# Is there any hope for Macs?



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 23, 2004)

Anyone else using a Mac to access the boards?

As usual, IE on Mac doesn't refresh properly, but at least it will talk to the boards.  Netscape (7.02) is for some reason loading incredibly slowly and often failing to connect at all.

How am I supposed to waste time at the lab w/o ENWorld?


----------



## Henry (Feb 23, 2004)

There's always mozilla Firebird (now Firefox)...

It's free.

www.mozilla.org


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 23, 2004)

I usually use Mozilla at home on my PC.  Last time I tried to use Mozilla on a Mac to look at ENWorld (admittedly, this was a couple versions of the boards ago) there were.... problems.  Not only did it not refresh properly, but it tended to crash the computer.  A LOT.  Might be worth trying again, though.  Are you actually using it from a Mac, AND successfully talking to the boards?


----------



## Henry (Feb 23, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Are you actually using it from a Mac, AND successfully talking to the boards?




Sorry, no - You mentioned Netscape and IE, so I thought I'd mention Mozilla on the chance you hadn't seen it yet. Mozilla for Windows works pretty well for the boards, as I used to use it before I got tired of numerous minor incompatibilities from other heavily Active Server and Javascript sites. I use IE at work and home now.

Unaware if Opera has a Mac version, but that's the only other browser option I'm aware of.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 23, 2004)

Firefox is still experimental, is it not?  I have problems with a lot of sites using it.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 23, 2004)

Well, IE's problems seem to have been sorted out.  I'm refreshing properly at the moment.

It's just a clunky browser on a Mac, though.  I've gotten so used to tabbed browsing that multiple windows irk me.

I might try Mozilla again, anyway.  Wish me luck.


----------



## buzz (Feb 23, 2004)

I use a Mac (MacOS 10.3) at home and generally surf with Safari, and I have zero problems using ENWorld. 

I've heard about other users having problems with ENWorld before, but I've never really experienced any platform-dependent issues myself. Are you sure it's not an issue with your machine or the way your lab's network is set up? Or maybe the time of day? I find that ENWorld can get pretty unreachable around 12noon - 3pm CST.

If you haven't already, you might want to mosey over to the ENWorld Mac Users thread and see what other Mac ENWorlders have to say.


----------



## Henry (Feb 23, 2004)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Firefox is still experimental, is it not?  I have problems with a lot of sites using it.




Firefox is a good core browser, but as I noted, it was a lot of problems heavy in ASP and custom third-party controls, mostly because it comes with no plug-ins that IE is either shipped with, or which have been dowloaded over time by you and your computer.

As downloaded from Mozilla's site, it requires a BOATLOAD of plug-ins to be downloaded in inserted or installed into the software. I installed shockwave/macromedia flash out of self-preservation into it, and left the rest undownloaded.

In fact, they state on the site that it shouldn't be used as your main browser, because it's unfinished.

Good luck, Canis!


----------



## Kesh (Feb 23, 2004)

I'm also running OS 10.3 and Safari. No problems here.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 23, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I use a Mac (MacOS 10.3) at home and generally surf with Safari, and I have zero problems using ENWorld.
> 
> I've heard about other users having problems with ENWorld before, but I've never really experienced any platform-dependent issues myself. Are you sure it's not an issue with your machine or the way your lab's network is set up? Or maybe the time of day? I find that ENWorld can get pretty unreachable around 12noon - 3pm CST.




It's endemic to the non-OS 10 Macs on the entire campus as far as I can tell.  And I don't use the OS 10 machines for writing at the moment, so I don't do my time-wasting, (i.e. websurfing) on those machines.



> If you haven't already, you might want to mosey over to the ENWorld Mac Users thread and see what other Mac ENWorlders have to say.



Thanks for the invite, but as a forced-to-against-my-will Mac user, I probably wouldn't have much constructive to add.  Might give the thread a read at some point and see if there are any helpful hints, though.


----------



## Mirth (Feb 23, 2004)

It seems like doghead is able to browse under OS9 as he says in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=78035

Also, I have some issues with ENWorld using Safari & 10.2.8 that I posted in that same thread. Will those of you using 10.3 see if you are having the same probs?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2004)

The answer to your main question, in the thread title, is no.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 23, 2004)

Mozilla is no longer supported for OS 9.  They have, in fact, removed the installers for earlier versions from their website.

