[MacDoc]

Many here are migrated to X but many of you also know others still using 9 ( like me ) for a variety of reasons.
In talking with clients many are simply not aware that after early January they will not be able to buy a new MAc - ANY new Mac - that will dual boot 9 and X.
They may have been vaguely aware but have not thought about the implications to their Mac use.
I encourage you all as good citizens of ehMacland to let your Mac user friends know about this situation and perhaps explain to the less Mac savvy what the implications are. With all the hustle and bustle of the holidays this upcoming issue will get overlooked.
Those using X will be in a good position to help see where problems might arise in associates not yet transitioned.
Those using 9 know their own reasons for not moving yet and can also help evaluating associates needs.

Here is our take on the current situation.

Consumers, kids, and business users should have little or no barrier to X other than faxing which looks like it's fixed.

Video app users are generally fine and most of my Pros are moved over.

Music apps are getting there but still have a ways to go, most have expressed concerns about NOT being able to boot in 9

Graphic apps have a big road block in Quark - Adobe is well transitioned. ALL have expressed concerns about NOT being able to boot in 9.
A few have booted Quark from their lives and are very happy on X - not so happy with their service bureaus

Web I'm unsure of but my feeling is there is little barrier for web designers. Enlighten me.

Networking on X is in just plain wonderful and even in all OS 9 environments shoud be high on the list to enhance work flow and reliability on the server end.
Even using X onthe server on a peer to peer small workgroup is worth while.

Be a real Mac advocate and chat this situation around..you may save a friend a lot of grief or even better talk them into getting a new Mac NOW while the dual boots are still around

 

[Bjornbro]

Yeah, so? Maybe Mac OS X.3 will run Classic better than booting in OS 9. The secrets of MacWorld 2003 will soon be revealed.

Yes, the glass is half full.

 

[MacDoc]

And if YOUR income depended on that "maybe" would your answer still be so flippant.

 

[hayesk]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
And if YOUR income depended on that "maybe" would your answer still be so flippant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your income depended on that "maybe" and you need more Macs after the new year, I'm sure there will be plenty of existing Macs still for sale. And eventually Quark will be native.

 

[dthompson101]

I work in the printing and prepress industry mostly and also have some graphic design agencies as clients and not one of them has had the switch to Mac OS X. Many of them have a "test" workstation set up to see what Mac OS X is like.

Most of the clients however got smart and bought an Xserve. The big bonus about the Xserve is it's reliability. Mac OS X Server has never given me or any of my clients a problem, with speed or issues (besides a bum SCSI card out of the box)

The thing that I think with most people making the switch. Just like a relationship, you get used to it. It becomes comforting and it becomes simple to be around. While the new Mac OS is exciting and very wonderful, many veterans who have been using Macs for years really have no interest in making the migration path.

So that leaves many people in a bind (especially in my indsutry). The Macs that they currently use can either stay on OS 9 or migrate to X. However, if they choose to stay in 9, they are at the last version of Quark (5.01). It's a catch 22. New Macs, no OS9 boot, Quark 6, no Mac OS 9 application.

For the record, most prepress companies use very little of Quark 5 as it sucks sucks sucks. What company in their right mind would release an application that corrupts your files when open and worked up on a RAID set.

Anyways, back to my rant. While I know that many of the younger people who are more techie inclined, they are excited and can't wait to ditch the old OS, however the people that currently have all the knowledge and experience in the industry are less inclined to be eager to make the jump.

Seems to me that Apple is also in a catch 22 here as well. Once you get used to running Mac OS X, you will notice the massive improvments in reliabiltiy (with a little lacking in the speed department) however to take that plunge to the new system is a lot to get used to.

People who have been working with 9 for years are used to:
The chooser
network browser
"command + y" to dismount volumes, manipulating the Apple Menu Item
Labeled Folders
Rebuilding the Desktop
Zapping the PRAM
Disk First Aid
Simple to set up control panels
Tear away Apple Menu Items"
booting up with extensions off
holding down the space bar at boot time to load the extension manger to update or create new sets,

Mac OS X will be an awakening for them:
No modifiable (natively) Apple Menu Items
The Dock,
The Print Center,
Minimized as opposed to WindowShade
Column View
The ability to no longer have disk on your desktop
System Preferences
Kernel Panics
Running Disk first Aid via fsck or the install CD, permissions and ownerships.

