Re: [NTLK] The OQO should have been the new Newton?

From: Jon Glass (
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 06:20:44 EDT

on 6/6/02 11:01 PM, Robert Benschop at wrote:

> Now this is a mystery to me as well, but maybe we have just a hard time
> because we're so used to the classic Mac OS...
>> I am no fan of X, and will do everything in my power to keep it off my
>> machines until Apple either gets it right--i.e. Like the Classic OS
> And they're getting there fast, Jaguar has labels and spring loaded folders
> etc.

Oh, I don't doubt that Apple will get there in most ways, but there are some
_real_ differences. There were also some "core" values that the MacOS had.
Let me delineate a couple, using a comparison from the elder days. :-)

When Windows 3 came out, what were some of the complaints from the Mac

1. Windows is a GUI interface stuck on top of a CLI interface--a pretty face
on top of DOS. Hm. OS X--Darwin/Unix with an Aqua interface.

2. To do any real work with Windows, you had to drop to the DOS C:\ prompt.
Hm. OS X.. To do some serious work, it was often necessary to go to the CLI
prompt. This is because of X's dual nature--a GUI on top of a CLI-based

It is this very point where I have my "gripes." I must confess that I have
my parents in mind when I talk about this issue. I could imagine trying to
explain to my mom via email, how to take care of a problem. It is not
possible, that I can see. I am on several lists that discuss Mac issues, and
I have seen nothing but either complex solutions that remind me of my
friends dealing with Windows-related issues, or that simply had no
solution--yet. OS X is a hybrid, and while a very good one, and probably the
most user-friendly Unix-based OS there has ever been, but it isn't ready for
my parents, who can barely grasp OS 7.5, and specifically when problems
arise. :-)

3. How many files are necessary on your computer for it to run OS 9? That's
simple--2--two files are all that's necessary for a computer to run OS
9--the Finder and the System suitcase. Yes, you won't be able to do much,
and some models may need enablers to truly run, but ostensibly only two
files are necessary for 9 or under to boot a Mac. How many are necessary for
Windows? Or OS X?

4. Related. On the Classic Mac OS, you had extensions and control panels.
Everything was basically clearly labeled, and even better, you had the
Extensions Manager. With this, even though a file might have an enigmatic
name, simply clicking on it in the Extensions Manager usually told you who
put it there and what its basic function was. You could turn these items on
and off at will, thus simplifying conflicts. Not only that, but you could
even group items together by "packages" so that, for instance, I could turn
off all extensions and control panels that worked with my Epson
printer--with one click. How about X?

I'm sorry, but these are fundamental differences. OS X may be nice, and
wonderful and powerful and stable, but it's _not_ the Mac OS. It is
different, like Windows is different from the Mac OS. At this point, I feel
that Apple surrendered those very fundamental elements that differentiated
it from Windows at the same time that Windows has finally begun to follow
those fundamental elements of the Mac OS. I see it as a mistake, and the
wrong direction for Apple. Equally, I also know that there is no turning
back for Apple. They have set the die, and chosen their path. They and we
have to live with that. To which I say :-P I'll switch when I have to, and
not a moment sooner. Besides, when I do, I'll lose my Newton syncing. I have
no plans to do that, so I wait. (did I bring it back on topic?)

-Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams

-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: Read the Newton FAQ: This is the NewtonTalk mailing list -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:01:56 EDT