up for the truth no matter how much you have spent on your new computer. Basically Riki (Suture) is right, though even he may not realize to what extent.....Recently I have been forced temporarily into the front-line -the U.S. and had to buy a new computer (at least it was inexpensive)......dual 700 whatever, 125 bus etc..

First the good news.....the monitor cost only225 dollars (19 inch, true 18) and is as good as the Apple 1000 dollar job (pretty huge in size though). Now the second point is the computer itself, the sound, amazing.....for sheer revving up and down, whirrings and clickings and little dramatic noises when opening files it's a real pleasure to listen to.......the interface is dramatic in movement and effect......

Unfortunately, the performance doesn't match the sound and compares unfavorably with the old G3 Blue and White (100 bus). Yes, it does run Lightwave faster, between a third and 3 times as fast (for simple files). That is, when it is not crashing and starting up, this goes on forever, compared to 8.6 on G3 (n.b. have latest version jag. and system was brought to house and installed by expert).
The interface is sluggish compared to its highend predecessors i.e. things take longer to do (open a file, move one from folder to folder). There is an appearance of speed -animated buttons, swirling disappearance of objects when closed but the disturbing thing is it is only an appearance....really a bit of a gimmick....and is this professional? One keeps thinking to go to preferences and turn on the professional interface.......one looks in vain......

I know S. Jobs has to make a living like everyone else, and there are definite improvements in some aspects of the motionless interface graphics in OSX, but there is a pandering to the windows systems under the guise of ifun and we are being made suffer for incompatibilities, mounting with each new update..........

As for the software problems I find some files (with transparency) are rendering 3 times as fast in 6.5 on OS9 as the same files in 7.5 on OSX on this machine. And a lot of other incongruities. It looks like a lot of earlier software, though superior in many ways (simpler, more real) is going to be dropped for heavier more novel stuff. This is depressing as it looks like a decline. Is the imagination going out of any real development....

You can't improve on a Bugatti.
Yes, a Corvette is faster, but will never make the mark........Boeing 707, Mac 8.6, The Parthenon, these are all in the same class.......S. Jobs Kiddies Time with ilife doesn't even began to figure, this interface/OS is not really professional.

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 04:22 pm:

Here we go again. Yes, there are some equal tasks that will be faster in OS 9 v. OS X. OS 9's cooperative multi-tasking allows a program to hog system resources and squeeze more CPU time out of the computer than OS X does. That's just how it goes. Overall, though, I'll take OS X's preemptive multi-tasking over OS 9's architecture, because OS X regulates the system much better, and allows me to run several programs efficiently at a time, versus OS 9 only really running one program efficiently at a time.

I find it laughable that people will say that OS 9's interface is faster, when all it takes is pressing the mouse button to bring the entire system and all of it's processes to a halt. And what good is a ultra speedy interface, when you are rebooting due to hard crashes 5 times a day?

But this thread isn't about whether 9 is better than X or vice versa. It's about the FACT that 9 is an orphaned product. If that orphaned product works for you, great. Continue to use it. Nobody is advocating throwing out a workflow that continues to work for people.

The topic of discussion is (aside from all the name calling): "Anyone hoping to continue using Mac OS9 is now out in the cold. "

That is entirely, 100% true. As it should be. You don't see Microsoft supporting Windows95 anymore. You don't see most hardware manufacturers supporting Windows95 anymore. You don't see most motherboards being produced today supporting Windows95. It's a dead product. So is OS 9.

But if you use OS 9, have all of your software in OS 9, like working in OS 9, can stomach all the system crashes in OS 9, then why upgrade just for the sake of upgrading? I'm 100% sure that half of the service bureaus out there today will stilll be running OS 9 on G4s 10 years from now (in addition to OS X G4s running some version of InDesign). It makes them money. They like it. They are comfortable with it's workflow, and they see no reason to migrate (right now).

As someone who knows OS 9 inside and out, moving to OS X was a challenge for me. I no longer knew how to troubleshoot problems like I did in OS 9. It was scary. But it was really an opportunity.

Once I gave up my OS 9 preconceptions, I found out that OS X offered a better workflow in most cases. Do windows open faster in OS 9? Sure. But in OS 9, to get to the Applications folder, I have to double click twice (once on the HD, a second time on the Apps folder), in OS X, I just type command-shift-A, and the apps folder opens. In OS 9, I had all my apps aliased of my Apple Menu. In OS X, I have a folder of aliases sitting in the dock. In OS 9, I had to use either alises in the apple menu or on the desktop, or use spring loaded folders on the desktop to navigate without double clicking through folders and folders of stuff. In X, I can put alises in the toolbar of a window, on the desktop, in the dock, or in my favorites folder.

