Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Bruce Johnson 
Dan Knight wrote:

> 
> I haven't migrated to Jaguar yet -- Apple wants too much money for a 
> single copy, and the five-user license is currently out of the budget. 
> I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 400 MHz TiBook with a 5400 rpm 20 GB IBM 
> TravelStar drive and 512 MB of RAM, but more often than not I'm running 
> Mac OS 9.2.2 on it.
> 
> OS X may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Jaguar would be 
> the butter-topped version of that bread, but the OS is only part of the 
> equation.
> 
> My computer handles OS 9 beautifully. 400 MHz is plenty of speed. The new 
> drive and half gig of memory helps with OS X, but it's still sluggish. I 
> hate to imagine using it on a stock WallStreet, Lombard, Pismo, or 
> sub-600 MHz iBook. But my hardware is adequate, so that's not the reason 
> I stick with 9.

That's because you're not using Jag. Using 10.1.5 is sort of like 
driving around a 15-year-old K-car and saying it's sluggish compared to 
the new turbo Mustang...

Upgrading from 10.1.5 to 10.2 was like getting a new computer. Trust me, 
it's worth every penny.

-- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs




-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Bruce Johnson 
Nick wrote:
> on 12/18/02 11:15 AM, Dan Knight at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Finally, although OS X is as stable as you can imagine, OS X applications
>>aren't. Believe it or not -- and it surprised me -- Internet Exploder
>>5.1.x is more stable under OS 9.x than IE 5.2.x is under OS X. Ditto for
>>iCab. These two applications, both of which I use daily, work better
>>under the classic Mac OS than under 10.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Dan here, Explorer 5.2.x for OS X sucks big time, it's the only
> app that I have that crashes and freezes all the time, I have to force quit
> it at least once a day.  Otherwise 10.2.2 works great on my Pismo
> 500/1gig/40gig, I don't find it sluggish at all, it's just a lil bit less
> snappy than OS 9.2.2
> 

One word: Mozilla.

Fast, compatible, rock solid. A true monster of an app. First thing I 
did after installing OS X was remove IE and install Mozilla.


-- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs




-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread james barnum 
Try "Chimera", works great for me.  Much better than Netscape 7 and IE.

Jim


>On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 01:07  PM, Nick wrote:
>
>>  on 12/18/02 11:15 AM, Dan Knight at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>  
>>>  Finally, although OS X is as stable as you can imagine, OS X
>>>  applications
>>>  aren't. Believe it or not -- and it surprised me -- Internet Exploder
>>>  5.1.x is more stable under OS 9.x than IE 5.2.x is under OS X. Ditto
>>>  for
>>>  iCab. These two applications, both of which I use daily, work better
>>>  under the classic Mac OS than under 10.
>>  
>>
>>  I agree with Dan here, Explorer 5.2.x for OS X sucks big time, it's
>>  the only
>>  app that I have that crashes and freezes all the time, I have to force
>>  quit
>>  it at least once a day.  Otherwise 10.2.2 works great on my Pismo
>>  500/1gig/40gig, I don't find it sluggish at all, it's just a lil bit
>>  less
>>  snappy than OS 9.2.2
>>
>>  N
>>
>I read this all the time and I don't understand it. I have tried most
>of them and still fine IE 5.2 the best and most comfortable. Never
>crashes or gives my any problems except if I happen to encounter one of
>"those" sites that bombards you with a storm of popup ads.
>Greg
>
>
>--
>G-Books is sponsored by  and...
>
>  Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
>  -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
>
>   Support Low End Mac 
>
>G-Books list info:  
>   --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
>Send list messages to:  
>To unsubscribe, email:  
>For digest mode, email: 
>Subscription questions: 
>Archive: 
>
>
>
>---
>>The Think Different Store
>http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
>---


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Gregory Cortelyou 

On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 01:07  PM, Nick wrote:

> on 12/18/02 11:15 AM, Dan Knight at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 
>> Finally, although OS X is as stable as you can imagine, OS X 
>> applications
>> aren't. Believe it or not -- and it surprised me -- Internet Exploder
>> 5.1.x is more stable under OS 9.x than IE 5.2.x is under OS X. Ditto 
>> for
>> iCab. These two applications, both of which I use daily, work better
>> under the classic Mac OS than under 10.
> 
>
> I agree with Dan here, Explorer 5.2.x for OS X sucks big time, it's 
> the only
> app that I have that crashes and freezes all the time, I have to force 
> quit
> it at least once a day.  Otherwise 10.2.2 works great on my Pismo
> 500/1gig/40gig, I don't find it sluggish at all, it's just a lil bit 
> less
> snappy than OS 9.2.2
>
> N
>
I read this all the time and I don't understand it. I have tried most 
of them and still fine IE 5.2 the best and most comfortable. Never 
crashes or gives my any problems except if I happen to encounter one of 
"those" sites that bombards you with a storm of popup ads.
Greg