A non UNIX person would not know that a file that looks like: drwxr_xr__ root staff
would know that there is an owner to the file that; root (system administrator, or that only the owner can fully modify the file and that the group can only read and execute in the folder but not write to it and that the other group (everyone) can only read what is in the folder and not modify it or open it.

Now try and tell that seasoned mac vet that holding down the option key when they are trying to empty the trash because of a locked file does not do them any good. How about booting up with extensions off or creating new extension sets.

These to me are massive problems in getting a lot of older Mac people to move to the system. Like I said earlier, you get comfortable and familiar with what you have used and lived with for so long. I think the migration will happen (they will be forced to), but it means that many a company will lose out on productivity as the users have to be retrained on how to run the system.

How many people jump into cold water? That's exactly what Mac OS X is at first. A shock to your system. An awakening.

 

[MacDoc]

Once Apple discoes the currenl series we don't think there will be any good availability of upper end Macs. That's the problem.
The current dual boots with Jaguar have only been in since August - that's 5 months..not a whole lot of Macs.
Already we see no Quicksilver duals or 933s on the market. The noise problem, more expensive RAM for them and not a great deal of speed gain in the new boxes is keeping those Quicksilvers in users hands.
The only machines that might be around are the current dual 1 gHz which aren't selling so well and could use a price cut.
Portables aren't so bad - tehre is pretty good depth and many portable users are over on X anyway.
Instead of ragging about it why not give your Mac using associates a heads up and get THEIR reaction.
It's not going to affect the low and middle market - there is a reasonable supply of good boxes.
It's the upper end needing 9 for a while that will be affected and those thinking about portables who might get a nasty surprise.

Here is a reaction from a freelancer who works with lots of graphics houses
"I really can't believe apple is actually going through with this crap. Force
feeding OSX. Bull**** if you ask me."

 

[dthompson101]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
Here is a reaction from a freelancer who works with lots of graphics houses
"I really can't believe apple is actually going through with this crap. Force
feeding OSX. Bull**** if you ask me."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Apple has to do it to keep moving forward. They have the OS in it's 2nd revision (soon to be 3rd) and how long can they hold on to the past? I just ranted about them forcing people to OSX, but how else are you going to them to make the switch? Asking most of everyone who uses a mac to move to OSX is not going to do it. Many people make the jump, but many more stay back and take a wait and see approach to it.

The thing that I say to this designer is that if they accuse Apple of doing this sort of thing, then they are free to use whatever OS they wish to use. Either way they will have to learn another OS. At least with the upgrade to Mac OS X they still get the old mac "look and feel" sort of, while adding a massive amount of stability, protected memory and a full blown UNIX mach kernel that if you read a lot of sites like www.oreillynet.com are considering making the corporate switch to Mac OS X as it offers more customization on the UNIX engine underneath and more stability that crappy old MS WIndows while offering a crapload more apps than Linux does while still running all the mainstream apps.

to me it makes sense, but I am a nerd and I like command lines.

my 2nd 2 cents for the night!

 

[jfpoole]

macdoc wrote:
"In talking with clients many are simply not aware that after early January they will not be able to buy a new MAc - ANY new Mac - that will dual boot 9 and X."

Ah, but will the 2003 Macs still support OS 9; that is, will I be able to get a shiny new 2003 PowerMac, pave the hard drive, and install OS 9?

"Even using X on the server on a peer to peer small workgroup is worth while."

If I could get my hands on a used PowerMac G4 (for a half-decent price, that is), I'd probably switch from using Linux to Mac OS X on my web server here at home. I'm very impressed with how Apple's been able to put a reasonable GUI on top of Unix (which makes dealing with Linux now "interesting" at best).

While I'm not completely sold on the benefits of Mac OS X over Windows, I am sold on the benefits of Mac OS X over Linux. Which makes me wonder -- how many people are out getting a Mac and Mac OS X because of the Unix underpinnings? How many are switching not from Windows but from another flavour of Unix?