Either way you cut it, OS X is here and it's the present and future. OS 9 is the past. If you are happy living and working with yesterdays technology, power to you! But please don't complain when Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, Newtek, etc. release the next version of their applications and OS X is required.

By John A. Johnson (Johnny) (199.4.18.2) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 06:19 pm:

=Boeing 707, Mac 8.6, The Parthenon, these are all in the same class.......S. Jobs Kiddies Time with ilife doesn't even began to figure, this interface/OS is not really professional. =

Hmm...not sure where you're going with this. Is a Windows NT box loaded with Doom an unprofessional setup?

when you use LW in OSX, do you feel that you're less professional than if you worked in LW in OS9? Is it the eye candy or the function that defines these things?

J

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 06:52 pm:

Ted, that sounds more like a lifestyle mantra.

Mmmmmm but the point is who's complaining about the dwindling support for OS9?? You keep talking about these mysterious 'OTHER' people like it's a real problem.

Users have the right to choose whatever they want, for whatever reasons, without the need for attitude from you.

By james a powers (Glendalough) (209.188.109.122) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:14 pm:

John, Don't think that windows should be seen as a standard of comparison.

Working LW in OSX I feel professionally worried, we are under attack.

Move to the bottom of the LW interface, lights-camera-item properties- up pops the dock, on top of the LW interface.......seen software in Mac magazines for getting rid of this, should be on the top tool bar, that's obvious. All that is gained is effect in appearance when runing itunes or some other imuck........OSX is the first time Mac has brought out an OS that was not a complete improvement in virtually all areas, appearence, logistics, simplicity and performance, this is the (professional) worry........

Ted, at least you admit that OS9's interface is faster, but I don't think you got the crashing part right. It's that rock solid unix based OSX that crashes all the time. This has always been the main issue with OSX, aside from having to dump all our old programs. 9 is slower (for programs) but really seldom freezes at all (9 installed with OSX can not be compared, does not even approach 9 solo) .....

Yes, you are right though, we have to work in OSX. Besides there's no real choice.

Only if this devolves into some full scale comsumer electronics iparty it may not be great for those seriously trying to do graphics/art on the computer........

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:26 pm:

Ah, the aussie's back!

>Users have the right to choose whatever they want, for whatever reasons, without the need for attitude from you.

Of course they do. Use whatever makes your little aussie tush happy. The fact that your a web designer who shuns Dreamweaver in favor of Claris Homepage just about says it all. Your the kind of guy who gets comfortable with one solution, and then sticks with it way past it's prime, either for monetary reasons, or the fear of having to learn something new. Whatever the reason, as I've said before - POWER TO YOU. If you use it, like it, enjoy it, and can be productive with it - why do you even care what I have to say about it in the first place?

>Users have the right to choose whatever they want, for whatever reasons, without the need for attitude from you.

Ahh... And I've got a right to post about it, for whatever reasons, without being cursed in limey-speak.

The angrier you get, the bigger my grin gets. And if you don't like 'tude, just stop responding to it....

Man, this is just too much fun!

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:34 pm:

mmmmm whatever

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.156.14.17) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:51 pm:

>>>but I don't think you got the crashing part right. It's that rock solid unix based OSX that crashes all the time

That's laughable. If 9 was "rock solid", Apple wouldn't have felt the need to completely scrap it in favor of something new.

OS X has one problem that can cause consistent crashes. It is picky about RAM. You can have 3 - 512MB dimms that worked fine together under OS 9, but OS X is much more picky about their speeds, and if they differ in the slightest, it's kernel panic central. I've rescued 4 users from kernel panic hell, all by removing their RAM, and replacing one by one, until we determined that a certain combination of DIMMS would cause it. This was all back before 10.2. Since 10.2, I've yet to encounter any kernel panic problems on hardware as old as the blue & white G3, or as new as the MDD Quicksilver.

I disagree that OS X isn't an improvement in all areas. I believe it is, but it does come at a cost. The cost is hefty RAM and hardware requirements.OS X definitely pushes the hardware envelope further than any other OS out there today.

As for your Dock issues when using the lower buttons in LW... I just put my Dock on the right hand side, and find it interferes with fewer apps that way.

And finally...

