good old day syndrome

[robh]

Here's a nice article that seems to explain why so many OS9 users who've moved to OSX moan and groan..

http://lowendmac.net/webb/02/0125.html

I also agree with his wife's view that OS9 is ugly. :)

[griffman]

There's no question that OS X and OS 9 are very different operating systems. Both have their strengths, and both have their weaknesses.

From my perspective, the strength of OS 9 lies in the variety of GUI tweaks that had been evolved into the OS over 15+ years. The major weakness was the inability to do more than one thing smoothly, and general overall stability.

OS X basically reverses those issues in my book. It's able to do an amazing number of things at once without crashing or slowing down, but it gives up a number of GUI enhancements that would make using (in particular) the Finder more enjoyable.

In my mind, the GUI tweaks are addressable and relatively easy fixes as compared to the complexity involved in creating a new UNIX-based OS that seemlessly runs 99% of the Mac software ever written (I even booted up Dark Castle in Classic without a problem!) while providing leading-edge multitasking and stability. That's why I think OS X has a bright future.

I certainly understand the position of those that prefer OS 9 - in some ways, positioning OS X as the follow-on to OS 9 has hurt Apple. Imagine how different the reaction might have been if they'd positioned it as the "Pro" (using Microsoft's terminology) version and then migrated the OS 9 user base over time. Of course, the downside is that developers would have been very very slow to come onboard with that plan. With a forced migration of 15 million Mac owners, developers were much more interested.

I just hope those who prefer OS 9 choose to keep working on OS 9 (which is clearly a viable OS for today and the next year or two at least) long enough for Apple to resolve some of the interface tweaks in OS X ... it'd be a shame for the platform if they chose to migrate to another platform just as OS X was approaching a feature match with OS 9's GUI usability!

-rob.

[Phil St. Romain]

"I realized at that moment that you can never go home again. While I miss many of the little touches in OS 9, the bottom line is that I can accomplish more in OS X. All of my grouching about the OS could be contributed to "good old day syndrome."

I can relate to almost everything in that article, including the part about teaching my wife OS X and her not wanting to change back (and believe me, she IS a very average user).

Some time back on MFI OS X Talk, I started a thread stating that Apple should have called this Apple OS X, or simply OS X. It's the Mac OS part that has so many--mostly veteran Mac users--expecting X to be simply a souped-upgrade of OS 9: something like Copland was supposed to be. A radical name change could have helped, not that some of the critics would like it any more.

Also, let's admit that Apple COULD have helped themselves by including some of the options that people miss. XP, for example, lets one use a Classic Windows theme. Themes, plus options to turn off drop shadows and a few other classical features like the configurable Apple menu, spring-loaded folders, etc. would have helped to smooth the transistion. Granted, one can now do most of this with 3rd party apps, and I do consider that a real solution. Maybe Apple will make some of this available in future releases.

Good to have this kind of discussion here. All in the spirit of Xperiences, as I see it.

Phil

[Brad Nelson]

From my perspective, the strength of OS 9 lies in the variety of GUI tweaks that had been evolved into the OS over 15+ years. The major weakness was the inability to do more than one thing smoothly, and general overall stability.

OS X basically reverses those issues in my book.

Rob, I think that about says it all. There's a tremendous advantage to the modern underpinnings and I will gladly acknowledge that for some (perhaps many) the loss of GUI refinement is an easy trade to make. Nevertheless, this trade never really had to happen to the extent that it did. Phil points out, quite rightly, that much of the resistance to OS X could have been avoided by a few simple inclusions. It's the price you pay for having SJ at the helm. You get those bold moves that are painful to make but sometimes necessary. But you also get the baggage of "my way or the highway" when stroking the CEO's ego comes first, and customer needs and expectations come last.

I really don't pine for the good ol' days of OS 9. I do miss the good ol' days when refinement of the GUI was job 1.

[griffman]

It's the price you pay for having SJ at the helm. You get those bold moves that are painful to make but sometimes necessary.Most definitely agreed. See "SCSI", "floppy disk", "CRT monitor", and "sound input" for additional examples :-).

-rob.

[Brad Nelson]

I wish I could kiss those floppies goodbye but they just don't seem to go away. If I ran out and bought a new Mac tomorrow I would still have to have a floppy for those time customers bring in files on them.

Could you clarify the advantages of eliminating the sound input? I'm not an audio expert by any means but is this functionality replaced by FireWire and/or USB input with no loss of quality?

[griffman]

I didn't claim it was an advantage -- it was just another example of mass forced change courtesy of Mr. Jobs :-).

With that said, it's my understanding that the USB sound devices can and do fully replace the functionality of the built-in port with no loss in quality. But then again, I'm no sound guy, either ... just a web site developer who can't code, a writer who didn't like English classes, and a UNIX user who really didn't think he'd like using UNIX :-).

-rob.