Slashdot Mirror

It would have been nice for you to mention that you're using a Mac, instead of obtusely implying it (8600, BBEdit Lite).

The section of OSX that copying a file involves is not BSD-related, as I understand it. It's Mach. (People who know more about OSX than I do, feel free to pipe up.) The kernel of OSX is not very BSD-based, and most of what you're talking about (HDD access, scheduling) takes place in the kernel. (To be fair, the scheduler that FreeBSD uses was adapted from Mach.)

The 8600 (which was discontinued over a half decade ago, by the way) is not even compatible with OSX. The minimum requirement for OSX is the Beige Power Mac G3. (See Apple's requirements page.) So, I'm guessing you put in a G3 daughterboard. (Find out about the 8600 and available daughterboards at lowendmac.com.) But OSX doesn't support processor upgrade cards. (First paragraph of the requirements page.) Maybe you didn't put in an upgrade card, and are using the mach_kernel for the 604 from the Darwin project like this guy did. Either way, you're still not using a supported system.

So, you're using unsupported hardware, and a BSD-related OS in an operation that's not related to the BSD bits, and using this to say that BSD sucks. Hmmm.

I'm surprised an 8600 w/ daughterboard (which one, by the way? The 233MHz with 512k of cache?) works at all with OSX. As for why it's slow for you, I can only hypothesize, since I'm not a Mac guy. (That's right, anybody can find this stuff out with a quick google search or two!) The G3 upgrade card is going to need an L2 cache enabler. Do you have one installed? Okay, how about this idea. I'm guessing that your old, discontinued, unsupported hardware uses a bus controller (or other critical chip) that is not being programmed optimally by OSX. Why? Because the programmer writing that code knew that the chip wasn't going to be supported!

My advice is to stick to using 9.1 on your 8600. And don't generalize about BSD from your situation; it's an extreme.

Darwin is better than most Mach-based systems but it's still a traditional message-passing nanokernel...

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing. The Darwin kernel is, in fact, a macrokernel architecture: here and here

This page contains a list of applications that are either already Carbonized or Cocoaized or are in the process of being Carbonized or Cocoaized. Check it out at Xappeal

• Although there is a FreeBSD smp project, they expect support only by mid-2001...

If it turns out apps can be ported from OSX to *nix rather easily, then my bet is on M$ not writing any software for OSX.

I'm not worried about developers writing for *nix and not for OS X.

M$ already has IE 5 shipping with the latest developer preview of OS X, and they will release Office: from what I heard, they're not just porting it from the current MacOS port, they're redoing it in Cocoa, the NeXTStep based (and most kick-ass of all) OS X API.

Other popular software will also be available for OS X, as http://www.apple.com/macosx/apps.html shows. Adobe, Microsoft, ID, Quark and others are listed on that page. Because publishing too much OS X info, particularly screenshots, is not yet possible because of non-disclosure agreements, the software companies will wait until the release of the public beta of OS X in september before they start releasing their OS X based beta's. However, pages like Version Tracker (with a MacOS background) and Softrak (with a NeXT background) already list a fair amount of OS X software, ready to download.

My bet is that there will be a large amount of software for OS X, and there are (at least) four reasons why:

• As noted in earlier, OS X will have a large userbase: eventually, practically all Mac owners will have a Mac that runs OS X. The Mac userbase is small compared to the windoze victims, but it's larger than the current *n[iu]x community. And it'll grow because people who want a reasonably priced unix-like system with a good GUI will get an OS X box.
• Apple has done a great job by implementing the Carbon API: the Carbon libraries contain almost all old Mac OS toolbox calls, so most current Mac OS applications will recompile under OS X without a great deal of trouble. And carbon apps will benefit from the new memory manager, scheduler, and user interface. See http://www.xappeal.org/carbon/index.shtml for a list of software that is or will be available in carbonized form.
• To ease migration to the new OS for old Mac users, Apple created a classic compatibility mode: basicly an application that emulates a Mac running OS 9. It runs all old and non-carbon applications, at roughly 80-90% of the speed it would have if run natively. These apps have the old OS's interface and will crash as often as they did on the old OS, but they won't take the rest of the system down with it.
• Apple is putting a lot of work in making OS X usable for non-techy consumers: the average granny should feel happy using an OS X Mac. Everything configurable will have to be configurable by GUI-tools, in fact, the Terminal application won't be installed by default. I doubt it's possible to install and configure a usable other *n[iu]x system without ever editing a config file directly. Developers of consumer products like word processors, mail applications, webbrowsers, audio- and video editing software will like the stability and consumer-orientedness of OS X.