>>Only if this devolves into some full scale comsumer electronics iparty it may not be great for those seriously trying to do graphics/art on the computer........

I don't think that's a concern. OS X is revered and respected in ways I never thought possible for an Apple OS. Maya would never have been ported to OS 9. Neither would Shake. Or ColdFusion for J2EE. Apple now has a great balance of consumer based productivity apps (iLife, etc) and industrial strength professional enterprise apps. This is entirely due to OS X.

By John A. Johnson (Johnny) (65.57.13.122) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:56 pm:

Hi, James;

my point about Windows wasn't that it was the standard by which computers are measured, but that what you have installed *on* the computer doesn't necessarily make it an un-professional machine (such as a Mac with OSX, and iLife apps, or NT with Doom).

but I agree with the viewpoint that OSX is rock-solid, and OS9 is shaky and crash-prone. I have too many memories of the Mac going down in flames under OS9, and almost none under OSX. Add to that the previous point that under X, you can do several things at once, pretty fast and under 9, one thing a bit faster..for me, this makes OSX the more productive environment.

I think that the more productive environment path is the direction of the future. and that maybe some of these bumps we're experiencing are part of what happens when you go from a 20-year-old OS to something new.

And if things aren't exactly just so for you right now, I'd chalk it up to the fact that OSX is still relatively new, and that LW for Mac/OSX doesn't have the years of fine-tuning that the Windows version has had.

J

By james a powers (Glendalough) (209.188.109.11) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 12:01 pm:

Okay Guys, enough for now. Just don't want to see Mac go down -even if they deserve it.

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:21 pm:

To say that OS9 is more stable than OS X is ridiculous. I assume you must not use the particle generator very much.

OS9 is simpler to use than OS X. You know where to find your preference files easily. I'm also not a big fan on the Dock in OS X.

However the stability in OS X makes it worthwhile. Apart from the fact that OS9 would crash easily, when it reboots it takes forever to scan the disk for damage.

It would be very difficult to go back to OS9, now that Worley Labs is not supporting it. I think that Apple is also trying to freeze out OS9 users, but making new Apple applications OS X-only.

By james a powers (Glendalough) (209.188.109.44) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:43 pm:

Hi Beam,
I don't know about particles as I have just had this machine a few days. But I do know about transparency and volumetric light. The same file, a simple file (with mist=transparency) renders 25 secs in 9. It takes 1 min and 45 secs in OSX.

Another file, more complicated, with mist and volumetric lights renders about 1 min in 9 and still won't finish after about 5 or 6 mins in 10. Press the abort button and the system crashes in OSX. If I turn on radiosity it immediately freezes at the beginning of the render. I have a more complicated version of this same with particles (fog), will I ever get to it in OSX? It use to go real slow in 8.6 on a Blue and White G3, but would never freeze, could always abort if too slow.

Maybe with all your expertise you could account for this?

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (139.76.65.132) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 06:57 am:

james -
Rendering under OS X should be faster with LW 7.5. I remember reading something about faster rendering with OS X v. OS 9 when 7.5 first debuted. Plus, if you visit Chris Blanos' benchmarks, you'll see that X wipes the floor with 9 in all rendering tests...

You may want to give Newtek a call and try to narrow down the problem. It sounds to me like you might have some other process (background or otherwise) hogging CPU cycles. The speed differences you are seeing are just too large to account for anything else.

A quick way to check... Before you start a render, open the Terminal, and type "Top". This is the non-GUI version of process viewer. View the column marked "CPU%"... Is there any app listed taking a large amount of CPU time? Start your render, go back to the Terminal, and keep an eye on the numbers... This should help you track down what's sucking up your CPU cycles....

By james a powers (Glendalough) (209.188.109.165) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:49 pm:

Found the problem was brdf shader plugin. Either LW 7.5 or OSX can't take it, pretty imediately crashes the system....

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:52 pm:

The BRDF feature has long been confirmed to be buggy in OS X. There are a few other threads on this subject if you want to search for them.

By Chuck Baker (Cbaker) (207.235.86.2) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:47 am:

Is this related to the BRDF problems reported as fixed in the current beta, or something different that we need to get reported?

By mr. (Murdoch) (217.39.161.109) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:28 pm:

who's got the current beta???

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:33 pm:

Yes, Chuck. I stand corrected. This is the same BRDF issue that has recently been reported as being fixed in Newtek's internal betas. This is a welcome development. I can't wait for these internal betas to go to golden master, whenever that might be!