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread gregg hillmar 

On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 12:32  PM, Amber Rhea wrote:

> One last comment: I wouldn't be using OS X at *all* if it weren't for
> WindowShadeX! I *hate* the default behavior of OS X's "minimzing"
> windows - looks wy too much like Windows to me, and for me it is
> more difficult to keep track of everything I have open, than if I have
> their menubars floating around the desktop in out-of-the-way positions.
> When I upgraded to Jag, I was worried that WindowShadeX might not work
> anymore, but fortunately it does! (Sadly, the other two
> shareware/freeware apps I'd been using in 10.1.5 - FruitMenu and ASM -
> do not work in Jag.) I've also recently downloaded Labels X, which
> brings the classic Mac OS labels back - I love it!


I'm not using ASM, but FruitMenu works fine for me in Jaguar. You might 
want to check Version Tracker to make sure you have the latest version.

best
gregg
_
gregg hillmar
scenic & lighting design
portfolio & life as we know it:
http://www.hillmardesign.com
_
"Work like you don't need the money.  Love like you've never been hurt. 
Dance like no one's watching."
Satchel Paige


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread David M. Ensteness 
I run Jag on a 400 G3 Pismo with 768MB and a 4200rpm drive ... its 
great ... I will say everyone should take the plunge ...

David

> Not saying you should or should not take the plunge for Jaguar - just
> sharing my experience. Heck, I wouldn't be using it if I hadn't
> received a free (LEGAL! before anyone jumps on me) copy of it. (I don't
> mean to be complaining - I think its price is fair for all that it
> includes, but I'm just poor!)


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Laurent Daudelin 
On 18/12/02 13:07, "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> on 12/18/02 11:15 AM, Dan Knight at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> 
>> Finally, although OS X is as stable as you can imagine, OS X applications
>> aren't. Believe it or not -- and it surprised me -- Internet Exploder
>> 5.1.x is more stable under OS 9.x than IE 5.2.x is under OS X. Ditto for
>> iCab. These two applications, both of which I use daily, work better
>> under the classic Mac OS than under 10.
> 
> 
> I agree with Dan here, Explorer 5.2.x for OS X sucks big time, it's the only
> app that I have that crashes and freezes all the time, I have to force quit
> it at least once a day.  Otherwise 10.2.2 works great on my Pismo
> 500/1gig/40gig, I don't find it sluggish at all, it's just a lil bit less
> snappy than OS 9.2.2

That's rather strange and we must not visit the same sites at all. While I'm
not a big fan of Microsoft, my default web browser is still IE 5.2.2 and I
don't remember the last time it crashed while browsing!

-Laurent.
-- 
===
Laurent DaudelinDeveloper, Multifamily, ESO, Fannie Mae
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Washington, DC, USA
* Usual disclaimers apply *
geek n.: A person who has chosen concentration rather than conformity; one
who pursues skill (especially technical skill) and imagination, not
mainstream social acceptance. Geeks usually have a strong case of neophilia.
Most geeks are adept with computers and treat hacker as a term of respect,
but not all are hackers themselves - and some who are in fact hackers
normally call themselves geeks anyway, because they (quite properly) regard
`hacker' as a label that should be bestowed by others rather than
self-assumed.



-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Laurent Daudelin 
On 18/12/02 12:32, "Amber Rhea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One last comment: I wouldn't be using OS X at *all* if it weren't for
> WindowShadeX! I *hate* the default behavior of OS X's "minimzing"
> windows - looks wy too much like Windows to me, and for me it is
> more difficult to keep track of everything I have open, than if I have
> their menubars floating around the desktop in out-of-the-way positions.
> When I upgraded to Jag, I was worried that WindowShadeX might not work
> anymore, but fortunately it does! (Sadly, the other two
> shareware/freeware apps I'd been using in 10.1.5 - FruitMenu and ASM -
> do not work in Jag.) I've also recently downloaded Labels X, which
> brings the classic Mac OS labels back - I love it!

ASM 2.0.3 works perfectly for me in OS X 10.2.2...

