My mother currently uses an iMac 350, and the first chance I get I'm going
to install OS X 10.1 on it-- an upgrade from 10.0.0, which can't run any OS
X programs.

She is pretty much computer illiterate, and only uses her computer for basic
tasks, but even just checking her email or finding her Internet Explorer and
Netscape icons is sometimes a challenge, considering she uses Mac OS 9.1.
What would be the easiest way to convince her to use Mac OS X, taking into
account her computer illiteracy and her aversion to "changing things around"
on her computer?

Thanks

In article <Ke2Mb.6026$EL4.1440@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> My mother currently uses an iMac 350, and the first chance I get I'm going
> to install OS X 10.1 on it-- an upgrade from 10.0.0, which can't run any OS
> X programs.
>
> She is pretty much computer illiterate, and only uses her computer for basic
> tasks, but even just checking her email or finding her Internet Explorer and
> Netscape icons is sometimes a challenge, considering she uses Mac OS 9.1.
> What would be the easiest way to convince her to use Mac OS X, taking into
> account her computer illiteracy and her aversion to "changing things around"
> on her computer?


I'll make the big assumption that there's some good reason to
upgrade--that there's something that your mother wants to do that she
can't accomplish with her present configuration.

Then, I'll make the further assumption that there is a good reason to
upgrade her machine to an obsolete operating system. This is closely
related to the reason for not simply setting your mother's machine up
with Mac OS 9.2.1. My old G3 MT does almost everything we want it to,
and all we need it to, with OS 9.2: email, web surfing, word
processing, some data analysis with spreadsheets, keeping the family
books, etc.

Finally, I'll assume that her machine has sufficient memory and disk
space to handle OS X v10.1.

My suggestion--if the above are true and that the upgrade is not
driven by your urge to stoke your own ego--is to make her life easier
by first putting aliases to her favorite applications on her OS 9.1
desktop. Maybe even change the names to "E-mail" and "Internet"
instead of "Internet Explorer" and "Netscape". Set the defaults for
her e-mail program's alias to open to the e-mail mode and the
browser's alias to open in the browser mode. Lock the aliases, because
she'll find a way to lose them if you don't. Show her how easy it is
to find the things she wants to use with this setup.

When she's comfortable with this--it may take a few days, we oldsters
sometimes go a bit slow--explain which of the things _she_ wants to do
can't be accomplished with her old software and how you'd like to set
her up with a new suite that works the same way as this "new" one with
aliases on the desktop. If she concurs in this, upgrade to the "new",
obsolete system you've chosen. But put the application aliases on the
desktop, in the same place, where she can find them. Don't even mess
with trying to explain the dock.

We old folks like old, familiar things. Take it a step at a time.

Above all, make sure that this change is for your mother's benefit.
Then let her make the decisions after you explain the reason for the
changes. Keep the discussion on what she wants and needs to do. Don't
let your explanations wander into system capabilities and how much
better the "new" system is. You may have to explain things more than
once. Stay calm. You only get one mother, treat her gently.

jim

Jim- Thank you. Your sober, balanced assessment of this issue has made me
realize just how little this so-called upgrade would actually improve my
mother's computer experience, and by extension, how much the upgrade is just
for me to stroke my own ego. The fact is, the three consecutive computer
crashes that happened while I was at her apartment over New Years are
directly related to the more machine-intensive applications that _I_ tend to
use the iMac for, rather than the basics _she_ tends to use it for. It would
make more sense for _me_ to upgrade to OS X 10.1 (given the limited system
config, 10.2 is improbable and 10.3 is impossible) if this were _my_
computer and I was using it all the time for my own needs. But it's not.
It's hers. She should be permitted to do what she's always done with it,
rather than being compelled to switch to something "better" that is, in all
practical reality, only really better to those that use computers in a way
in which "better" makes a difference.

I can't stand Mac OS 9 now that Mac OS X is out. Therefore, I will continue
to keep Mac OS X as an alternate system folder so that I may use that system
when I use her computer, as I have done for the past year or so. But I will
not force or compel her to change her own habits, given we both use this
computer (in common) for tasks of fundamentally different intensity.

