I doubt that’s the universal experience. In my hands, running Classic apps. in the Classic layer (as opposed to booting in OS 9.2) is a far more enjoyable way to go. The cursed truth (which many Mac Zealots will furiously deny) is that pre-OSX memory management was total, utter crap, and you could pretty much count on hanging an OS9.2 system at least once or twice a day with even moderate use. Often, with less-than-perfectly-written software (which many science apps from smaller outfits were, I found), you could endure 5-10 reboots/day, easy. I really grew to fucking loathe OS9, and lots of folks I work with ditched the Mac platform altogether in favor of Win2K, solely because of the frequent, system-freezing crashes.
Now the hangs have decreased for some reason, and even when I do freeze the Classic layer, I can just kill it and start over, without having to reboot the whole damn system, which is a much faster way to deal with the problem. It’s still crap, but you can kind of keep it shoveled in a corner out of the way, and the smell is much more bearable.
Basically, while you might have to pay for indemification, this is now the most examined operating system in the world. Then again, it’s all in the support contract. I could swear Red Hat does deliver the same indemification to its users, though.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. The simple truth is that there are very few advantages – and a truckload of disadvantages – for Apple to port MacOS X to the Intel architecture.
Only among the small breed of Mac greybeards, the ones who think MacOS X is an utter travesty because it brings user account management and permissions to the “Mac experience.” Most of the Mac userbase IME agree that cooperative multitasking was a hassle, but put up with it because it was better than the available alternatives at the time.
I don’t think it got that bad for me, but I did enforce a number of habits that I wouldn’t put up with today – stuff like shutting down the computer at the end of the day, or not running more than 3 or 4 applications at a time.
Eh, just ditch the Classic stuff ASAP and move over to X-friendly software, I say. I only kept Classic around to run my old copy of Quicken, and I punted that once I switch over to MoneyDance (Look, Ma! Real cross-platform Java!)
Sometimes for purely regulatory reasons, that’s not possible, or at least, the headaches changing anyting causes with the Feds are so traumatic you run a ten-year-old system into the dirt.
Unfortunately, the science world long ago made the great migration to Wintel, so when we do finally retire those ancient instruments and apps., we will retire the MacOS as well, excepting the tenacious hangers-on like myself. Fortunately, many of those specialty apps tend to be fairly resource-frugal, and can probably be run tolerably enough in VirtualPC. The more hefty apps have such expensive licenses you only see them on a few workstations anyway; but those are all PCs. I’ve got so much legacy material from the Mac-in-science heydays, porting once-and-for-all to Wintel will be a month-long project, at least; and I love my Mac, so I avoid it. But the sad truth is, unless Apple makes a lot more efforts to get vendors of instruments and specialty analysis software to support the Mac platform, it will be an irrelevance in industry science in a few years, if it isn’t already, for most purposes. Nearly al of the post-docs coming in these are positively Mac-phobic, which I can barely get my head around. It means few use them in the universities anymore either (especially if those folks came from abroad, where resources are tighter). Man, do I feel old, sometimes
I know many folks who had problems with stability on pre-X Macintosh, but I wasn’t one of them. I ran MacOS 9.0.4 with more stability than any other OS up until X reached the 10.2 release; I’d have open FileMaker (sometimes two copies concurrently), iCab (my browser back then), Eudora, BBEdit, Photoshop, AppleWorks, Excel, NetFinder (FTP app), Timbuktu, Audion (MP3 player), and often other stuff simultaneously and rarely crashed. Memory management & allocation did indeed suck, though, no two ways about that.
If you’re sufficiently geeky and have access to some older machine ROMs you can run pretty much any MacOS software ever written on your modern OS X Mac. For the average Joe or Susie, the combo of OS X and its Classic environment will run nearly all Mac stuff they’d be likely to have lying around (it’s mostly only us greyhaired geeks who still have 32-bit-dirty and/or black-and-white-only and/or MacOS 8 incompatible apps lying about!)
Regarding Linux, though (on either hardware platform): I think it could make serious progress towards becoming a major desktop OS. The underpinnings are terrific. The open source dev community needs to stop conceptualizing the GUI as an extra or an accessory, though, and start getting serious about making sure you can fetch and add drivers, download and compile and install sourcecode apps, change TCP settings and monitor refresh rates and resolutions, mount an external hard drive with a foreign file system (FAT32, NTFS, HFS+), or change to a Dutch or Russian keyboard layout without going to the command prompt or editing a text file in pico. (Instead of copying the widgets and buttons of Mac’s Aqua, they should copy the basic range of GUI functionality!). I like KDE but count me as yet another person of the opinion that it just ain’t there yet. But I don’t see any overarching technical reasons why it couldn’t get there. It’s a perfectly functional Maserati with no doors and nothing but loose wires and testing devices where all the dashboard gauges and buttons should be.
Well, my experience has certainly been different. I’ve run Mac hardware and software ranging from OS 6.0.4 on a Mac SE to OS 9.1 on a 7500 with a 400 mhz processor. Crashes and feezes were generally infrequent and I didn’t complain about them nearly as often as my buds running Wintel machines. As I’ve used Wintel extensively at work, I’ve had a chance to compare the two systems, and I’d say that Wintel didn’t catch up to the Mac in terms of stability and ease of use until Windows 2000. On the other hand, all those complaints about the Classic Mac OS’s poor multi-tasking are entirely justified. For example, if I try to play some Solitaire or a few rounds of Iago while downloading a big file, the download slows to a crawl, and IE 5.1 basically just takes over the whole machine when rendering pages.