-Laurent.
-- 
===
Laurent DaudelinDeveloper, Multifamily, ESO, Fannie Mae
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Washington, DC, USA
* Usual disclaimers apply *
farming n.: [Adelaide University, Australia] What the heads of a disk drive
are said to do when they plow little furrows in the magnetic media.
Associated with a crash. Typically used as follows: "Oh no, the machine has
just crashed; I hope the hard drive hasn't gone farming again." No longer
common; modern drives automatically park their heads in a safe zone on
power-down, so it takes a real mechanical problem to induce this. 



-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Nick 
on 12/18/02 11:15 AM, Dan Knight at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


> Finally, although OS X is as stable as you can imagine, OS X applications
> aren't. Believe it or not -- and it surprised me -- Internet Exploder
> 5.1.x is more stable under OS 9.x than IE 5.2.x is under OS X. Ditto for
> iCab. These two applications, both of which I use daily, work better
> under the classic Mac OS than under 10.


I agree with Dan here, Explorer 5.2.x for OS X sucks big time, it's the only
app that I have that crashes and freezes all the time, I have to force quit
it at least once a day.  Otherwise 10.2.2 works great on my Pismo
500/1gig/40gig, I don't find it sluggish at all, it's just a lil bit less
snappy than OS 9.2.2

N


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Mark 
Amber Rhea on 12/18/02 12:32 PM wrote:

> One last comment: I wouldn't be using OS X at *all* if it weren't for
> WindowShadeX! I *hate* the default behavior of OS X's "minimzing"

While I wouldn't quite using OSX without WindowShade X, I have to say it's
well worth the $7 shareware fee. I love that it adds control over drop
shadows and adds additional minimize options. I use the windowshade option,
mostly while browsing the internet.

Another shareware I love by the same folks is FruitMenu. I love how I can
further customize my menus, including contextual menus.

-Mark


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Amber Rhea 
One last comment: I wouldn't be using OS X at *all* if it weren't for 
WindowShadeX! I *hate* the default behavior of OS X's "minimzing" 
windows - looks wy too much like Windows to me, and for me it is 
more difficult to keep track of everything I have open, than if I have 
their menubars floating around the desktop in out-of-the-way positions. 
When I upgraded to Jag, I was worried that WindowShadeX might not work 
anymore, but fortunately it does! (Sadly, the other two 
shareware/freeware apps I'd been using in 10.1.5 - FruitMenu and ASM - 
do not work in Jag.) I've also recently downloaded Labels X, which 
brings the classic Mac OS labels back - I love it!

--
 Amber Rhea 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tangerinecs.com/~amber

/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ / No HTML/RTF in email
  X  No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect Open Standards!


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Amber Rhea 
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 11:18 AM, (G-Books) wrote:

> My computer handles OS 9 beautifully. 400 MHz is plenty of speed. The 
> new
> drive and half gig of memory helps with OS X, but it's still sluggish. 
> I
> hate to imagine using it on a stock WallStreet, Lombard, Pismo, or
> sub-600 MHz iBook. But my hardware is adequate, so that's not the 
> reason
> I stick with 9.

I run Jaguar on a iBook 500 w/384 megs RAM. I saw a *huge* improvement 
in OS X performance after I installed Jag. With 10.1.5 (and earlier), 
performance was acceptable, but sluggish - certainly *a lot* slower 
than OS 9. Because of this I used 9 much more than X, as what matters 
to me is how fast and smoothly I can get my tasks accomplished, not 
whether I'm running the "latest and greatest." Now, with Jaguar, I 
cannot notice a speed difference between X and 9, and I boot into X a 
lot more.

Not saying you should or should not take the plunge for Jaguar - just 
sharing my experience. Heck, I wouldn't be using it if I hadn't 
received a free (LEGAL! before anyone jumps on me) copy of it. (I don't 
mean to be complaining - I think its price is fair for all that it 
includes, but I'm just poor!)

--
 Amber Rhea 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tangerinecs.com/~amber

/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ / No HTML/RTF in email
  X  No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect Open Standards!


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Re: Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Laurent Daudelin 
On 18/12/02 11:15, "Dan Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip!]
> I use CopyAgent to intelligently copy files between my working partition
> and a backup folder on another partition. It's smart enough to only copy
> files that are different. And if I really make a mess of things, I can
> recover the old version of a file by trashing the messed up one and
> synchronizing my main and backup folders. I don't know of a way to do
> this in X, so one more strike against.
> 
[snip!]



You should try my synchronization application "File Synchronization". It's
specifically built for OS X, it's fast and easy to use, and cheap at $9 if
you decide to keep it. I initially designed it based on the "File
Synchronization" in OS 9 from Apple, but added a few useful options (like
automounting remote volumes, suppressing those annoying warnings when both
files in the source and destination have been modified, etc.). In a soon to
be released version, you will have the ability to move orphaned files to
trash instead of deleting them and have a repeating synchronization on a
user-specified interval. The new version might also be able to start a
synchronization as soon as it detects a change in a directory to sync.