Thanks for your very heartfelt and truthful message.
"James Jaeger" <null@bitbucket.com> wrote in message
news:null-132300.21540110012004@news-west.giganews.com...
> In article <Ke2Mb.6026$EL4.1440@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:
>
> > My mother currently uses an iMac 350, and the first chance I get I'm
going
> > to install OS X 10.1 on it-- an upgrade from 10.0.0, which can't run any
OS
> > X programs.
> >
> > She is pretty much computer illiterate, and only uses her computer for
basic
> > tasks, but even just checking her email or finding her Internet Explorer
and
> > Netscape icons is sometimes a challenge, considering she uses Mac OS
9.1.
> > What would be the easiest way to convince her to use Mac OS X, taking
into
> > account her computer illiteracy and her aversion to "changing things
around"
> > on her computer?
>
>
> I'll make the big assumption that there's some good reason to
> upgrade--that there's something that your mother wants to do that she
> can't accomplish with her present configuration.
>
> Then, I'll make the further assumption that there is a good reason to
> upgrade her machine to an obsolete operating system. This is closely
> related to the reason for not simply setting your mother's machine up
> with Mac OS 9.2.1. My old G3 MT does almost everything we want it to,
> and all we need it to, with OS 9.2: email, web surfing, word
> processing, some data analysis with spreadsheets, keeping the family
> books, etc.
>
> Finally, I'll assume that her machine has sufficient memory and disk
> space to handle OS X v10.1.
>
> My suggestion--if the above are true and that the upgrade is not
> driven by your urge to stoke your own ego--is to make her life easier
> by first putting aliases to her favorite applications on her OS 9.1
> desktop. Maybe even change the names to "E-mail" and "Internet"
> instead of "Internet Explorer" and "Netscape". Set the defaults for
> her e-mail program's alias to open to the e-mail mode and the
> browser's alias to open in the browser mode. Lock the aliases, because
> she'll find a way to lose them if you don't. Show her how easy it is
> to find the things she wants to use with this setup.
>
> When she's comfortable with this--it may take a few days, we oldsters
> sometimes go a bit slow--explain which of the things _she_ wants to do
> can't be accomplished with her old software and how you'd like to set
> her up with a new suite that works the same way as this "new" one with
> aliases on the desktop. If she concurs in this, upgrade to the "new",
> obsolete system you've chosen. But put the application aliases on the
> desktop, in the same place, where she can find them. Don't even mess
> with trying to explain the dock.
>
> We old folks like old, familiar things. Take it a step at a time.
>
> Above all, make sure that this change is for your mother's benefit.
> Then let her make the decisions after you explain the reason for the
> changes. Keep the discussion on what she wants and needs to do. Don't
> let your explanations wander into system capabilities and how much
> better the "new" system is. You may have to explain things more than
> once. Stay calm. You only get one mother, treat her gently.
>
> jim

In article <owaMb.4542$et1.2550@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> Jim- Thank you. Your sober, balanced assessment of this issue has made me
> realize just how little this so-called upgrade would actually improve my
> mother's computer experience, and by extension, how much the upgrade is just
> for me to stroke my own ego. The fact is, the three consecutive computer
> crashes that happened while I was at her apartment over New Years are
> directly related to the more machine-intensive applications that _I_ tend to
> use the iMac for, rather than the basics _she_ tends to use it for. It would
> make more sense for _me_ to upgrade to OS X 10.1 (given the limited system
> config, 10.2 is improbable and 10.3 is impossible) if this were _my_
> computer and I was using it all the time for my own needs. But it's not.
> It's hers. She should be permitted to do what she's always done with it,
> rather than being compelled to switch to something "better" that is, in all
> practical reality, only really better to those that use computers in a way
> in which "better" makes a difference.
>

Good for you for responding in such an open way!

Note however, that you would probably find OS 10.3 (or 10.2) a better
performer than 10.1-- assuming there's enough hard drive space to
install it.

Unlike Windows, were each successive version has run slower and slower,
each release of OS X has been better tuned than its predecessor, and as
a result, run faster.

You'll need adequate RAM-- but you would need that with OS X 10.0 or
10.1 as well.