My limited exposure to Linux consists of successfully installing Yellow Dog Linux on a PPC 7200, and semi-successfully installing MkLinux on a Quadra 800. Interesting learning experiences, but I’d say that Linux still ain’t quite ready for prime time.
If you use and think that Linux is much more stable than a current install of Windows XP on the same decent hardware…you aren’t half the Geek you think you are. Windows XP and Windows 2003 are rock solid unless you have an odd hardware piece or driver. The same could be said for Linux.
People in our workforce have learned to use computers at home and work. And since they use Windows for the most part, they carry a nice basic set of skills into the workplace provided that workplace isn’t running something like…Linux with a Linux OS. I’ve seen this at my employer when I supported OS/2 and it adds another layer of difficulty when you are supporting people who don’t understand the OS.
OS/2 Had much of the same benefits that Linux users tout in its day and it had the backing of IBM. It was a great O/S (at the time) and people didn’t embrace it because they didn’t have much to gain by switching.
Linux is free and people aren’t clamoring for it. “Almost as good as Office” or “Most of the same kinds of applications” doesn’t cut it. What is the benefit of switching? Cost? Most people would rather pay a little extra for a computer that works with everything.
Apple has shown how to properly do Unix for consumers. I’m not a Mac fan…but the Linux community should look at what they’ve done. Their Unix based machines on OS/X are stable, friendly and doing quite well.
Windows XP is a solid product and it is very difficult to gain any consensus from objective people that state that Linux is better. Better in some ways, but not better. If it isn’t better…people won’t want it. And they don’t.
Cite? There are no reliable measures of Linux’s market share because it is (mostly) freely distributed over the Internet, but from the attention it has generated lately I see no reason to believe that it is not rapidly gaining popularity.
Honestly, there’s something wrong with your copy, with your hardware, or with what you’re doing. I’ve used XP with multiple GeForce cards and ATI cards without a single problem, ever, through multiple upgrades. Absolutely 100% smooth. Just how old’s your copy of XP?
I went on a Novell/Suse Linux training course last week, to try to get up to spec so that I can build file/mail/proxy etc servers for work - the course was great and I’m really impressed with how far Linux has come since the last few times I tinkered with it; Suse Linux 9 is almost a completely unattended install (unless you want to customise it) and you end up with a computer that runs KDE or Gnome, has email, office and web applications and can do just about anything you’d expect of a new installation of Windows. It comes with YaST - a sort of all-purpose configuration/installation utility that intelligently handles RPMs.
I see a future for Linux in my line of work, because I want to set up inexpensive servers that just work - I won’t be on site to reboot them once a fortnight or to purchase additional client licenses. My boss will take a bit more convincing, I suspect, but mostly because he just doesn’t want to try to understand - I had quite a big argument with him recently about how Linux is essentially free software (he contends that, no, the free version is just a time-limited trial).
If someone came to me tomorrow and asked for a machine solely for web/email/office applications, I wouldn’t hesistate to give them a Linux installation; I’m pretty much stuck with Windows for a lot of things, because of the Windows-specific apps we currently run, or have created.
Well a couple problems with this. I have been hearing the exact same argument for about 10 years now and not much has changed with regards to market segment. Five years from now, people will still be saying the same thing. You are confusing the issue of quality of the OS and desirability for developer functions with the ease of mass market(non-developer) use and distribution. There may be new companies, but the they still have no market share. Linux may last forever, but it won’t have a real market share until something changes
What needs to change? You are forgetting about the biggest issue the linux faces, which is that it doesn’t have much support from major software companies. Until this changes and you can purchase the same software for a linux system as a windows system, AND there is someone to fully support the operating system for end users, there will not be a huge shift in the mass market.
I started using Mac OS with version 8.1, and I really liked it. I found it to be more stable than Windows 98 (which I was using at the time on my PC). Not that OS 8.1 (then OS 8.6, which I used a lot, then OS 9.2) was totally stable. Just more than Windows 98. I rarely remember getting the “bomb” (though I did get it now and then).
I did have to do more troubleshooting on Mac OS 8/9 than I have had to do with OS X, though. But it wasn’t that bad. I put in long hours and did some heavy duty work with iMacs running OS 8/9. I just don’t remember stability being a big issue. In fact, I was reluctant at first to start working in OS X, even though I had it on my iMac and could have booted into it at any time. OS 9 was fine for me, so why change? I finally made the switch over to OS X when OS 10.2 (Jaguar) came out.
I don’t think Linux has much of a chance on the desktop in the near future. Understand that I really want it to, but it’s just not even close. I’ve played around with over a dozen distros over the years, but always came back to Windows.
My last experience was with a couple of LiveCD distros a few months ago. My $50 soundcard does not work, and will never work, with any distro. Same thing for the USB DSL modem issued to me by my ISP. If I can’t even get online with Linux, what’s the point?
Luckily, I found a good deal on Ebay for an Ethernet modem that my ISP supported. So I went back to the LiveCD, got the thing working, and got online. Well, sorta. The distro had three web browsers on it. The first one worked great for about 20 minutes, then it crashed. I launched it again, and this time it crashed even quicker. Next I tried the other two browsers. Crash and crash. After a few more tries, my window of web usability was pretty much nil. All three browsers would crash the second I opened them, every time, no matter what. There was no obvious way to fix this problem. I finally gave up in frustration.
In my experiences as a novice Linux user, I’ve also had occasion to ask questions online about how to get this or that working. Nearly every time, I’ve come away more confused by the instructions than by the problem itself.
If I still have a tough time wading through all this crap, Grandma doesn’t have a chance.