You can get a copy here:
.



-Laurent.
-- 
===
Laurent DaudelinDeveloper, Multifamily, ESO, Fannie Mae
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Washington, DC, USA
* Usual disclaimers apply *



-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---

Mac OS 9 vs. X

2002-12-18 Thread Dan Knight 
David M. Ensteness writes:

>Is this an honest question or a troll?

Mac OS Anything vs. any version of Windows (or *nix for that matter) is a 
troll and specifically declared off topic on this list. This list is for 
supporting Mac users on the Mac OS, either classic or X.

>I say that because Mac OS X has been out for two years and every review 
>of 10.2 says that it is incredible. MacWorld, MacAddict, PC World, PC 
>Magazine, TechTV, heck its hard to find someone who doesn't think its 
>the most incredible OS there is.

I haven't migrated to Jaguar yet -- Apple wants too much money for a 
single copy, and the five-user license is currently out of the budget. 
I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 400 MHz TiBook with a 5400 rpm 20 GB IBM 
TravelStar drive and 512 MB of RAM, but more often than not I'm running 
Mac OS 9.2.2 on it.

OS X may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Jaguar would be 
the butter-topped version of that bread, but the OS is only part of the 
equation.

My computer handles OS 9 beautifully. 400 MHz is plenty of speed. The new 
drive and half gig of memory helps with OS X, but it's still sluggish. I 
hate to imagine using it on a stock WallStreet, Lombard, Pismo, or 
sub-600 MHz iBook. But my hardware is adequate, so that's not the reason 
I stick with 9.

Mac OS X is pretty much bulletproof. One crash this year. Almost no need 
to ever restart the computer -- except for all those damned OS updates 
and software installers that require you to do so. What's up with that?

All of my peripherals works with OS X -- but I can't choose paper trays 
in my HP LaserJet 2100TN. That's a problem when you have letterhead in 
one drawer and plain paper in another.

SOFTWARE

iTunes 3 blows iTunes 2 into the weeds. I boot into X specifically so I 
can rip my CDs in iTunes 3 and organize things. It's also much better for 
burning CDs. One point for OS X.

I want to use Mail under Jaguar, but not until then. It may replace 
Claris Emailer and PowerMail. I hope so, but won't know until I try. 
Future point for OS X 10.2.

AppleWorks is very nice under X. No real drawbacks vs. classic version. 
Call this a draw.

Most classic applications run just as well under classic mode as they do 
natively in OS 9. But Claris Home Page, which is my main productivity 
application, doesn't. Uploading changes takes 2-4x longer in classic 
mode. Sure, I can move that to the background and work in a 10-native 
application during uploads, but that doesn't change the fact that it's 
slow. One point against OS X.

I use CopyAgent to intelligently copy files between my working partition 
and a backup folder on another partition. It's smart enough to only copy 
files that are different. And if I really make a mess of things, I can 
recover the old version of a file by trashing the messed up one and 
synchronizing my main and backup folders. I don't know of a way to do 
this in X, so one more strike against.

I absolutely love Default Folder and don't relish the prospect of paying 
for a new version. Maybe a half-point against here. Ditto for upgrading 
to QuicKeys for OS X. It's the cost. And I'll also have to upgrade my 
Retrospect backup software and client licenses. Cost is a big factor, 
especially for low-end Mac users.

Finally, although OS X is as stable as you can imagine, OS X applications 
aren't. Believe it or not -- and it surprised me -- Internet Exploder 
5.1.x is more stable under OS 9.x than IE 5.2.x is under OS X. Ditto for 
iCab. These two applications, both of which I use daily, work better 
under the classic Mac OS than under 10.

I want to like OS X more. I want to switch. I toy with the idea of using 
it for a week, then a day, then give up and go back to what's more 
productive for me: booting in OS 9.

This isn't a matter of religion or preference. I am measurably more 
productive in 9. Until I can find a nice sync utility, until Internet 
Explorer stops exploding, until Home Page runs better (maybe under 
Jaguar?) or can be replaced by a comparable X-native app, I'm sticking 
with 9 as my work environment.

Once those obstacles are out of the way, however, I intend to adopt X as 
my full-time OS. It has a lot going for it, but my applications get in 
the way of it being the best OS for me at the present time.


-- 
Dan Knight, president, Cobweb Publishing, Inc.
  
  
   

"You can't brew a premium lager with a kool-aid mentality."
  -- The Red Green Show


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to