OS 9, Mine, All Mine
Pages: 1, 2
"It would cost a couple of thousand for two new machines"
Deep in the idyllic countryside of Sussex, near the south coast of England, Ben Gabel and Kate McAvoy operate a small business supplying high-quality natural vegetable seeds for gardeners.
The VidaVerde seed catalogue is kept up-to-date using two PowerBook 3400 laptops running OS 9. Ben is clearly very proud of his low-cost computer setup (pictured below).
 Ben Gabel's FileMaker database. |
"It's a great setup; we have 5 enormous FileMaker databases that track all the seeds in the seedbank, with photos, growing notes, passport data, and so on.
"They also generate instructions for people who request seeds. We also use Dreamweaver for web site maintenance, and Word for most of our business document."
And if all that isn't delightfully lo-fi enough for you, just wait until you hear how the computers are powered and networked:
"Our setup is solar-powered. Internet connection is via a village-wide wireless network; then to a DirecPC satellite link belonging to a neighbor.
"I have no problems at all running this lot from OS 9, except that the machines themselves are getting a bit old -- about six years now -- and so backlights and keyboards do need replacing from time to time."
Upgrading to OS X would be nice in theory, but this is a small business designed to bring in a family income. Costs have to be kept down. By saving money on hardware, Ben and Kate have been able to spend more on seed stock.
"Why not go to X? Well, for a start it would cost a couple thousand for two new machines. Our budget is very small for this project; by using old machines bought on eBay for a couple of hundred pounds, we have much more funds available for our seed-saving.
"And everything works under 9. We have the recent versions of almost everything, and it works great. They are perfectly fast, even with big FileMaker searches. I think the newer ultra-fast machines are really only necessary for 3D games or intensive graphics work."
"The current setup works"
Doug Murray is a freelance sound editor. As with other specialized professionals, he has very specific requirements from the computers he uses for work. Unlike our other interviewees, Doug runs OS X on his personal laptop, but usually finds himself using OS 9 in the editing suites he works in.
OS 9 and Pro Tools 5.x have become something of an industry standard in sound-editing environments, he says. While there would be some obvious benefits to upgrading, commercial commonsense dictates that the studios keep using what works.
 Doug Murray's dual-monitor desktop, showing his professional sound-editing environment in Pro Tools. |
Doug says: "I use Pro Tools every day, and like most sound editors working in established facilities, I work on an older G4 machine with older Pro Tools hardware and software and OS 9.
"For reliability, to get the most out of the extensive hardware and software investment, and to minimize training requirements, most of the installed base of Pro Tools film post-production sound facilities is very slow to change.
"But I use OS X on my own laptop. I have written about Pro Tools 6 and OS X, and I am a fan of both of them. If you have a fast enough machine, OS X is well worth using.
"Pro Tools 5.x and OS 9 have together become a standard in the sector I work in, sound editing for film. Most sound editors work as freelancers, moving from one editing facility to another. Equipment is provided by the facility, which might be quite small, or a very large one with dozens of editing rooms. Since one setup has become the standard in most of these suites, it will take quite an effort across the sector to upgrade to Pro Tools 6 and OS X.
"I think people know that we should upgrade; everyone knows there are arguments to be made. The thing is that the current setup works.
"People wouldn't get enough benefit from the upgrade to make the cost of doing it worthwhile. The day will come, eventually, but it's not here yet."
This theory is confirmed by another interviewee who preferred to remain anonymous. He works as a graphic design consultant in London's Soho, where there is a high concentration of TV, film, advertising, and design companies within a small area.
This mystery contributor uses OS 9.2 on a G4 Quicksilver, and has no inclination to switch to OS X until it becomes "absolutely necessary."
He says: "I work with several studios and with the exception of the odd machine reserved for a specialist task all are still working with OS 9. This is simply because they have an infrastructure that works, they know how to troubleshoot it if need be, and in a busy environment everyone needs to be on top of their game.
"The last thing that is needed is production teething troubles, searching for an OS X driver for peripherals, or finding one's way around a system that appears quite different from previous versions.
"Applying OS X across the board would render a proportion of existing equipment useless or require further investment in RAM [and] processor upgrades, when it can do its job perfectly well under OS 9. A lot of expense, in other words.
"OS 9 is very stable. I'm sure OS X is a fine operating system, but for plenty of us it is not a 'must have' right now."
