thalo, did you try Open Office? I downloaded the final beta release today (4 hrs!) and find it waayy faster than the version I'd been using for a few weeks. It's really slow to open, but pretty snappy once it's up and going.

I tried opening a few complicated Word documents that didn't show up right in ThinkOffice Free or (worse) in Appleworks with Maclink Plus, and it thoroughly nailed them--formatting and images as precisely presented as in Word 2000 in VPC. I then saved this page as an html file: perfectly done!

That's really significant!

On to Power Point. It opened a rather complicated presentation, which I was able to edit and save. No problem.

Its html editor is pretty basic, but it works, and for those who don't want to purchase Golive, there's an alternative.

Thalo, if you don't like looking at it in Aqua, get the OroborOSX window server and choose the NeXT theme, or download one of the many others from their web site and use that. Works great!

I'm ready to say that Open Office already makes X11 a very significant factor for OS X users. It's no MS Office, but it's the next best thing--better even than Think Free Office, for which I shelled out $50.00. And it's much, much faster than Office 2000 in VPC. There are still some advantages to Appleworks on OS X, but if someone needs to work with Word on OS X and doesn't want to buy Office X, I'd recommend Open Office right now.

Me, pouting? Surely you jest! As for you, I would have a hard time classifying your rampant narcissism as anything close to being constructive or helpful to anyone (including you actually). As for having a choice not to read your posts, most of the time you make that choice for everyone by making almost every post a novella.

(after skimming through thousands and thousand of words posted by thelo, something worth note... amazingly!)

In reply to:

---

Yes, let's look at OpenOffice, Gimp, and these other X Windows apps. Yes, they are free... Again I ask WHY? and SO WHAT? I guess I don't find what they do all that remarkable. I can see people living without them, so I wonder about Apple going to the trouble. I also guess I'm a capitalist pig. If a word processor is in fact remarkable and does a great job, I don't see a problem in spending a few bucks for a truly excellent program. When I talk about Apple opening the doors and making an operating system that demystifies the geek world, I don't expect them to do it for free. It would be NICE, but hey.

---

Funny, I see people living with them and would wonder why your opinion matters anyway. I don't think any of this has to do with you being a capitalist pig... just a self centered one. I use Photoshop, I've had that ability. But I have friends who use SGIs where Adobe stopped making Photoshop at version 3.0.1. I have worked with both Gimp and Photoshop 3.0.1 side by side on an SGI (mine actually) and see why people were so happy to finally get Gimp for free rather than pay Adobe's $800 license fee for a version of Photoshop that has less features than today's Photoshop Elements.

And we shouldn't forget that when it comes to word processors, AppleWorks and Word are not available for platforms other than Macs and Windows. StarOffice, OpenOffice and AbiWord have become very important parts of the work flow of many people who have been using Unix based systems. Why should we be forcing them to use what you think is best when we can just let them continue to use what has served them in the past. Apple is coming very close to being able to say to users of other Unix and Linux based platforms come and use Macs and lose nothing. If a company is using AIX workstations (lets say the low end ones running on PowerPC 604e processors that are selling for almost $9000) and they are using X Windows applications, they could move to Apple's PowerMacs and run that same software (recompiled) in Mac OS X along side a ton of other software that they couldn't use before. But of course for you to see something like this, you would first need to see that other people have needs beyond your own.

See the difference between you and I, my vain friend, is that I see that my perfect work environment with what I think are the perfect tools is not universally perfect for everyone else. As I said, I use Photoshop, but I am open enough to see the truth of the virtues behind what others see in Gimp. You by contrast classify what I see as truth of the virtues as a whopping lie.

And there is what many of us know about you. No matter how you try to spin your negativity to sound like it is the best thing for us all, it is really just you wallowing in a pool of narcissistic whining about how the world would be better if it was all done to your liking. Thankfully most of us aren't as delusional about our own self-importance as you are.

I'll let you get started on you next novella... sorry, I mean post.

Phil,
Sure I tried OpenOffice, look at the title of this thread! Oh man, if your transfer rate is that slow, you have to go to one of the mirrors. Don't stick with it when it's that slow for big files like that. Bail until you find one that gives you the file in a decent timeframe. I think I got mine in about ten minutes, but I had to go to Brazil for it. For future reference with ridiculously huge downloads like this: unless you're on dialup, keep trying different mirrors until you get a decent rate. Or find the timezone where the server is, and try it when everybody's asleep.