 

[MacDoc]

Good analysis Mr. Thompson that's exactly what we are finding and why I posted this to make sure people are not taken completely unawares as one of my larger graphics clients was today.
Apple is doing an admirable job on this transition and Quark is really the major hold up.
Apple has to make the jump at some point but personally I think the "no 9" move is one Apple world too soon.
Faxing is a still an issue on X -
Not being able to move things to the desktop from the Sherlock path window is annoying
Easy volume sharing needs work altho X has far more capability once it gets set up.
No "hide all" in the finder bugs me every day on the lower office iMac. Small screen, X, and lots of clutter on the desktop = serious annoyance.
One thing that's interesting is that 9.2. is really stable now it's not being tweaked by Apple. I have less hiccups on the 9.2 machine than on the iMac on X and I do way more simultaneously on the Cube.
X really is not yet graceful when it gets confused on a transfer through the network or Firewire.
X is a work in progress and vital to Apple's future and we applaud the hard and visionary work done so far that is even getting kudos from the PC world.
OS 9 is critical to some users and will be for a while yet.
Those are ones I hope don't get unpleasantly surprised a month from now.
ehMac has many who influence or inform other Mac users. Word spreads.

 

[MacDoc]

You make a very good point about Linux users migrating and that is real good news for Mac users in the long run.
I'd say THEY are more excited than Mac users because they know the potential.

That entire open source group getting on board with a a GUI like X brings huge benefits to both communities. Real solutions from the geeks for the users who ( like me ) just wann get it done and have a bit of eye candy thrown in .

 

[mycatsnameis]

Probably a load of rumour crap but this was posted on Macintouch today referring to possible damage control in the wake of Fred Ebrahimi's tirade at the Quark "Executive Summary" in NY a couple weeks ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Apparently a representative from Quark has been calling the attendees of that meeting and informing them of a conversation between Steve Jobs and Fred Ebrahimi. According to Quark, Steve Jobs agreed to delay the policy of all new Macs only booting in OS X (after January 1st) until June of 2003. This is to accommodate the much delayed release of the OS X native version of Quark XPress 6.0. The purpose of Quark's call was to reassure the attendees that they will be able to run Xpress in Mac OS 9 on new machines until June of 2003.
  I don't know if this is an attempt by Quark to say whatever they can to get sales and the confidence of their customers. I do however, find it difficult to believe that Apple would reverse their stance on Mac OS 9 booting after the first of the year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly echo the last statement.

 

[dthompson101]

I think Apple is being forced by more than just Quark. If they are getting complaints from consumers, then they have no choice from but to delay the OSX only boot. They are there to serve consumers, and ultimately we get what we want. Think of OSX PB. Apple in the center of them meu doing absolutly nothing, so they bring it back with some limited form of use.

Its like taxes. When the GST was proposed years ago, if all of Canada said no to paying the tax there would be no tax.

Apple has to work the same way. If they get enough complaints about no OS 9 boot, they will make the change accordingly.

I personally wish Quark would fold up their doors and burn in hell. They suck and I am so sick that one company with one product has such a death grip and stanglehold on what is Ultimately one of Torontos largest industries.

Plus Quark 5 is crap crap crap!

 

[MacDoc]

Well that would be hellishly good news and take some pressure off Apple as well. I see no issue with June and there is more time for Adobe to get Indesign in to the service bureaus

Quark is a prime example of why there needs to be meaningful competition and why "standards" aren't always good for an industry.
I mean Microsoft is bad sometimes but nothing so awful as Quark
Here's waht i see perhaps happening.
All the consumer Macs going X only and the towers waiting one show. Taht makes more sense to me than a total jump at this point.

 

[PosterBoy]

I dont know what to make of it really. Personally I love X, despite its "shortcomings" as some would call them. I sell mostly to new users, not to existing ones and almost all of them are quite happy with X (I say almost because there is always one or two who are not happy, no matter what you sell them). I find the biggest user base that has a problem with OS 9 is the existing user base, and you know what? A lot of their complaints seem more like whining more often than not. (not to offend anyone here, there are some valid complaints and some very good reasons to stay 9).

What do I miss? Tabbed windows is about the only thing. Of course, putting a folder in the dock achieves a similar effect, but on the other hand really not. I think that X has a ways to go for sure, but so does every other OS really, and I don't think that Apple could survive if they stayed with the classic OS.

OS X gives them a lot of things that 9 had a lot of problems with, an excited development community for one. A stable, modern system for another.

Apple needed to make a big change to survive, and X is it. Some people like it, others do not, and everyone has a different opinion. Turbulent times we live in eh?

I personally think that their timing is just about right. After all, there are only two major apps left that havent been converted, and that is not exactly Apple's fault, and you can't really expect Apple to wait forever.

So anyway, yeah, X is the way to go. For sure. I for one am not looking back.