Giles Turnbull is a freelance writer and editor. He has been writing on and about the Internet since 1997. He has a web site at http://gilest.org.
Return to MacDevCenter.com.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 27 of 27.
-
Mac os X
2004-09-26 22:43:46 bharathmanu [Reply | View]
I am a recent convert o the Mac experience having bought a 800 Mhz FP iMac 1.5 years ago. I must say that the Mac os X is very stable compared to the windows pc I was using before.In fact I havent had a single crash so far.
-
If it ain't broke . . .
2004-08-23 13:50:34 losmeme [Reply | View]
Hi, I've been a Mac user from day one as a graphic artist. I have used every iteration of the system beginning with 1.2.2.
I recently sold a newer 533Mhz G4, and upgraded my old 233Mhz G3 to be my "OS 9 FOREVER" machine. I was surprised upon purchasing the new G4 to find out it wasn’t significantly faster than my G3. This made me mad, really, really mad. Having listened to Apple’s marketing department, and gotten burned for it, I set out to learn as much technically about the MAC as I could. That’s not an easy undertaking by any stretch, as there has traditionally been ZERO technical information published about the MAC. I had to understand why my new G4 didn’t act significantly different than my G3, and why I had to pay two grand to find that out. To this day, I still haven’t answered that question, but in the process I have answered a lot more questions that make me look at the MAC platform with a more critical eye. Why give up totally on a platform that has served me very well for the past 20 years? The answers are very simple:
1-Apple has decided that it wants to play with the big boys now, and no longer serve a niche market. Their solution to this? OSX, the noisiest, most confusing, least intuitive user interface I have ever had the displeasure of using. Apple, a la Microsoft, have put the programmers in the drivers seat. No longer are the end-users considered when writing apps, getting the “technology” to market has become focus number one. (Whether it works or not.)
2-I am sick and tired of Panther confusing focus amongst applications. I am sick and tired of slow performance in OSX. I am sick and tired of that stupid InDesign IDLK temp file screwing with menu order in an open window. I am sick and tired of having to confirm a shutdown. I am sick and tired of clicking in one direction, and having the computer go off on its own tangent, THINKING it knows better than I do what I need to accomplish at that moment. Also, I am sick and tired of paying $130 for each minor upgrade to be a part of Apple’s product testing department. (Hey, shouldn’t I get benefits and an office as a product tester?)
3-Newer OSX versions of traditional graphics software titles don't match up to their OS9 counterparts, (i.e. Quark v6.0 costing $80 LESS than v5.0, you don’t even have to USE it to understand it is not up to snuff) or, offer no real innovation at all, other than the price tag. (i.e. Adobe CS) OS9 apps like: PageMaker 7.0, Illustrator 10.0 and PhotoShop 7.0 will very reliably fill print production needs for the forseeable future. There’s no more innovation to be had in that arena, the apps do it all, already.
4-In my zest to learn everything technical about computing, I discovered Windows 2000. Say what you will about Micro$crooge, Win2K is a very stable, reliable OS. (XP is no real innovation either, being nothing more than Windows 2000 with a pretty blue interface on it.) I have since built a custom PC, for THOUSANDS less than it would have cost me to buy the SAME or lesser technology in a MAC platform machine. I now have the fast machine I have always wanted, and didn’t have to declare bankruptcy in the process.
5-At the end of the day, the OS should have no impact on your productivity levels. OS’s don’t get work done, applications do. OSX is such a loud, brash and smelly colleague, that focusing on work, as opposed to the interface, is so much more of a challenge now. OS9’s joy is the fact that it is very unobtrusive.
OS9 FOREVER!
-
OS X is a nasty piece of ... work
2004-08-12 09:18:02 phummers [Reply | View]
OS X is an expelsive, bloated mess. To use the resources it does to run _eye_candy_ is obscene. I've been using Macs since around 1993, and have gotten to know how to make 7-9 rock-solid.
When these computers die, it's iX86s for me, running FreeBSD. OS X, while running Darwin underneath, is neither 9 nor BSD, and very tiring.
For newer Macs, I recommend Yellow Dog Linux or NetBSD.
-
Mac OS frightens me
2004-07-28 09:01:49 clvrmnky [Reply | View]
As a "cross-platform" developer myself, being confronted with Mac OS would frighten me. It's probably just OS chauvinism, but I do not consider Mac OS a "real" operating system.
Developing on something without real memory protection and no real kernel sounds like no fun at all. Not without a hardware debugger, anyway.