I opened a PowerPoint presentation that confused it. I don't know WHAT it was trying to show me, but it wasn't my presentation. From the OS X version of Office. Same with Excel spreadsheets. I have a cool one that calculates leader formulas for flyfishing, that I couldn't open. I can open it in Excel in the Windows version running VPC, but not the Mac version, and it didn't really work in OpenOffice.

I'm psyched you got a Word file converted to html. I haven't really gone through the html editor except to glance at it, I guess because I'm not in the market for a basic one. BBEdit is all I'll ever need and more. I look at a program like that, and a program like OpenOffice and I'm still not getting it. Sorry, I guess I'm much more stingy with my "That's really significant!(s)"

That's what I want to see, more of why this is so significant. Remember, I'm not saying it ain't... I'm saying -I- don't really see it yet. You just helped me, though. I suppose I was going at this from the perspective of somebody who has pretty much every power tool or big software package for the Mac. I have to put myself in the shoes of somebody who doesn't own, or can't afford Office, and who needs to open Office files and work on them. OK, then I kinda get it. Kind of a stopgap measure. But at 150 Megs? Yikes. If you have Office, like many of us do, I'm back to not quite digging. I hear you about alternatives. That's what I'm trying to get my head around at this point.

Right now I'm exploring--in my own head and here--the ideas of that "intellectual Everest"; and starting to see some of the dynamics. How about this, does this sound reasonable?: Some OpenSource guys said, screw microsoft, we're not buying that crap, we'll do it ourselves. That was the mountain, and they are climbing it. They are showing it CAN be done. They have a mission and are building this huge, monstrous application to accomplish it.

OK, so--stay with me here--I then question the intent. This wasn't "Hey guys, wouldn't it be cool to make a full featured suite of productivity software that's easy to use and powerful?..." This was instead "let's make free office." It wasn't as much a reinvention or reconception of productivity software, as it was putting commercial software on a pedestal (or an everest) and trying to get there from here. Using Microsoft as a foil. And they did it. Problem solved. In beta freeware form.

I am, however, not convinced that in this spinning gear problem solving world, that it's ever going to be vital unless the thinking is broader. Unless we see in the fruits of this realm, some glimmer of creativity and originality. I want those Everests to be stuff that nobody has ever thought of before. And stuff we can all use. I'm guessing it's all buried deep and we really have to dig to find them. Again, I'm looking for masterpieces in this world and not seeing them. As an outsider, I'll judge this stuff on what it can do, and whether it does it as well or better than commercial software. Are the standards lower? Is there a built in crap-settling stop where we go "hey, we'll never be MICROSOFT, but we can do a few things they do! None of this is really DONE, but lookit: the file opens! Just like on a real computer!" Is that what we're dealing with here? I'm not talking about Network geek software, I'm talking about applications like the ones I'm test flying. Are all applications for unix this third rate?

I want to see the guys going: we don't WANT to be Microsoft. We don't CARE about them. We have an idea and we have just built the best damn software to do something important, not just for a few, but we want to provide this functionality to everyone.

Because it begs the question: do any normal joes EVER EVEN TOUCH the world we just opened? Does the geekitude forbid everyone but the most intrepid from ever seeing behind the veil? Is this office productivity software and graphic software for geeks only? Were they TRYING to make it for everyone, or just their beer buddies? Is this a world that will give us anything, or merely just about as close as we'll ever get to the old geeks club?

Listen, my cousin can't afford Office; he's on a Mac, not a geek but knows his way around computers enough to function. I can't picture him going through all that for OpenOffice as an alternative. So I'm not putting it together. I suppose I am more attracted to software that is many things to many people, rather than software that is a few things to a very few people. Even when it's specialized, like Photoshop. I've seen Newbies pick it up quickly. I can't see them installing the Gimp. No matter how free it is.

Phil, Seeing this stuff in Aqua is the whole point of the x11 software. Trying to get it somewhat integrated with OUR operating system. I figured that was the point. So no, while I don't like looking at Aqua, I don't like looking at Aqua EVERYWHERE. But it's like electing a president I didn't vote for. He's still my president. I have to look at this issue through the lens of my Mac loyalty. See what they are TRYING to do bringing this environment into the fold. This particular issue I've tried to put my problems with the interface somewhat on hold to see what it's about. Actually, There's not all that much Aqua to see. The apps themselves, in the contstraints of their stripey windows, all maintain their inner look and feel, which is very Windowsesque.