Once again, OS 10 makes my life more difficult.

If Microsoft ever released an operating system that made it impractical, if not impossible to run all the software from an earlier version of Windows, people would scream bloody murder.  But Apple did it and it's perfectly fine with most people.     

EDIT:  We no longer have an eye-rolling smilie?


----------



## Mirth (Feb 23, 2004)

Ask doghead. Maybe he can send you the installer. Just trying to offer the help you seem to want. Take it or leave it, I guess.


----------



## Contrabassoon (Feb 24, 2004)

If you're stuck on OS 9, try the WaMCom browser, which is a slightly modified build of Mozilla 1.3.
http://wamcom.org/


----------



## Steve Jung (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm using Safari on OSX 10.2.8. So far, so good.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Feb 24, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> If Microsoft ever released an operating system that made it impractical, if not impossible to run all the software from an earlier version of Windows, people would scream bloody murder.  But Apple did it and it's perfectly fine with most people.




You mean like, say, Windows NT?    

I'd be perfectly happy if they broke all the old DOS and Win9x crap if it meant they got rid of all the legacy code to support it, too.  Maybe then developers would start writing XP apps that didn't require full admin privileges to run.

Don't know how it is on the Mac (there is a current version), but I use Opera on Windows and Linux and love it to death.  There's only a very few sites that I have to revert back to IE, and it's because of poor coding, not the browser.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 24, 2004)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> You mean like, say, Windows NT?




To be fair, NT wasn't intended for home use, and therefore didn't require every single windows user to buy an entire new suite of software.



> Don't know how it is on the Mac (there is a current version), but I use Opera on Windows and Linux and love it to death.  There's only a very few sites that I have to revert back to IE, and it's because of poor coding, not the browser.




Agreed, IE is actually the worst browser I use.  Unfortunate realities of the internet culture force me to use it more than I'd like.

In any case, Netscape is talking to the boards again, so yesterday's problem is nominally solved.  Maybe the reindexing was causing problems?


----------



## buzz (Feb 25, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> If Microsoft ever released an operating system that made it impractical, if not impossible to run all the software from an earlier version of Windows, people would scream bloody murder.  But Apple did it and it's perfectly fine with most people.



Uh, Classic?

We had about 16 years of the previous OS. Now we're settling into a new OS (one that, at it's core, has been around for 30 years or so) that will probably not have to be thrown out anytime soon. I appreciate the fact that now I don't need to reboot unless I want to.


----------



## Creamsteak (Feb 25, 2004)

Windows Longhorn project, which I've only heard about a few times, was supposed to be built from the ground up (not compatable with the older stuff at all). Then they decided not to go that way. I was kinda anxious to see a completely revised Windows. Linux is good, but I'd like to have something as stable while being as universal in the home.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 25, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Uh, Classic?
> 
> We had about 16 years of the previous OS. Now we're settling into a new OS (one that, at it's core, has been around for 30 years or so) that will probably not have to be thrown out anytime soon. I appreciate the fact that now I don't need to reboot unless I want to.



Classic is INCREDIBLY buggy.  Half the time, I don't have a toolbar.  And Classic is also the only way I've found so far to crash an OS 10 machine.  Which actually speaks well for it, because I have a powerful Aura of Mac Crashing.  OS 10 is well shielded against it, right up until the instant Classic mode comes on.  Then I'm back in the familiar rebooting 3 or 4 times a day cycle.


----------



## buzz (Feb 25, 2004)

Gotcha. It's hard for me to comment extensively on Classic, as the few OS9 programs that I needed to keep are sequencer/audio apps, and you can't run them in classic.  Ergo, I have to boot into OS9 to use them, so I'm never running Classic. Still, I didn't have many problems when I originally did have to use it.

Thankfully, every program of consequence (that I use, at least) has been updated ('cept for this one dang noise-reduction app...). I've gladly said goodbye to OS9.

Now if only I didn't have to spend eight hours a day using a PC at work...