Watching Mac OS 8.x on a top of the line box completely lock up the UI (until I got bored and walked away) when the salesperson launched an application convinced me years ago that Mac OS was hardly ready as a development platform. Not for me, anyway. Either give me a true threaded interface, or give me a POSIX shell and get out of my way. Stock Mac OS has neither of these things.
-
Mac OS frightens me
2004-07-28 13:53:20 dhale [Reply | View]
Developing on something without real memory protection and no real kernel sounds like no fun at all.
It gather it wasn't. Few still do.
Watching Mac OS 8.x on a top of the line box completely lock up the UI (until I got bored and walked away) when the salesperson launched an application convinced me years ago that Mac OS was hardly ready as a development platform. Not for me, anyway. Either give me a true threaded interface, or give me a POSIX shell and get out of my way. Stock Mac OS has neither of these things.
This is like complaining that the Ford Falcon is deficient in crash safety and tailpipe emissions. When compared to modern cars, that's true!
Fortunately, the MacOS - the original - like the Falcon, is not a current offering. Apple is happy to sell you Mac OS X, which has (much) POSIX compliance, memory protection, and a real kernel; so too Ford will sell you a Focus, which knocks the Falcon flat in every category (except looks).
-
OS X is fragile?
2004-07-26 09:02:31 xeroply [Reply | View]
I'm really curious about what might be behind Ken's experience with OS X as being "fragile."
I'm running a Dual 866 PowerMac G4, with a measly 256 MB of RAM. Back on Jaguar, I managed to hit an obscure bug which would reliably cause a kernel panic. (Haven't tested it on Panther since upgrading. Yet, despite panicking the machine multiple times in a row , I never experienced any "hard drive corruption or irreparable damage to system files." Just restarted, and it came back up fine.
This is a system with gobs of freeware/shareware/experimental-ware installed, some of it quite unstable by virtue of being alpha and beta software, but OS X itself has never had any major problems. I've done light C++ development work and video editing on it (half the hard drive has now been eaten by DV files), and still very few hiccups. It's actually gotten more reliable as I've slowly gone 10.2.3 -> 10.3.4
(And no, I don't really do any kind of regular maintenance. The occasional "repair permissions" if I happen to think about it, is the extent of it)
My XP machine at work, (a 1.8 GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM) while usually pretty reliable, has a lot more problems than the Mac. Searching the hard drive for a file takes 5-10 min and grinds the entire system to a halt, whereas the Mac is done in about 10 seconds, for example.
-
Ken's choice
2004-07-26 02:49:45 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
It's interesting to see so many comments related to Ken Hagler's choice of operating system. His comments about unstable OS X installations have obviously surprised a few people, since they don't match the general consensus.
But people should resist the temptation to criticise him. Remember that he uses just about every OS around, Mac and Windows of various flavours, and has made his choice of personal OS based on his own experiences. If his experiences don't match yours, well, that's not his problem :)
-
Frontier developer was getting bad advice from his "PC-centric" friends
2004-07-25 22:19:09 some-guy [Reply | View]
Ken Hagler wrote:
""It's also very fragile -- kernel panics and application crashes are quite likely to produce hard-drive corruption or irreparable damage to system files. Based on what my PC-centric co-workers have told me, OS X is comparable to Windows 98 in its lack of stability."
Unfortunately, his friends are giving him bad advice.
- The only things that can cause a kernel panic are the kernel itself, and kernel extensions, which can come from either Apple or third parties, and installed either in-box or via the third-party software installers. I have several friends who are photographers who have suffered from problems with scanning, and they blamed it on Mac OS X, when in fact it was because their SCSI cards (always Adaptec cards) were being driven using crappy quality drivers that would cause the kernel panic. You can find out the cause by looking at /Library/Logs/panic.log to see what the problem is.
- It seems really unlikely that running any IDE should ever cause a kernel panic, unless it is a really creepy, scary IDE that thinks it needs to install KEXTs (kernel extensions). Neither Xcode/Project Builder nor CodeWarrior have ever caused me kernel panics in 4 years of Mac OS X development.
- For me, development has become much more reliable because of the memory protection afforded me by Mac OS X. I never had that developing in Mac OS 9 - it was almost mandatory to have a development system and a test system. With Mac OS X I can do both on one with confidence.