Yep. That's what we call pouting. Listen to yourself. Who's the topic of your posts? If anything would stroke my narcissism, it'd be that. Come on, I got under your skin enough for you to rejoin, and you're still struggling to deal. At least for me it's nothing personal. I don't grind my teeth at night worrying about who's vain or delusional or whose opinion matters.

In reply to:

---

No matter how you try to spin your negativity to sound like it is the best thing for us all, it is really just you wallowing in a pool of narcissistic whining about how the world would be better if it was all done to your liking.

---

And your point is?
Welcome to planet earth. And I'm guessing that's a bit healthier than the spleen you are wallowing in, my dear brother. For me, it's all about the software. For you, it's all about me. Well, I'm here for you.

Look, you are getting all bent out of shape over squat. In fact, I am struggling to see this issue from other perspectives. I am, in fact, very interested by what you say regarding Apple being able to say to Unix people "come use Macs and lose nothing"--uh, except DOLLARS. The hardware is way more expensive than what they're used to. For people who have to use free OpenSource applications for economic reasons, rather than pay licensing fees, again, it's not adding up to me. Buy a big expensive Mac... so you can run stuff you've been running all along on cheaper faster hardware... and we throw in iTunes! Maybe. Maybe that's the way to expose these users to Macs and get them to spend money. But once again I'll reiterate, I'm not quite seeing the benefits for the Mac Faithful in opening up this world. I'm STARTING to see it's about bringing people on board from other platforms, but do the other platforms have anything worthwhile to bring MAC USERS, while they play catch-up? Right now, and granted I'm just scratching the surface, I don't see anything I'm itching to use. It doesn't seem to DO anything I can't do better and easier elsewhere. After years of evolution since the 1960's, where's the real zenith? Where's the jewel in the crown? I want to see the software that Unix people use and love... the stuff that MADE them unix people. I'm pretty sure at this point it's all networking and dev tools. And fortune. And hey, it's not that I don't think fortune isn't cute. I was there playing "adventure" in the early days... I did all my e-mailing in Pine. But I guess as I revisit these worlds, I wanted to see if there's been any real progress. So far, I think not. I'm not convinced that it's WORTH putting a GUI on top of. But I'll keep an open mind.

This is the stuff I want to explore in this thread. That and why you bother to even read my posts after all this time and frustration.

Well, again, I would hardly consider what I'm doing pouting. Pouting is generally a characteristic of someone who wallows in negativity... much like yourself actually (your the type who thinks the glass is half empty type of thing, only in your case you seem to think it's almost all gone). I find that people who are truly trying to explore this type of stuff with an open mind are able to actually read other people's post before jumping back to their preconceived notions.

For example, I talked about IBM's least expensive AIX workstation and you say "the hardware is way more expensive than what they're used to". I pointed out that the IBM workstation was running a PowerPC 604e (you do know what that is don't you?) and is reasonably priced at just under $9000. It sure looks like Mac hardware is way less expensive to me.

I know, maybe that wasn't a clear enough example. An SGI workstation starts at about $10,000 the last time I checked. I've known many SGI users who had a Mac set up next to their SGI workstation just to use Photoshop.

Ah, Photoshop, there again an example of you not reading. I was talking about high license fees for out of date software. I was talking about the complete absents of some types of commercial software. As for software that it offers, you have already made up your mind, why bother wasting the time. In fact why don't you show us just how open you really are to this exploration you say you are on. Find out why people pay many times the price of a high end Mac for these workstations. Find out why Linux on a PC is almost never the solution that real users of Unix would take (I for example have 10 of my 17 systems running Unix-based operating systems, none are running Linux and only 3 are even PCs). In fact, find out why Solaris users petitioned Sun for Solaris for Intel even though they were happy using Sun hardware for their desktop/workstations (hint: they wanted the ability to have Solaris laptops, but why not just use Linux on a laptop instead... it would be cheeper).