"Alan Zisman" <alan@nospam.zisman.ca> wrote in message
news:alan-2EF7B7.14220711012004@news.vf.shawcable.net...
> In article <owaMb.4542$et1.2550@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,

> Good for you for responding in such an open way!
>
> Note however, that you would probably find OS 10.3 (or 10.2) a better
> performer than 10.1-- assuming there's enough hard drive space to
> install it.

There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read-- I got
this iMac for her just before the iMacs with the DVD drives came out. But
10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small enough to install. It
also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of RAM.

Thanks for your suggestions and perspective.

oodler

"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> writes:
>
> There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read--

??? My copy of 10.2 came on 3 CDs.

> I got this iMac for her just before the iMacs with the DVD drives
> came out. But 10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small
> enough to install. It also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of
> RAM.

It claims that. I doubt you'll agree. I don't know anybody who has
been happy with any release of OS X on only 128M of memory.

-- David

On 1/11/04 4:22 PM, in article
alan-2EF7B7.14220711012004@news.vf.shawcable.net, "Alan Zisman"
<alan@nospam.zisman.ca> wrote:

> In article <owaMb.4542$et1.2550@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:
>
>> Jim- Thank you. Your sober, balanced assessment of this issue has made me
>> realize just how little this so-called upgrade would actually improve my
>> mother's computer experience, and by extension, how much the upgrade is just
>> for me to stroke my own ego. The fact is, the three consecutive computer
>> crashes that happened while I was at her apartment over New Years are
>> directly related to the more machine-intensive applications that _I_ tend to
>> use the iMac for, rather than the basics _she_ tends to use it for. It would
>> make more sense for _me_ to upgrade to OS X 10.1 (given the limited system
>> config, 10.2 is improbable and 10.3 is impossible) if this were _my_
>> computer and I was using it all the time for my own needs. But it's not.
>> It's hers. She should be permitted to do what she's always done with it,
>> rather than being compelled to switch to something "better" that is, in all
>> practical reality, only really better to those that use computers in a way
>> in which "better" makes a difference.
>>
>
> Good for you for responding in such an open way!
>
> Note however, that you would probably find OS 10.3 (or 10.2) a better
> performer than 10.1-- assuming there's enough hard drive space to
> install it.
>
> Unlike Windows, were each successive version has run slower and slower,
> each release of OS X has been better tuned than its predecessor, and as
> a result, run faster.
>
> You'll need adequate RAM-- but you would need that with OS X 10.0 or
> 10.1 as well.


Or OS 9.2.2. Remember: adding RAM is THE cheapest, easiest way to increase
the performance of your computer. Don't forget to allocate more RAM to your
apps after the upgrade, though.
--

Brian Ehni

On 1/11/04 7:13 PM, in article m23camynnw.fsf@qqqq.invalid, "David C."
<shamino@techie.com> wrote:

> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> writes:
>>
>> There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read--
>
> ??? My copy of 10.2 came on 3 CDs.
>
>> I got this iMac for her just before the iMacs with the DVD drives
>> came out. But 10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small
>> enough to install. It also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of
>> RAM.
>
> It claims that. I doubt you'll agree. I don't know anybody who has
> been happy with any release of OS X on only 128M of memory.
>
> -- David

My 10.2 was on 1 DVD as well, but there ARE CD versions out there; I've seen
them. And my 10.3 came on CD.

I wouldn't run 10 on anything less than 256mb. Memory is cheap these days,
any your Mom's 350MHz slot load CD iMac uses standard PC-100 SDRAM DIMMS.
--

Brian Ehni

In article <B4mMb.7448$sb3.3234@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> "Alan Zisman" <alan@nospam.zisman.ca> wrote in message
> news:alan-2EF7B7.14220711012004@news.vf.shawcable.net...
> > In article <owaMb.4542$et1.2550@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
>
> > Good for you for responding in such an open way!
> >
> > Note however, that you would probably find OS 10.3 (or 10.2) a better
> > performer than 10.1-- assuming there's enough hard drive space to
> > install it.
>
> There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read-- I got
> this iMac for her just before the iMacs with the DVD drives came out. But
> 10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small enough to install. It
> also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of RAM.
>
> Thanks for your suggestions and perspective.

Panther (et al) comes on 3 CDs in my experience... it may also ship on
DVD, but it is certainly available on CD.