- Application crashes may leave the files that app had open in an inconsistent state, but otherwise their crashing has no effect on the system at all. Kernel panics may have negative effects because the disk cache was never flushed to the disk, but journaling on Mac OS 10.3 takes care of that.
- Windows 98 is much more like Mac OS 9.1 than it is like Mac OS X. The comparison is frankly so misinformed, I (and I would suppose, any other reasonably well-informed reader) wouldn't be able to take this seriously. I am not trying to be mean about this, but it is honestly quite funny to hear someone say that in an article that wasn't published on April 1st.
But, if Mac OS 9 is working for you, all the power to you!
-
"It would cost a couple of thousand for two new machines"
2004-07-25 09:42:03 williamr [Reply | View]
No, it would cost a couple of hundred to upgrade the OS, and some of that they could claim back in taxable expenses.
I write this on a G3 iMac that started life six years ago running 8.6, and is currently on 10.2 and never better. The only reason I haven't upgraded to 10.3 is that both 10.4 and an all-new iMac should be out later this year (metallic, angular and G5-powered I hope). I was never that convinced by Mac OS in the old days to be honest (I remember having to learn all about extension conflict resolution the first week I had the iMac), but I haven't stopped being thrilled with OS X since the day I upgraded. -
"It would cost a couple of thousand for two new machines"
2004-07-29 10:33:33 MSchienle [Reply | View]
The 3400 laptop runs on a 603e chip, which is the generation of chips prior to the G3 that's in your iMac. MacOS X will not install on a 603e without using something like XPostFacto to tell the installer that the system has a different chip than it actually does, he's not really able to move to MacOS X.
I used XPostFacto to run 10.1 and 10.2 on an old upgraded PowerMac 7500 (G3/400) for a bit, but eventually gave the system away after many years of great service.
-
A Vote for OS 9
2004-07-25 06:34:45 rtmac [Reply | View]
I appreciate this article. These OS 9 users have expressed some of the exact reasons people are staying with OS 9.
In addition to the excellent LowEndMac resource, you might also want to check out ClubOfNines".
I know for O'reilly OS X is where the money is, so I appreciate the nod to OS 9! -
A Vote for OS 9
2004-07-28 11:34:42 macmonster [Reply | View]
Re: ClubOfNines: Interesting site, but why the Aqua theme if it's devoted to last century's Mac OS? One would think that an OS 9 Finder-type theme would be more appropriate. -
A Vote for OS 9
2004-07-26 02:59:18 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
Thanks for the Club of Nines tip, rtmac. Looks like an interesting forum.
-
i'm surprised
2004-07-24 08:09:07 chubby [Reply | View]
Mac OS X is rock solid and excellent OS for fun lovers and serious programmers with uptime crossing weeks. Cant compare with windows 98 at all OS X is faaaaar better
-
Mac OS X crashing more than windows?
2004-07-24 07:22:58 trekkie [Reply | View]
That's a shocker. I have a iMac that has been upgraded from 10.1, 10.2, and finally to 10.3 since 2002 and we've never had problems with it. Windows XP Machine has been reloaded twice a year and both are used for the 'same thing' all day long with little/no new programs. Are you sure someone didn't put an aqua theme on a PC and tell you it was a Mac ? :)
-
Mac OS X crashing more than windows?
2004-07-24 07:18:05 trekkie [Reply | View]
That's a shocker. I have a iMac that has been upgraded from 10.1, 10.2, and finally to 10.3 since 2002 and we've never had problems with it. Windows XP Machine has been reloaded twice a year and both are used for the 'same thing' all day long with little/no new programs. Are you sure someone didn't put an aqua theme on a PC and tell you it was a Mac ? :)
-
Cheap Systems
2004-07-24 03:23:24 bobbie [Reply | View]
If I wanted to build a cheap reliable system I would choose Linux not Mac OS 9. New 2Ghz Intel boxes are pretty cheap because everyone wants the fastest processor and graphics card, but they run Linux (and Windows for that matter) pretty quickly. Linux, in the form of Fedora, can be downloaded for free or a version of SuSE bought for not too much money. Linux comes with lots of excellent software including some good open source databases and Open Office.
I prefer Mac OS X enough to pay for it on 2 machines, but I think Linux is very hard to beat as a cheap, reliable system for a company with little money. It is now actully quite user friendly.
-
Cheap Systems
2008-12-31 01:43:11 firstbassman [Reply | View]
Unless you're the average person, like the seed catalog co. mentioned earlier. Then you would need to add the cost of hiring a consultant and/or full time IT person just to make your computers work.