As for putting a GUI on top of Unix, I can see that you have never seen some of these systems in action. Other than during the installation of apps (more than a year ago since the last time I did that), I have not used a terminal on my Indy for anything. It is just as point-and-click as just about any Mac on a day to day bases. Same with my Sun systems. The simple fact that you seem to think that using Unix must be done via CLI (for some it can be done that way, but I don't know to many terminal jockeys anymore) shows that you have your head deeply buried somewhere (lets just say in the sand for the sake of politeness).

We, the others who watch you kicking and screaming with your eyes tightly closed, don't really expect you to give this an honest look. And the fact that you seem to think, in your narcissistic way, that this is about you when in fact it is mainly about giving other people the whole truth (rather than your perverted views of it). People should be given the true pros and cons rather than just thalo's dismissive attitude of anything that is not part of thalo's world. The fact that you want them to think as you do rather than coming to their own conclusions even if this could be a viable and productive solution for some is the only reason for continuing with this. I, personally, don't care what happens to you. But for the readers of this forum to have a chance to weigh the real options, I do care. For my friends which you attack (weak as those attacks may be), I do care. But for you, I truly do not care.

OK, keeping in mind it's tough to try and address your issues in the midst of all yer pouting, you made your point with the price of AIX workstations. So I gather what you're saying is that Unix types are all used to those $9 grand jobs, or the $20 grand SGI workstations. I see. And when you are talking about 10 of your 17 systems running Unix, each and every one of those is either a $9 grand or a $20 grand computer? Can I borrow money from you? So let me get this straight, there's no other hardware or software platform from which Unix can run except what you mentioned. No WinTel boxes that can--oops, no wait, you just said some of yours were PCs. Hmmm... I think the way I see it, you are arguing only for a certain sliver of über-geekdom. But that's OK, I give you that. Still a good point. To guys used to big expensive workstations with generations old processors, you're saying the Mac will be not only a step up for them, but cheaper. These guys are not happy with the way PCs run Unix (or Linux?) and will take to iMacs like moths to a flame? I'll take your word for it. As for how open I am to exploration, hey sure, I'll try to find out those things. But it's interesting how you refused to come forward with any opinion of your own. You had an opportunity to offer a view there, and didn't because you'd rather pout and play poor pitiful pearl and wallow in your bruised ego. Again, making me the issue rather than discussing what could be an interesting topic. Instead of really stepping up and offering your true pros and cons, you can't get past your hurt feelings. Oh well.

I read your Photoshop thing, I just didn't get it. I tend to upgrade my licenses to the latest software, rather than pay for out of date software. And I license multiple machines, which you get a break on. I have never had a situation where I was going to have to pay that much for an old version. So, in all your huffiness, I guess you see the Mac as a kind of savior. It will do everything these big workstations will do (?), Photoshop and other heretofore unavailable to geeks commercial software will run on it... where you can pay the license fee for the latest version and still have money in your pocket for having not got the $20 grand workstation. Is that about the size of it?

As for puting a GUI on top of Unix, no, you're right. OS X took my cherry there. x11 was my first foray into OpenSource GUI driven apps. Did absolutely nothing for me.

But you know what? After reading what you have to say, and seeing some of this stuff with my own two eyes, grooving on some of those "TRUE" pros and cons, I'm beginning to see why these worlds are clashing. A) Why the GUI on OS X is so weak and inelegant and slow... and 2) What geeks are used to, and why some of them are getting fired up about the Mac and why they'd see me as evil and "dismissive."

Here's the picture as it's coming together: digikids, digital hubsters, switchers and newbies. That's one world. They don't know from good GUI. Then geeks. That's another world. I guess they'll be saving money, buying iMacs instead of SGI workstations; and they REALLY don't know from good GUI.

But that still leaves the poor Mac Faithful. People who were used to better. Caught in the middle. Seeing our legacy take a giant step into the stone age to include more types of users. Seeing our platform work less well, so it can work better for some who never had the benefit of seeing what a GUI could be.

On the one hand, Apple is dumbing down the GUI for dummies, and on the other, dumbing it down for smart people. I get it now.

So why am I still left with this profound unease that it's all proceeding in a supremely half-assed way? Why did it have to get WORSE to include what came before? Why does the GUI and its design and performance have to SUCK, just so brother shaw on the one hand, and Ellen Fleiss on the other, can use a Mac?