For some excellent technical info on the upcoming OS X, take a look at the reviews Ars Technica did here.

gerti

http://www.xappeal.org/archive/x11.shtml
http://www.xappeal.org/archive/carmac k1.shtml

http://www.xappeal.org/archive/x11.shtml
http://www.xappeal.org/archive/carmac k1.shtml

No need to build two seperate OSs. Simply make a real "theme" that turns off all your complaints with a checkbox. I don't know if this is a screenshot that would only apply in the classic.app or whether such an option is available in Quartz/OSX as well.

I've heard rumors that Apple will make different "themes" of Aqua similar to the iMacs and IE5 beta.

I agree with your concerns, but frankly until I can try it in person I am trying to hold off judgement as much as possible.

This is just my opinion of how it looks, not how it runs. I am not advocating one GUI over another, just posting my observations about Aqua.

Not meant to be a flame, but you seem to be basing your complaints about Aqua on one application. What does QT Player's problems have to do with Aqua?

And speaking of, what version of the QT player are you looking at? This screenshot over at X Appeal shows OS X's QT player; the buttons are high-contrast and Aqua-like, while the volume "thumbwheel" has been replaced with a slider. There's no way to tell from the shot, but the OS X issue of MacAddict claims the "Favorites" drawer is gone as well.

Jay (=

But...

If you look at these screenshots: http://www.xappeal.org/ archive/dp3-2/classicappearance1.jpg and http://www.xappeal.org/ archive/dp3-2/classicappearance2.jpg, you'll see the good ole MacOS appearance manager allowing the user to switch b/w Apple Platinum (normal MacOS) and ClassicX (appears to have Aqua Style menus).

So perhaps there will be some ability to get Classic to look like Aqua.

But...

If you look at these screenshots: http://www.xappeal.org/ archive/dp3-2/classicappearance1.jpg and http://www.xappeal.org/ archive/dp3-2/classicappearance2.jpg, you'll see the good ole MacOS appearance manager allowing the user to switch b/w Apple Platinum (normal MacOS) and ClassicX (appears to have Aqua Style menus).

So perhaps there will be some ability to get Classic to look like Aqua.

Timezone screenshot for MacOS X DP3

Are we going to see a repeat here? As far as I know, Microsoft got into some hot water for having something like this.

NJV

Soemone else posted a web site, X Appeal, which is apparently put together by a person or people banging away on a Mac OS X dveloper release.

On their hardware page, the list the 7300/180 (my Mac) as successfully running Mac OS X Server -- hopefully Mac OS X Client will work, since they're basically the same OS with different desktops and utilities, right?

It lists other models and their success (or lack thereof) as well.

Jay (=

Soemone else posted a web site, X Appeal, which is apparently put together by a person or people banging away on a Mac OS X dveloper release.

On their hardware page, the list the 7300/180 (my Mac) as successfully running Mac OS X Server -- hopefully Mac OS X Client will work, since they're basically the same OS with different desktops and utilities, right?

It lists other models and their success (or lack thereof) as well.

Jay (=

Makes me want a Mac. *drool*.

http://www.xappeal.org/archive/dp3.shtml

Probably the best info on Mac OSX Client can be found at X-Appeal.

(as an aside: Mac OS X... Apple's Unix won't actually run on any of the machines sold by Apple today. Doesn't work on the latest G4/PowerBooks/iMacs. So much for the comittment eh?)

Wow.. Interesting comment considering, Mac OS X is not available yet. If you're referring to Mac OS X server, I assume you understand that OS X Server is not intended for iMacs or PowerBooks.. It never has been. OS X server does not contain any power management features that are a necessity on the PB , and according to the folks over at www.xappeal.org drivers for the cd-rom are the only hang up with the new iMacs.

As for the G4's, Apple has publicly announced that it is working on a update to both OS X Server and Darwin to take advantage of the Altivec unit. And they aren't planning on releasing another version of OS X Server until those changes have been made.