I love OS X for many things, but Mac OS beats it hands down in terms of user-friendliness, simplicity, and elegance.
-
Horses for courses
2004-07-24 00:45:13 sanchonevesgraca [Reply | View]
As far as children are concerned using an old Mac is not really suitable and is actually a disservice for their education. Today's children belong to the first generation where most or all intellectual goods are delivered and manipulated digitally, and this requires a modern computer. Of course, one can decide to ignore technological developments and stick to what one is comfortable with. Such as paying high telephone bills because of wanting to 'save' and not use iChat... -
Horses for courses
2004-07-26 03:06:43 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
I disagree, sngraca. I think children benefit from limited use of any computer system while they are still pre-school age; at least it gets the used to the concept of a computer, a keyboard and a mouse. My two-year-old can already pick out the letter B thanks to learning it from my computer keyboard!
And older children should be exposed to a variety of computers, too, just so they understand that computers are varied! Most schools (here in the UK, at any rate) tend to teach a limited range of IT skills, usually on Windows networks. When my son is old enough to go to school, I want him to know that Windows is just one choice among many.
The computer I'm using to type this post now will be ancient history by then (hey, it's a G3 iBook, it's almost ancient history *now*) but I hope he will be able to tinker with it and get a feel for how computers have changed since he was born.
Heh, he'll also be able to play with my super-cheap NeXTStation too, and find out how computers have changed since *before* he was born :)
-
Eh? What what?
2004-07-23 17:19:35 poboxbot [Reply | View]
Reinstalling Mac OS X three or four times?!
I've been using OS X since the beta, and have only had to reinstall once because of a bad upgrade.
I use my machine for development, with uptimes lasting weeks. It's much more stable than OS 9 and on par with the latest Windows offerings. -
Eh? What what?
2004-07-24 00:31:39 sanchonevesgraca [Reply | View]
The uptime for my Mac OS X server is months, often only restarted if there is an upgrade. Similarly for a Mac OS X computer used for software development, restarted more often just because there are more upgrades for this machine. It's completely unfounded to state that the stability of Mac OS X is equiparable to Windows 98. The likely reason for such misconception is that administration of Mac OS X requires UNIX skills to administer the BSD core. which is of course completely different from classic Mac (but is a welcome change). Reinstallation of the operating system (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, etc) or application server software (WebObjects, WebSphere, etc) is only necessary as a last resort and there are many issues to be checked and solved before reinstalling. But if some so-called system administrators are only familiar with package installation and rebooting, then reinstalling is their natural approach... -
RE: Eh? What what?
2004-07-25 21:56:56 some-guy [Reply | View]
"The likely reason for such misconception is that administration of Mac OS X requires UNIX skills to administer the BSD core."
Just to set the record straight, you don't need to have any UNIX experience to use, own, or administer a Mac OS X system, although if you do have that experience, it can come in handy on occasion. Though pre-conceived notions about how many UNIX distros work can actually get you in trouble in the beginning - /etc is *not* the center of the universe on Mac OS X! :-)
-
Builds failing
2004-07-23 16:53:09 dgroulx [Reply | View]
If you are having issues with builds failing on OS X while using XCode, I have been having the same problem, however there is an easier solution than reinstalling the entire OS. Quit Xcode, open up the terminal and type 'defaults delete com.apple.Xcode'. That has fixed it for me every time. -
Builds failing
2004-07-24 18:03:21 khagler [Reply | View]
The build failures were with Codewarrior, not XCode. We've switched to XCode for our newest project, but so far I've only built it twice--not enough to form an opinion on its reliability (both builds were without incident).
I've made a note of your command for future reference, though. Thanks! -
Builds failing
2004-07-24 21:51:44 qu1j0t3 [Reply | View]
In my experience the cause of this type of failure, under OS X, is bad RAM. Compilers exercise memory more than most other workloads, and have many built-in integrity checks on their data structures (unlike many applications and even filesystems). Compilers also have a very high memory and CPU utilisation. For all these reasons memory problems are likely to be exposed this way and your symptoms strongly suggest this is the culprit.
Try Charles Cazabon's memtester. I have used this tool to confirm memory problems after seeing otherwise inexplicable CodeWarrior and gcc compile crashes. (You should run this tool in single user mode, and do not attempt to test more than about 90% of RAM as this will fatally starve the Darwin VM system.)