Remember, a big chunk of my thinking here, is not really why Unix guys can or should get on board, or why they LIKE the Mac or Aqua... it's what's in it for the Mac Faithful? What do WE get out of it, and is it worth it for us. That's where I think we're getting the short end of the stick. We're getting a crappy GUI and a slower, less elegant computing experience, and for what? Gimp and OpenOffice? Am I missing something or is this a really uneven trade? I'm at least hoping Apple is treating the geeks like Europeans treated native americans. Chuck them a few beads and then steal their land. Where's the payoff for pro users who were Mac heads from day 1? Why should we have to pay the price for Apple courting these user bases? Why couldn't they include those user bases and STILL make a great, Mac-like system, with Mac-like performance? Without goofy nonsense, crappy font rendering and so forth. Obviously, this OS is playing well with people who don't know any better. That's why they're crap settling. They're used to crap, and the Mac as it stands offers them less than they're accustomed to.

Me? I'm accustomed to better. I came up in a totally different computing world, in an industry that pretty much has ALWAYS been Mac-based. And I'm feeling the dumbdown. Acutely. I'm seeing things done so foolishly and incompletely and flat out stupidly, compared to what -I'm- used to. But my friends, all kidding aside, I continue to try and see an angle. One little chunk of something that will make me go "ahhhhhhh, yes. Unix? Good thing." I will search and search for something that convinces me that this ancient technology still has some stones.

Am I glad the Mac will be getting new users? Hell yes. But I know in my heart of hearts they didn't have to dumb it down and slow it down and make it visually superabundant to do that. But this was a valuable exchange. I see another angle on why there's so much crap-settling. And why guys like shaw are pouting when I demand better. To them, it really is better. That's so sad! No wonder he's insulted. What WAS I thinking?

But take heart, thalo-haters. You're winning. I'm losing. It's tough to fight for excellence in GUI when the incoming user base isn't sophisticated enough to realize what they're missing from the legacy; and us guys, we're too spoiled by that legacy to look at this world and its applications and see them as anything but dated and primitive and not very functional. At least so far. Trust me, the second I find something in my travels that makes it worth it, my brothers, I'll tell youse about it.

Thalo,

I just noticed that you don't have a signature and immediately thought of one: "These aren't the Macs you're looking for."

BTW, you're absolutely right about the GUI on most/all of this linux/unix open source stuff. It's hideous. If you really want to take a trip into the arcane, install yellow dog linux and try to find your way around. And if you think Aqua's slow, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The upshot of the open source stuff, though, is that a LOT of work gets done on the BACK end of it, and so Apple can (more or less) snatch it up and prettify it. Well, make it pretty to some of us, and no doubt make it better than it was before. Safari's a good example. It's a nice, fast, small rendering engine that Apple slapped a nice GUI on.

If they could do this with OpenOffice, we'd be in pretty good shape.

Wow, it just donned on me... you have a reading comprehension problem. Now it all make since, me having to repeat myself on simple topics, you adding things that were not there or exaggerating things, and the constant attempt to read me as pouting when I am as far from pouting as you can get. I had no idea, but now that we know that you are special, I'll try and speak down to you while making sure not to leave out information for everyone else who isn't having your problems keeping up.

You seem to be interested in the make up and nature of my personal systems. The three PCs are running Rhapsody 5.1 and OPENSTEP 4.2. The other seven systems are running Mac OS X v 10.2, A/UX 3.0.1, IRIX 6.2, IRIX 5.3 and Solaris 7. No, I didn't pay thousands for my systems, I got what I could afford given my needs (mainly the ability to simulate my clients work environments). My most expensive non-Mac system is my SGI Indy which cost me about $1000 total (my most expensive Mac was $900). All my PCs are older because OPENSTEP and Rhapsody don't have drivers that would let them run on newer systems. But then again, this is all in my home, and most Unix implementations that I know of are in businesses or schools.

Your question about other hardware/software platforms is an interesting one. For the last 8 years I've watch many companies try to move to PCs running Linux only to watch them move back to IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris or SGI's IRIX. Why? Hardware/software integration. Why use a Mac with Mac OS X instead of Linux/BSD on a PC? Hardware/software integration. Most of these companies have been burned a few times trying to move to cheep PC solutions (including PC/Linux solutions provided by companies like SGI and IBM), but Apple would have the benefit of being very much like these other Unix solutions that worked. (thalo, don't try to understand this, it was actually meant for everyone else to read)

The Photoshop thing again?