In article <B4mMb.7448$sb3.3234@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read

Uh, no. 10.2 and 10.3 both came on CD in the retail packages *I* got.

> But
> 10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small enough to install. It
> also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of RAM.

If 10.1 will run on it, 10.3 will run better.

But I would second the idea of buying more memory. It will make both her
and your experience better (hers because you can allocate more RAM to
her favourite apps, yours because OS X really likes 512MB or more).
--
Cheers,
_Chas_
http://www.apple.com/switch
non-spammers can write to chasm at mac (dot com)

Charles Martin wrote:

> In article <B4mMb.7448$sb3.3234@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:
>
>
>>There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read
>
>
> Uh, no. 10.2 and 10.3 both came on CD in the retail packages *I* got.
>
>
>>But
>>10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small enough to install. It
>>also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of RAM.
>
>
> If 10.1 will run on it, 10.3 will run better.
>
> But I would second the idea of buying more memory. It will make both her
> and your experience better (hers because you can allocate more RAM to
> her favourite apps, yours because OS X really likes 512MB or more).

Here, here! In installing 10.3, which I also shout out to, you can save
a bunch of space by not installing tons of language packs and printer
drivers for printers you'll not hook up.

I now wish I had written two years ago, when my darling sisters decided
all on their very own that they would "upgrade" my Mom's PowerMac to a
p.o.s PC! Yes, the printer was new and better, perhaps the monitor too,
but imagine changing systems on an 84 year old widow! Also when the
nearest relative knew jack s*** about any computer system.

Not that I am bitter, mind you!

John McWilliams

in article alan-2EF7B7.14220711012004@news.vf.shawcable.net, Alan Zisman at
alan@nospam.zisman.ca wrote on 1/11/04 2:22 PM:

> In article <owaMb.4542$et1.2550@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:
>
>> Jim- Thank you. Your sober, balanced assessment of this issue has made me
>> realize just how little this so-called upgrade would actually improve my
>> mother's computer experience, and by extension, how much the upgrade is just
>> for me to stroke my own ego. The fact is, the three consecutive computer
>> crashes that happened while I was at her apartment over New Years are
>> directly related to the more machine-intensive applications that _I_ tend to
>> use the iMac for, rather than the basics _she_ tends to use it for. It would
>> make more sense for _me_ to upgrade to OS X 10.1 (given the limited system
>> config, 10.2 is improbable and 10.3 is impossible) if this were _my_
>> computer and I was using it all the time for my own needs. But it's not.
>> It's hers. She should be permitted to do what she's always done with it,
>> rather than being compelled to switch to something "better" that is, in all
>> practical reality, only really better to those that use computers in a way
>> in which "better" makes a difference.
>>
>
> Good for you for responding in such an open way!
>
> Note however, that you would probably find OS 10.3 (or 10.2) a better
> performer than 10.1-- assuming there's enough hard drive space to
> install it.
>
> Unlike Windows, were each successive version has run slower and slower,
> each release of OS X has been better tuned than its predecessor, and as
> a result, run faster.
>
> You'll need adequate RAM-- but you would need that with OS X 10.0 or
> 10.1 as well.

One caveat I would add to this accurate assessment is that an iMac 350 may
not have adequate video memory or ram to provide a smooth Mac OS X
experience.

Kind Regards,
Nathaniel
--
flikWORLD Design
reply to: nat at flikworld(dot)com

in article BC278744.53658%behni@comcast.net, Brian Paul Ehni at
behni@comcast.net wrote on 1/11/04 9:05 PM:

> On 1/11/04 4:22 PM, in article
> alan-2EF7B7.14220711012004@news.vf.shawcable.net, "Alan Zisman"
> <alan@nospam.zisman.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <owaMb.4542$et1.2550@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
>> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim- Thank you. Your sober, balanced assessment of this issue has made me
>>> realize just how little this so-called upgrade would actually improve my
>>> mother's computer experience, and by extension, how much the upgrade is just
>>> for me to stroke my own ego. The fact is, the three consecutive computer
>>> crashes that happened while I was at her apartment over New Years are
>>> directly related to the more machine-intensive applications that _I_ tend to
>>> use the iMac for, rather than the basics _she_ tends to use it for. It would
>>> make more sense for _me_ to upgrade to OS X 10.1 (given the limited system
>>> config, 10.2 is improbable and 10.3 is impossible) if this were _my_
>>> computer and I was using it all the time for my own needs. But it's not.
>>> It's hers. She should be permitted to do what she's always done with it,
>>> rather than being compelled to switch to something "better" that is, in all
>>> practical reality, only really better to those that use computers in a way
>>> in which "better" makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you for responding in such an open way!
>>
>> Note however, that you would probably find OS 10.3 (or 10.2) a better
>> performer than 10.1-- assuming there's enough hard drive space to
>> install it.
>>
>> Unlike Windows, were each successive version has run slower and slower,
>> each release of OS X has been better tuned than its predecessor, and as
>> a result, run faster.
>>
>> You'll need adequate RAM-- but you would need that with OS X 10.0 or
>> 10.1 as well.
>
>
> Or OS 9.2.2. Remember: adding RAM is THE cheapest, easiest way to increase
> the performance of your computer. Don't forget to allocate more RAM to your
> apps after the upgrade, though.
> --
>
> Brian Ehni
>

In OS X you don't have to allocate RAM. In OS 9, there's not much need to
bump up RAM beyond a certain point. In fact, sometimes giving a program too
much RAM in OS 9 can be detrimental.

Kind Regards,
Nathaniel
--
flikWORLD Design
reply to: nat at flikworld(dot)com

in article waBMb.33155$5V2.49786@attbi_s53, jpmcwilliams at
jpmcw@comcast.net wrote on 1/12/04 9:53 AM:

> Charles Martin wrote:
>
>> In article <B4mMb.7448$sb3.3234@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>> "oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There isn't, and 10.2+ comes on DVD, which the iMac 350 can't read
>>
>>
>> Uh, no. 10.2 and 10.3 both came on CD in the retail packages *I* got.
>>
>>
>>> But
>>> 10.1 is good enough to run OS X programs and is small enough to install. It
>>> also claims to run adequately on 128 megs of RAM.
>>
>>
>> If 10.1 will run on it, 10.3 will run better.
>>
>> But I would second the idea of buying more memory. It will make both her
>> and your experience better (hers because you can allocate more RAM to
>> her favourite apps, yours because OS X really likes 512MB or more).
>
> Here, here! In installing 10.3, which I also shout out to, you can save
> a bunch of space by not installing tons of language packs and printer
> drivers for printers you'll not hook up.
>
> I now wish I had written two years ago, when my darling sisters decided
> all on their very own that they would "upgrade" my Mom's PowerMac to a
> p.o.s PC! Yes, the printer was new and better, perhaps the monitor too,
> but imagine changing systems on an 84 year old widow! Also when the
> nearest relative knew jack s*** about any computer system.
>
> Not that I am bitter, mind you!
>
> John McWilliams
>

Another great feature of OS X is that you can "log in" as two different
users with totally independent settings. You could even put her OS 9
(Classic) apps and documents in the "dock" in her log in and for yours you
could go hog wild and have as many icons, apps and docs in the "dock" as you
required to be the super-human computing man. :)

That's what I do when I go home to my mom's house so I don't have to suffer
through reading emails in her favorite, scripty, font. He he.

Kind Regards,
Nathaniel
--
flikWORLD Design
reply to: nat at flikworld(dot)com

In article <BC2A1760.3E19%nat@flikworld.com>,
Nathaniel Flick <nat@flikworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > You'll need adequate RAM-- but you would need that with OS X 10.0 or
> > 10.1 as well.
>
> One caveat I would add to this accurate assessment is that an iMac 350 may
> not have adequate video memory or ram to provide a smooth Mac OS X
> experience.
>

Earlier iMacs, iBooks and other Apple models don't have video RAM
adequate to support the Quartz Extreme graphic effects that were
introduced with Jaguar.

As a result, they miss out of some of the eye candy... for instance, the
cool rotating cube in Panther's multiple user switching.

However, they still get many benefits from OS X-- I would never deter
any user of such systems from moving to OS X (assuming they had adequate
hard drive space and RAM).