----------



## Dimwhit (Feb 25, 2004)

I've been using Safari for a year and I've never had any problems. Works great for me.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> If Microsoft ever released an operating system that made it impractical, if not impossible to run all the software from an earlier version of Windows, people would scream bloody murder.  But Apple did it and it's perfectly fine with most people.
> 
> EDIT:  We no longer have an eye-rolling smilie?




Some might argue (and by some I mean ME), that this is one (of many) of Microsoft's problems. At some point, they have to ditch all the old stuff to keep their OS from getting too bloated (I know...too late).


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 25, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Some might argue (and by some I mean ME), that this is one (of many) of Microsoft's problems. At some point, they have to ditch all the old stuff to keep their OS from getting too bloated (I know...too late).



Theoretically, I agree with you.  But it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't invalidate every bit of software you have.  Apple had the right idea with Classic mode, but it is, as I said, buggy.  And there is no incentive for companies to provide free upgrades to OS 10 versions of their software.  Indeed, I would argue that most are gleefully raking in the cash from the people who are forced to buy all their software again.  It is consumer-unfriendly.  Of course, Macs costing what they do, I guess their target demographic doesn't mind dropping a lot of money on their computer. :shrugs:

There's a reason Macs are a niche market and MS appeals to the mainstream.  PCs are more consumer friendly.  90% of the market doesn't notice that Win XP is crazy bloated, because they're not putting the kinds of demands on their system that make it obvious.  My kid sister has a computer that's about twice as powerful as mine, and she uses it to surf the internet, e-mail, and IM people.  It makes me twitch.


----------



## buzz (Feb 25, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> And there is no incentive for companies to provide free upgrades to OS 10 versions of their software.



When the heck do software companies in general offer free upgrades? Selling upgrades is a basic part of the business model, regardless of OS (and excluding open-source).

Besides, there is an incentive: keeping your customer base from dropping you in favor of a product that works on their new, shiny OS (Quark, anyone?). 



> Of course, Macs costing what they do, I guess their target demographic doesn't mind dropping a lot of money on their computer. :shrugs:



Leaving total cost of ownership and feature comparison arguments aside... (hehe) you're actually right. Part of Mac marketing is that you're paying a bit more to get "the best". I tend to agree; my '99 Rev1 G3 continues to purr along nicely. I spend a lot of time working on computers (Web designer), and the differences, slight though they may be to many, are totally worth it for me. And it's Unix, dude! 

It would be nice if Apple could work a cheaper "consumer" model into their lineup. The eMac is close, but the price point (despite the quality) is still a bit of a shock to the Joe Average who's used to seeing $399 PCs at Best Buy.

But as long as iPod sales continue as they have, I'm cool with Apple's current strategy.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 26, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Leaving total cost of ownership and feature comparison arguments aside...



I have no desire to get into that can of worms.  Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, and all that.

But yeah, it is Unix.  I'll give you that one.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 28, 2004)

You know, it's been four years since Apple went X. It sucks if you're stuck on an older machine, but then, it sucks if you're stuck on an older machine. I wouldn't want to browse much of today's Web with four-year-old technology.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The answer to your main question, in the thread title, is no.



 *Mac fanatic smacks casual comment-maker. Film at eleven.*

Better stated: you have not got any.

Me, I gots whole heaps. This year's tax return = GarageBand! Yeah, baby.


----------



## Dimwhit (Feb 28, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> This year's tax return = GarageBand! Yeah, baby.




GarageBand is a cool program, though I haven't fiddled much yet.

And thanks for giving JD a virtual smack!  (Personally, I'm happy with the 5% market share--they keep coming out with great stuff, and we don't have to deal with the problems that go with a high-marketshare OS.)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 28, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You know, it's been four years since Apple went X. It sucks if you're stuck on an older machine, but then, it sucks if you're stuck on an older machine. I wouldn't want to browse much of today's Web with four-year-old technology.



Interesting.  I didn't want to get into this, but...

My Mac at work is four years old.  You're saying that it is too old.  I'll give you that.  It most definitely is.  On the other hand, most of my PC is also 4 years old.  It is FAR from too old.  I spend about $150 a year (sometimes more, sometimes less) upgrading it.  It can run rings around a brand new Mac on any task other than graphics production, and so far I've spent a total of about $1000 on it, from the day I bought the motherboard & case to the present.  Furthermore, to get a new Mac every 4 years is unrealistic economically for most people, and even for a lot of labs, like mine, which have to replace other equipment, as well.  The lab itself has a couple newer Macs, but as the lowly grad student, I get a older iMac, and I like it or lump it.