In reply to:

---

I read your Photoshop thing, I just didn't get it. I tend to upgrade my licenses to the latest software, rather than pay for out of date software. And I license multiple machines, which you get a break on. I have never had a situation where I was going to have to pay that much for an old version. So, in all your huffiness, I guess you see the Mac as a kind of savior. It will do everything these big workstations will do (?), Photoshop and other heretofore unavailable to geeks commercial software will run on it... where you can pay the license fee for the latest version and still have money in your pocket for having not got the $20 grand workstation. Is that about the size of it?

---

Other than the huffiness part, yes that is about it. Just replace the (?) with Maya and you've got places like ILM upgrading to just Macs instead of having both a Mac and an SGI for the designers (which is how it has been at ILM for almost ten years now).

In reply to:

---

But you know what? After reading what you have to say, and seeing some of this stuff with my own two eyes, grooving on some of those "TRUE" pros and cons, I'm beginning to see why these worlds are clashing. A) Why the GUI on OS X is so weak and inelegant and slow... and 2) What geeks are used to, and why some of them are getting fired up about the Mac and why they'd see me as evil and "dismissive."

---

As a long time Mac user who has always used Macs as my primary systems, I would have to take issue with your poor characterizations. I know why we have Aqua, and it had nothing to do with the influx of NeXT employees or Unix geeks. Aqua was designed to show off Carbon (old Mac code) and Quartz (a replacement for Adobe's Display PostScript). The NeXT people had a finished product ready for shipping with Rhapsody. It's GUI was as fast as any classic version of the Mac OS that I've seen (and I have System 1 through Mac OS 9.2.2). Why do we have Aqua? My best guess is that the code that they thought they could work with from Copland wasn't as complete as they thought it was, so Carbon took much longer than they thought and when you give designers time to screw around with things they usually don't know when to quit (what was it that you do again?).

For me (you did ask for my opinion at some point didn't you?), I have had a system with some version of OPENSTEP, Rhapsody or Mac OS X around for quite some time. For my portable system I required a system that would not crash while I was working with clients. Originally that was OPENSTEP 4.1 (and then 4.2) on an IBM ThinkPad. Later I moved up to Rhapsody 5.1 and was very happy with that for a few years (other than not having sound drivers... thanks Apple). Last year I got a PowerBook and started running Rhapsody 5.6 on it and was more happy than I had ever been with an OS (the hardware/software integration thing). Then last summer Craig and I were testing installations of 10.2 out on my PowerBook (I was using a spare drive) and I was taken completely by surprise. Wanting to make sure that this wasn't just because it was a clean unused installation, I left that drive in for three weeks to see how it did (using my ThinkPad for work again, I keep it as a back up). At the end of the three weeks I pulled the spare drive out, put the larger drive back in, backed up what I needed and install 10.2 over Rhapsody 5.6. Six months ago I would have been typing this using Rhapsody 5.6, today I am using Mac OS X 10.2. Just as surprising to me is that my main desktop system that was almost always running Mac OS 9.x is now running Mac OS X 10.2 most of the time.

In reply to:

---

But take heart, thalo-haters. You're winning. I'm losing. It's tough to fight for excellence in GUI when the incoming user base isn't sophisticated enough to realize what they're missing from the legacy; and us guys,

---

Yes we know we are winning. And I would guess it is tough to fight for any kind of excellence with prejudice in your heart and a chip on your shoulder. But us real long time Mac users who aren't afraid of the future are going to be very very happy with things to come. Besides, no one is forcing you to upgrade. I would be just as happy if you were still using Mac OS 9.2.2 ten years from now on ten year old hardware (which should still work great seeing as my Quadra 950 still does a ton of work today). Yep, for those of us with both the past and the future in our heart, this is a great time to be alive. Thanks for pointing that out thalo.

see there shaw? Was that so hard? I think you're starting to realize that you CAN argue with somebody with a chip on their shoulder and still sleep an night without grinding your teeth in rage.

Meanwhile, as for reading comprehension, yeah, it does take me a minute or two to figure out what the hell you are talking about. I kind of tune out everything but the chip on YOUR shoulder over me. Funny how these things work, huh? Your pouting makes it tough for me to make "since" [sic] of your opinions. But I'm getting there. And I'm starting to remember you from before you got banned. Sorry, I forget your old name, but I remember the spelling problem, the anger, and something about your hardcore multiple systems.

