Here we are 2+ years after Apple 'released' X - and we are **STILL**
having this discussion.
I/we are not the only ones...
OS 6->7, OS 7->8, OS 8->9, CISC->RISC.... NONE of these changes took
this long to implement, none of these changes have had as many problems,
none of these changes have had the overall lack of acceptance by the
users. Apple's own numbers - of Mac computers purchaed in the past year,
only 75% of them (Apple touts this number) are willing to use X.
This means that fully 25% of NEW computers purchased are NOT running X
(and very likely will not), with the owners instead opting to use OS 9.
As a guess to the reason(s) - it is likely because of many of the issues
I have brought up here.
Additonally, the above 75%/25% split does not get the issue of those
users who currently own X capable computers, and are running OS8 or 9,
nor those who own X incompatable machines.
*THIS* point alone should make Apple (and it's users) look long and hard
at what X is and whether to 'stay the course' and continue to use/support
Apple and X.
>Change for the sake of change is frequently pointless and
>often destructive, while intelligent change is indeed progress.
this may be true...
>One of
>the tragedies of modern life is the collective inability so to discern
>the difference!
and this seems to be true -
however, in the context of Mac OSX -
there is little or no 'intelligent change' involved in the UI.
As far as the underpinnings of OSX there may or may not be 'intelligent
change' here.
in theory, there is. in practice.... there is NOT (in my opinion, and
experience so far).
X may have made great strides from X public beta, a Yugo is a big step
over a pile of random scrap metal - this does not man that I would drive
either.
The current version of X is still significantly lacking. Stability is
nonexistant, error reporting are (to deal with the former) *does not*
exist, supplied repair tools are ineffectual, some 3rd party repair tools
are (currently) dangerous to use [Norton can and often does more damage
than good], softwar vendors are unable to keep up with the "repairs" that
Apple is/has released [10.2.1 update broke much existing software, and
*ALL* 3rd party repair tools, CPU requirements (almost entirely for the
UI), are excessive [BSD can/does run on a 486, Next Step ran on a 486 or
68040], costs for upgrading are prohibative, and the UI itself is
lacking/mangled.
If *this* is what you call 'intelligent change' -
I'll pass thank you!
IMO - a more 'intelligent change' design would have, instead of
reinventing the wheel (the UI), grafted the exiting UI onto BSD instead -
with 2 primary advantages:
1 - much less debugging, less cost(s), faster delivery, and with fewer
problems.
2 - none of the user/development feedback cycle that has taken place.
Apple - removes a function (spring loaded folders as an example), users
complain since many people use the feature, Apple adds the functionality
back (another release, more broken software, more bugs) - result - longer
delivery times, only partially satisfied users (plus) they ot the
function returned, (minus) other stuff broke. again the same points as
above:
quicker delivery, less cost, fewer bugs
-------------------
Chip Scheide Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute,
is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any
prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of
government will disable us from discerning a good one."
Thomas Paine - Common Sense, Feb 14 1776
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