--PB

 

[Strongblade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dthompson101:
People who have been working with 9 for years are used to:
The chooser
network browser
"command + y" to dismount volumes, manipulating the Apple Menu Item
Labeled Folders
Rebuilding the Desktop
Zapping the PRAM
Disk First Aid
Simple to set up control panels
Tear away Apple Menu Items"
booting up with extensions off
holding down the space bar at boot time to load the extension manger to update or create new sets,

Mac OS X will be an awakening for them:
No modifiable (natively) Apple Menu Items
The Dock,
The Print Center,
Minimized as opposed to WindowShade
Column View
The ability to no longer have disk on your desktop
System Preferences
Kernel Panics
Running Disk first Aid via fsck or the install CD, permissions and ownerships.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a few corrections on this.

• The chooser & network browser

OS X has, at the Finder level, the same basic thing (Under the Go menu is "Connect to Server...". This is basically a better Chooser, for networking.

I do agree that Print Centre is way too well hidden for most people. Apple should have that in the Finder Menu somewhere...

• Rebuilding the Desktop & booting up with extensions off

You can do this through the System Preferences Pane for Classic mode (as well as boot with extensions off) but since neither of these are a part of OS X, it is irrelevant, and also many are glad to get rid of Extensions...)

• "command + y" to dismount volumes

OS 9 also accepts "command + e" for that function, as does OS X. No change there, except why have 2 shortcuts to do the same thing?

• Zapping the PRAM

You can still Zap your PRAM. That is always done at startup (hold the command + option + p + r at power-up of the system). It is independant of the OS. It won't change, except maybe to reduce the number of keys needed to do such a task.

• Disk First Aid

It's called something slightly different, but the OS X version is in the Utilities folder within the Applications folder and is also included on the original install CDs. (If you boot off the CD, you can choose to do a Disk Utility/Repair option in the Menu that is available.

• Minimized as opposed to WindowShade

Tomato, Tohmahto. It's just a different way to do the same thing. OS X switchers will suffer from a "getting used to it" curve for a bit. But these are NOT huge changes in the long run.

• The ability to no longer have disk on your desktop

True, you can CHOOSE to not have the disks show up on the desktop (Clicking ont he Finder icon in the dock will bring up a window with them in no matter what though) However, having the OPTION isn't something to be overly concerned about.

• System Preferences

Also known as "Control Panels". Basically the same thing, but the look and feel is different. It's nice to use and much easier to navigate.

• Kernel Panics

I've never actually encountered a Kernel Panic before. And I've been using OS X since it was a Public Beta, barely out of diapers. Certainly, people have experienced these, but OS ( and earlier have had worse problems.

Basically, the differences between OS 9 and OS X are very much in the visual representations and the new (in some cases) keyboard combinations. The OS can pretty much do everything OS 9 can, in in most cases, better.

There is little reason left, by this stage, not to switch. The people who are steadfastly refusing are either short-sighted, or some need or needs have yet to be met for OS X.

OS X is Apple's future. Get used to it, for one day, you may find yourself thrust into it's world unprepared. Right now, ther eis no excuse for not becoming familar with X. It doesn't need to be your exclusive OS. Not yet.

But those whining now better as hell shut up when the anvil falls and 9 has officially been blocked out. Right now you have the time to look and explore the options, even as new options are coming available.

Is there a key component still lacking from a transition to X completely? Contact the creator of the software. Find out when or if it will be at least Carbonized.

Are you uncertain your workflow will be able to proceed in X? Start testing now. Find out what hiccups may arise and find out how they can be avoided, before you are stuck witout any other option!

X is not perfect, but every day it gets just a little bit better.

 

[gordguide]

I'm pretty much an OSX guy now; so to a large degree it's not critical for me. The story about Quark and Steve Jobs is up on Slashdot this morning, but it's basically being presented as a rumour rather than fact.

Having said that, I've always been a multi-OS kind of guy, and one of the reasons I have a Mac in the first place is because I can run darn near any OS around on it.

Assuming there won't be a hardware issue, I think it's highly likely that OS9 will move to the "unsupported, free, get it here" OS as System 7/OS8 has been for quite a while now. Everybody should be able to get it if they want/need it.

Now, there is a hardware issue, though. Apple wants to migrate to a full, true 64-bit OS as soon as the pieces come together hardware/software wise, and that OS will not run on our current motherboards and CPUs, which only partly support 64bit computing. So, look for hardware changes sometime in the next 2 years.