OK so where were we? Call me crazy, but if you really are a longtime mac user, I sure WOULD be interested for you to take issue with my characterizations. With a foot in both worlds, how you can suck up and crap-settle for the dumbing down of the Mac would be fascinating to me. The one that makes the most sense so far are is money. Cheaper macs that do what you need to do, and run more current software which is more worth you spending your licensing fees on.

The most interesting thing you said was when you spun the history of Copeland and Carbon, saying that when designers got ahold of it, because they had time to screw around, they did. I hear that. But I also think that that doesn't happen in a vacuum. The factor you are forgetting is that some fairly insidious things happen in those big development pauses... a lot of them come from above. This is where I GUARANTEE you, Apple marketing came up with their dumbed down vision of what personal computer users were. In that time, that's when all the focus groups and marketeers had time to put in THEIR two cents. You see, as much as it pains me, designers don't run the show. They try to accomodate what the clients want. That's why there's so much blue in the world, and so many swashes on logos. I'm pretty sure that nobody said to them: uh, sorry, this is taking longer than expected, why don't you DESIGNERS go ahead and mess around with the interface? We'll give you free reign to screw with it as much as you want! Nah-ah. During this hiccup, you probably had higher ups start to get nervous, and so they began reinventing the wheel. Then asking the designers to make visual sense of all the too-many-cooks stuff.

Like all marketeers, Apple's had hard data that the Mac has a very small percentage of the computing market. They weren't thinking about the stuff the Mac did RIGHT, but were trying to figure out what the Mac does WRONG. Trouble. Instead of building on strength, they were trying to chock the show full of stuff that new users would find attractive. The result? A friggin' MESS.

Actually, it's funny that the stuff you are most upset about, the reason you've demonized me so completely, is stuff I don't have a problem with. Opening up the Mac to new vistas? Go for it. Make it talk to everything and work with all kinds of old software? Fantastic. Bring new users on board and save them a ton of money? Bring it on. Like so many other people who can't see beyond the provocative rhetoric, you jump to the assumption that somehow that my calling attention to the strengths of the legacy is somehow a fear of the future. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: you couldn't be more completely, totally, and unequivocally wrong.

You forget, that the reason I'm here is that I WANT the Mac to rule the world. Apple and I go way back, and I'm as loyal as the day is long. While others are bashing Stevie boy, I'm ready to follow him to the center of the sun. OK, so maybe I'm kicking and screaming; but unlike MOST of the people in my industry (and I know this from firsthand, real-world, day after day experience) I installed OS X and try to use it as much as I can. Because I love it? No. Because the interface is terrific? Don't make me laugh, Aqua is insane and isn't the slightest bit pro-friendly. No, because that's where Apple is going. I'm following. Where the Mac goes, there you will find thalo. I'm merely the vanguard. One representative of the Mac Faithful... an example of the guys who toil in the mac based design shredders and deadline mills and prepress bureaus and shirtsleeve and home design studios of this world. Most of whom are playing wait and see because they ARE afraid of the future. And they have every right to be. This is a big, earth-shattering EXPENSIVE transition for us.

I've already spent double on this transition than I did back in the 68k/ppc switchover. And I'm not even officially adopted yet. I have two versions of everything on my primary working computer. I feedback religiously, and have entered public discussions on the problems with the software. Saying what needs to be said. I wanted to say it at Apple, but my posts silently vanished. So I came here to be the voice of pro users like me. That's not fear, man, that's committment. In fact, I'll betcha I've done more than my fair share of shaping the Mac and its software over the years, because I beta-test almost everything, and I'm quick with feedback. Meanwhile, you look at all the honest-to-god improvements in Jaggy, and I am literally SHOCKED at how many of them were verbatim from my feedbacks. And still, jabrones like you think I'm trying to hold everything back, that I'm Mac public enemy #1 trying to turn back the clock, fearing change. Puh-leez.

You know what? I don't fear change. You know what I fear? Mediocrity. And we're being buried in it. Stuff that doesn't work. We've got that. Half-assed conception. We've got that. I fear the disconnection of form and function. Aqua is the poster child. Basically I fear crap. I fear watching this platform, once superior and based on truly excellent ideas becoming dumbed down.

