COMMENTARY-- Mac OS X 10.0 was released to the public a little over a year ago. At the time, the freshly hatched operating system was better suited to tinkerers than consumers. It wasn't until version 10.1 came out in September that things began to get interesting for the non-bleeding-edge demographic.
Shortly after 10.1's release, I decided to try using it as my full-time OS. Over a six-week period, that effort was mostly, but not entirely, successful. There were still far too many apps missing, and far too many bumpy bits in the OS itself, for me to switch completely.
So imagine my surprise a couple of weeks ago when I realized I was spending more time in Mac OS X 10.1.3 than in Mac OS 9.
THE ABILITY TO run native Mac OS X apps and Unix programs at the same time, with the occasional dash of Virtual PC thrown in, is a killer feature for me. Indeed, as I type this, I'm compiling Ruby in the background. (Note to Apple: Dev Tools should remain a part of the core OS X package. A lot of us out here aren't full-time developers but use them nonetheless.) A few days ago, while developing some Web server benchmarks, I had OS X's built-in Apache responding to the server load generated by my test scripts, all on the same machine. This sort of stuff simply wasn't practical before OS X. In addition, a year ago, Ruby--and many other open-source Unix programs--didn't compile out-of-the-box on OS X. It does today.
It also helps that the number of apps that run natively under OS X is steadily growing. I've managed to come up with work-arounds for most of my regular OS 9 programs that don't yet have native OS X versions. (As a rule, I don't use the Classic environment; if I need to run a non-OS X-native app, I boot back into 9.2.2.) Add to that the increasing number of OS X-only apps (OmniOutliner, Goban, and Watson, for example), and I'm finding that, 12 months after its initial release, OS X has evolved into a platform I can work--and even play--on.
But while I've been using OS X more and more, I most emphatically have not joined the ranks of its proselytes. There are still too many things about it that drive me to distraction. I'll talk about some of them in my next column.
THE IBOOK--specifically, the 12-inch LCD version thereof--continues to be my favorite Apple portable. I've had a chance to use the 14-inch iBook, which was stealthily announced at Macworld San Francisco in January, for several weeks. My conclusion: While it's a fine machine, I still favor its more svelte sibling.
I don't need bigger pixels (the 12- and 14-inch versions have the same 1024x768 resolution), the bulkier new size is less convenient, and an additional hour of battery life isn't worth the extra 20 percent in weight. (OS X isn't as miserly with its electrons as Mac OS 9 is; more on that next time.)
To my considerable relief, Apple tells me the introduction of the 14-inch version doesn't mean the smaller form factor is going away, or that the smaller size was in any way inferior. (While Apple won't talk about sales figures, I'm assured that the 12-inch iBook is pulling its weight when it comes to the bottom line.)
At either size, the iBook is a workable machine for OS X. I expanded my loaner unit's RAM to 640MB, which makes OS X significantly more comfy, and found myself enjoying the overall experience. There isn't the same sense of rip-roaring performance as one gets with the PowerBook G4. But the iBook is physically less clumsy, it's fast enough for a lot of apps, and--I have to say it again--its AirPort reception just works.
I still prefer a desktop machine for some applications, such as AltiVec (or, as Apple prefers to call it, Velocity Engine) or anything that cries out for a bigger screen, faster hard drive, and/or high performance I/O. But the iBook makes a fine mobile machine, whether I'm actually on the road or simply want to work away from the confines of my desk for a while.
Are you using OS X more than Mac OS 9? If not, why not? Are you one of the many OS X converts from other Unix OSes? If so, why did you make the switch? TalkBack to me below.