My "four year old" PC can run WinXP if I want it to, easily.  I don't.  I run Win2000 and Linux.  But the option is there.  My iMac could only run OS 10 by the intervention of deities.  As such, I do not have access to any current Mac software, and no option of improving what I have.  That's just poor.

So please, forego the smug, "well, you don't even know enough to know that your machine is a dinosaur" attitude.


----------



## Olive (Feb 28, 2004)

I use a PC with IE at home and a iMac with IE at work. I have incredible problems with the iMac. And not just with the boards (although I don't have the failure to refresh problem like I did at other places I've worked with macs), but with one loading webpage causeing the entire machine to freeze until it's over. On my home PC I can multitask to my eharts content, but the work mac is slow as all hell...

And it's not jsut the iMac, it's every OS9 mac I've ever used... absolute crap for web browsing.

Am I the only one?


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> My Mac at work is four years old.  You're saying that it is too old.  I'll give you that.  It most definitely is.  On the other hand, most of my PC is also 4 years old.  It is FAR from too old.  I spend about $150 a year (sometimes more, sometimes less) upgrading it.



I'm not saying your Mac is too old. It isn't. Spending $150 a year on your Mac would pay easily for Mac OS X, which would (as many have noted) solve your problem. And leave you with $450 to upgrade both your memory and your CPU.


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> My iMac could only run OS 10 by the intervention of deities.  As such, I do not have access to any current Mac software, and no option of improving what I have.



Well, I'm sorry that you're in this situation, but you ARE using four-year-old technology. You shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't handle modern content. Switch to a four-year-old version of Windows with a four-year-old browser and run it on four-year-old hardware and see how many modern sites break. A goodly few, I'll reckon.


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> So please, forego the smug, "well, you don't even know enough to know that your machine is a dinosaur" attitude.



I'm not trying to be smug. And your problem is not that your Mac is four years old. It's that your _technology_ is four years old, and you're trying to make use of modern content. The fact is that the Web changes quickly, and new content needs new user clients. Four years old is pretty darn old.

Now, I'm running on a beige G3 266 that is substantially older than your iMac, and it peps along just fine, OS X, EN World, the whole shebang. So your iMac is plenty new enough. Sorry if I'm coming across as smug, or giving the impression that I think you don't know stuff. Neither is intentional, I assure you. I just don't think you're making a fair comparision.

Browsing modern content on OS 9 is an exercise in frustration. Javascript support and CSS support are shaky, rendering is slow and clunky and the browsers are error-prone. Browsing on OS X is a dream. I work on Windows and at home I'm on OS X and there's no question in my mind that I get better results on my Mac.

So to recap: I'm not saying your Mac is too old. I'm saying your _technology_ is too old. If you were able to spend one-fourth what you've spent on your PC on your Mac, your problems would be solved.


----------



## buzz (Feb 29, 2004)

Naturally, I want to chime in with Barsoomcore, here. My Mac is four years old, and it's running the latest version of MacOS X with absolutely no problems. The only thing I've ever upgraded is RAM.

I'd be curious to know how much the four-year-old PC that can still run XP originally cost, and what kind of components it's been upgraded with. My wife's PC was one of the "affordable" machines Apple is often berated for not producing, and it can barely run Win98 at an acceptable pace. It'd puke completely if I installed XP on it. So, now we have to replace it, while my Mac (which admittedly cost a lot more than her PC back then) is basically good to go. Granted, that could probably be said if she'd bought a really nice Dell back then, but then the affordability argument goes out the window.

Ditto my old machine at work; it was one of the original iPaqs, and after a couple of months trying to do Web work on it, it needed to be ditched and the company bought me a brand new box. Doing anything beyond email and Word on that machine was Ctrl-Alt-Del city. 