Exactly what that means is anybody's guess. I think the original idea was that the HW would be here already, but Motorola isn't exactly leading the chip industry, if you get my drift. True* 64-bit PPC chips are nearly ready for large-scale production, though. Unlike Wintel architecture, they will seamlessly run 32-bit OS's, so software doesn't need to be the first piece of the puzzle. One of the beauties of UNIX is it's a relatively minor step to recompile existing software from 32 to 64 bit, so vendors should be very quick to update applications.

Just a few musings on the near future.
* Our current PPC chips are 64-bit architecture in most areas, but 32-bit portions are still part of the design.

 

[jfpoole]

gordguide wrote:
"Unlike Wintel architecture, they will seamlessly run 32-bit OS's, so software doesn't need to be the first piece of the puzzle."

From what I've heard, the 64-bit AMD Hammer will run 32-bit versions of Windows, and both the Hammer and the Itanium will run 32-bit (user) software.

"One of the beauties of UNIX is it's a relatively minor step to recompile existing software from 32 to 64 bit, so vendors should be very quick to update applications."

Not always; while you should be able to do a simple recompile to go from 32-bit to 64-bit, it's often a lot harder than that (especially if you've hardcoded any assumptions into your code about the side of any datatype, including pointers).

 

[gordguide]

Only IBM & Motorola's 64-bit chips run 32-bit applications natively. For example, they boot with either a 32-bit or 64-bit OS.

Intel's Itanium-64 has an emulation layer, which can translate 32-bit code to 64 and back. AMD's 64 is a little less clear, claiming only that it will run 32-bit applications. However, it also appears to be through an emulation layer, as neither system will boot with a 32-bit version of Windows.

From Microsoft:
"... Windows on Windows 64 is a 32-bit Windows subsystem that allows you to run 32 bit applications on 64-bit Windows. Because 32-bit applications run in an emulation mode, Microsoft recommends running 32-bit applications on 32-bit hardware for optimal performance. ..."

Microsoft seems to think the translation to 64-bit computing will be relatively easy:
"... 32-bit and 64-bit Windows-based applications use the same Windows-based programming model, which eases the migration of 32-bit applications to 64-bit platforms. ..."

Moving to 64-bit on the UNIX platform is routinely done in a matter of hours, by compiling the source code on the host machine. It's true the source must be written in such a way to accomadate a variety of platforms, but this is not difficult from a programmer's perspective. I'm not going to suggest that PhotoShop-64 could be released in a day, but you sure could have your Alpha release being tested at Adobe in a day (assuming Adobe knows where their source code is).

Trivial it may not be in every case, but relative to migrating from x86 to PPC, MacOS to Windows, or even 68040 to PPC it most certainly is considerably simpler.

 

[coyote]

Until Quark is OS X native and printing, scanning and font hicups are ironed out, I want dual booting capabilities.

Many people have had some time to ease into OS X, but for those of us that use our computers for print production and page layout with Quark, we really haven't had that much time for the migration.

Sure, InDesign has been around for a while, and yes, Quark could run through Classic, but when deadlines are tight, down time means lost revenue, and you're responsible for printing costs if something goes wrong, you tend to use what you can bank on, not gamble on the new OS, no matter how great Apple hypes it.

Only one of my professional design friends is using OS X as his primary operating system, and that's because he's doing more web-design then print, and he's had a tonne of problems along the way. Everyone else has tried X and gone back to 9 because of the slew of problems we've had, that end up costing too much in lost revenues through down time. In the last 2 weeks have I started using X again, only because I know I'll have to eventually move to X, and if I have problems, I've got another production machine to fall back on. And there are problems.

In my opinion, doing away with dual booting systems is too soon for the print industry. Let us have a native Quark release and bug fix first. (The last two major x.0 upgrades of the software have had inexcusable bugs. I can't believe the next one will run flawlessly under either X or 9.) We need time to migrate our page layout software while still maintaining productivity should problems arise.

Having said that, I'm glad Apple is continuing to be innovative and develop a more stable operating system.

 

[MacDoc]

Perfect summary of the issue Coyote. "Looking forward to X ...not yet ready for the graphics industry."
Your experience reflects our clients views bang on. Apple just needs to wait a bit.
9 is real good right now as it's not being fiddled with.