So, while you are shaking your fists at how I don't understand hardware integration... man I LIVE hardware integration. I depend on it for my very existence; it's really YOU who have the reading comprehension problem. It's you who are missing the point. What I'm saying, is it's not enough to SORT OF do the stuff you want. It's not enough to KINDA get it to work. It has to be excellent. You have to learn how to demand better, and not settle for crap. I get this a lot too: well, at least it works. Sorry, there's works and WORKS. Any time you have to preface anything with "at least" or "it may not be perfect BUT" then something is wrong. The IDEA behind getting all this stuff of the ground is flawed.

And the biggest, worst, most egregious evidence of the dysfunction in the current Mac development is Aqua. Without a doubt. I really don't think UNIX per say has slowed us down or absconded with our intuitiveness and ease-of-use... I'm pretty sure that the kernel could be based on anything and be made to work. No, what's screwing the pooch is poor conception. Massive mis-deployment of resources and computing power for complete trivial garbage.

Stuff like giving us transparent windows when we don't need them, stripes when they do more harm than good. A whole compositing engine that worries about silly stuff we don't need. About gigantic upscaled over-rendered foolishness that ADDS NOTHING to our productivity. In fact, when I run it side by side with the legacy, it underperforms significantly. My hand to god, I ain't making it up. The new works less well than the old. And I won't roll over and take it. You can if YOU want, but I won't. Go ahead and be happy, but I will bitch and moan and complain until the operating system is superior. Those who think it is, are living in dreamland. They don't know any better. A step up from what a few geeks or newbies are used to, isn't necessarily a superior MAC. Because that'll never happen as long as the operating system, the interface, and the Finder are a dog. Until the ideas behind some of the marketing nonsense that has crept in, change.

I'm not here to take away Unix. I'm not here so guys like shaw will be denied their "cheeper" [sic] hardware. I'm here to say that it really needs to be WAY WAY better. Adding functionality, and accessiblity, and access to other platforms should not come at such a high price. And shouldn't have to be dumbed down to accomplish what we all want.

But hey, after getting a taste of the x11 world, I'm seeing why Apple thinks it has to be that way. GUI standards can be much lower now, because the people they're trying to attract are easily impressed. A few splashy graphics might play well to people who've never seen them. Transparency looks new and exciting. Well, I'm here to say that without a foundation, without an anchor to functionality, without an intent OTHER THAN "let's attract newbies", those things are doomed.

Everything that's a part of this OS has to be there for a reason. But all sense of economy is going out the window. Look at how clunky and non-economical just BARELY getting this stuff to work on our Macs is. So I ask the question again, what's in it for us? What does this stuff DO, other than just barely, nominally work? Why settle for the intellectual everest of "uh, let's see if we can..." when we should be DEMANDING software that REALLY does the job.

I see so much of this garbage as just lip service, with none of it truly working, truly clicking on all cylinders, NOW. The aim seems to be, get something half-assed up, and then let people ooh and ah. That's wrong. Sorry, but it is. For brother shaw, obviously the future is very very bright. That's why when your friendly neighborhood provocateur starts showing you the emperor really is butt naked, he gets all offended. But it's not because I don't want the future to be bright. It's because in order for it to REALLY be bright, you can't settle for crap. You can't do things half assed and hope that it will all get sorted out fifteen years from now. Not when there's work to be done right away.

In my industry, what's happening is that in order to do my work right away, I have to compromise. I have to do it on software that doesn't do as good a job as the legacy in many many ways. For designers, the big one is font rendering. It absolutely sucks. Then there's slowness. I would have thought out-typing or out-mousing my computer was impossible two years ago. Now it happens all the time. Crashes have always been a nightmare. But I have to restart this bloated OS more than I ever did OS 9. The whole "stability" jag is another whopper, the kernel might stay alive, but you end up having to restart anyway, because stuff breaks so easily.

So let's review, slow, terrible interface, terrible font rendering, easy to break and inadequate for pro use? Oh yeah, let me jump right out and adopt because I love change. I do. But I want the change to be progress. Not going back to the stone age to pick up stragglers, and not dumbing it all down to rope in digikids. It's gotta be better. There has to be a way to do all those things and KEEP what was great about the Mac. I say it's possible, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Or be like shaw, and just swallow what you're being handed, like Apple is doing you a favor. Don't question when it doesn't work WELL, or smart, just be glad you can watch spinning gears.