:Looks at thread:

Man, we've derailed. Sorry, folks. All I can say is, yeah, OS9 can be a PITA. Odds are, any Mac built since 1999 can handle MacOS X, so I advise upgrading. The $129 will do wonders.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Feb 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'm not saying your Mac is too old. It isn't. Spending $150 a year on your Mac would pay easily for Mac OS X, which would (as many have noted) solve your problem. And leave you with $450 to upgrade both your memory and your CPU.



1) This is my work computer.  I'm not willing to sink my personal money into it.

2) As far as our resident Mac experts have told me, there's no worthwhile way to upgrade the iMac beyond RAM, which I've done.  Twice.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Well, I'm sorry that you're in this situation, but you ARE using four-year-old technology. You shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't handle modern content. Switch to a four-year-old version of Windows with a four-year-old browser and run it on four-year-old hardware and see how many modern sites break. A goodly few, I'll reckon.



Nope.  My girlfriend's 6 year old Dell handles the world just fine.  This, however, is not the result of any superiority in PCs, but the result of the world being invested in IE on PCs.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Now, I'm running on a beige G3 266 that is substantially older than your iMac, and it peps along just fine, OS X, EN World, the whole shebang. So your iMac is plenty new enough. Sorry if I'm coming across as smug, or giving the impression that I think you don't know stuff. Neither is intentional, I assure you. I just don't think you're making a fair comparision.



The beige G3s are more upgradable than iMacs.  Not as upgradable as the modern Mac boxes, which are actually quite nice that way.  I was bowled over the first time I opened a blue G3 case and saw that they had made working on your machine user-friendly.  Something Mac was not previously known for.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Browsing on OS X is a dream. I work on Windows and at home I'm on OS X and there's no question in my mind that I get better results on my Mac.



Eh.  When I've browsed on OS 10 machines, I've not noticed any significant difference from PCs.  Outside of the sites, like most PC and console gaming sites, which only work properly on PCs.  But again, that's probably a design issue.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to know how much the four-year-old PC that can still run XP originally cost, and what kind of components it's been upgraded with.



Original outlay: $530  I did swap in my current drives and network card at that time, so that's for the case/power supply, motherboard, DDR RAM, and processor.  I have since installed a new hard drive.  New CD/RW.  One processor upgrade.  New heat sink.  Doubled the RAM.  I also updated to Win 2000, in order to address all that RAM properly.  Though that wasn't included in the $1000, because it didn't cost me anything.  Everything but the CD/RW is a quality component I picked up when it went on sale.  The CD/RW is pretty clunky, but it gets the job done and cost me $30.  The only thing it needs is a new graphics card.  So I'll probably exceed my projected costs this year, since I'm eyeing the Radeon 9600 XT, which will run me $250 by itself.

Oh, and your iPaq experience is typical.  Compaq made the worst machines on the market.  You can get better performance out of a stripped down eMachine than out of the best Compaq ever built.  :shudders:

At any rate, I appreciate the advice, guys, but I've seen OS 10 running on these first generation iMacs, and I don't want it.  Eventually I'll replace my box at home, and I'll be able to bring the old one to the lab and toss the iMac.  Or maybe I can attach some funds for new computers to our next grant proposal.


----------



## Mirth (Feb 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> ...and toss the iMac...




If you're gonna chuck it anyway, I'll pay for the shipping and you can throw it this way


----------



## buzz (Feb 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Oh, and your iPaq experience is typical.  Compaq made the worst machines on the market.  You can get better performance out of a stripped down eMachine than out of the best Compaq ever built.  :shudders:



True. How the non-profit I work for got conned into buying a couple hundred of them (much less contracting with Compaq, as opposed to a company that doesn't suck, like Dell), I'll never know.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 1, 2004)

Mirth said:
			
		

> If you're gonna chuck it anyway, I'll pay for the shipping and you can throw it this way



If and when it comes up, I'll remember that.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 1, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> I've seen OS 10 running on these first generation iMacs, and I don't want it.



 Well, fair enough, then. I think people have been clear that installing OS X will solve your problem. If you don't want to, of course, nobody can force you to. But like I say, I'm running it on a machine that is older and less powerful than your iMac and it works great for me, so there's no reason not to -- it wil IMPROVE things, I guarantee it.

Things may still suck, of course. But they'll suck less, is what I'm saying.


----------

