Aqua DP4 Review And Screenshots

Re:Open source, and compatibility... by The1 · 2000-05-19 01:43 · Score: 1

Are you talking about Mac X or Mac OS X?

hware, sware, what people want? by new500 · 2000-05-19 01:49 · Score: 1

wasn't it Jeff Raskin who wrote the Book of Macintosh, defining in great detail ho whe wanted at $1000 computer assistant for "everyman"? That was before S Jobs got involved in the Mac project. As far as I have heard / read, Raskin was immensely detailed in describing and documenting the USER ENVIRONMENT in terms of what ppl wanted to ACTUALLY DO with a machine. The elegance and simplicity of the early Macs was certainly a result of his thinking, the less that cheap prices and deficient hware Jobs' doing (allegedly)

Now nearly a generation since the Apple computer was introduced, ppl now have a collective experience with computing, but prolly not much greater understanding of computing per se. The vast energies which are expended in learing and interpreting interfaces as a result of cheap imitations like M$ Win are a sad fact of the interim.

But with MacOS X is life any clearer, deficiencies or successes in the interface or no? The real question (I want to ask) is whether it is even still possible to look at computers from a "top down" approach based on what someone with NO experience might want to do achieve with the machine.

That might be like finding "virgin" engineers for a reverse engineering project. But this may be worth doing. Whilst I do guess there is a evolution in human cognitive capacity, I consider the idea of the amount of training reqd to even OPERATE a computer effectively and safely these days to be a burden on a society that needs to look beyond the PROCESS and discover the more direct actions and results.

The original idea to make powerful machines available and accessible to untrained ppl was a truly liberating concept. Even though /. readers prolly couch this in terms of standards wars, OS wars, technological supremacies and deficiencies. I hope ppl dont loose sight of the original argument.XEROX Star and Apple Lisa (then by semi derivative languages the Mac) had their UIs based on SMALLTALK, a key aspect of which was that the programming language for the interface itself was trialled and tested for comprehension (syntax and semantics) with 4yr old children. Could we say the same today?

Have we really advanced? If not, all the "eye candy" in the world will rot our teeth (sic, we have no *BITE* any longer) and our minds and leave behind a generation of aspirant technologists as well as workaday "users" disenchanted if not thoroughly disillusioned.

Re:Wow, http://deskmod.com is pretty cool by gorman · 2000-05-19 01:51 · Score: 1

Thanks, yeah it is.

--
Thanks,
David Gorman
http://gorman.modblog.com

Re:You're the one who's wrong... by Swarfega · 2000-05-19 00:07 · Score: 1

I haven't been following the MacOS X developments all that closely - how much of NeXT is left? Not particularly code, but the whole sort of mishmash of... "NeXT-ness" if you like.

Re:How UNIX is OS X? by nuprin24 · 2000-05-19 00:08 · Score: 2

It is essentially a full BSD 4.4 box. In fact, when you telnet in, the /etc/issue is "4.4 BSD"

It has the standard BSD architecture, /etc, /usr, /var, /tmp plus a few mac-related extras that I can't reveal under NDA.

Re:Fairly OT, but... by connorbd · 2000-05-19 01:53 · Score: 1

Sort of. I think that Rhapsody was originally built from 4.4BSD-Lite over Mach.

/Brian

Re:cool screenshots :) by Alan · 2000-05-19 00:09 · Score: 1

Assuming you're talking about the site in your .sig....

alan@polarity:~$ ping www.jjjjulius.com
ping: unknown host www.jjjjulius.com

MIRRORED... by a.out · 2000-05-19 01:54 · Score: 1

http://xyu.dhs.org/brad/mac/

Enjoy... (I hope I last for a little while at least..)

Re:It's intuitive, man! by Bill+Daras · 2000-05-19 00:14 · Score: 1

The Apple UI and Human Interface dudes found this to be the most intuitive, or so I read somewhere. It's like the traffic lights, green, yellow red, that sort of stuff.

The HI department was sacked when Steve returned in 1997. Apparently only 10 people (according to him) knew what Aqua looked like. Which maintained security , but may have had an unpleasent effect on the design quality.

Re:Apple building advertisements into the OS? by aka+Snowman · 2000-05-19 00:15 · Score: 2

Yes, the ads are in there for a good reason, actually.

Back when Apple invented Sherlock, all the search engines (i.e. Yahoo, Excite) threatened to shut Mac users out. Sherlock bypasses full page views, so the sites would lose revenue due to lost banner click-throughs and viewings.

So, the banner was basically to mollify those sites and keep Sherlock functional with the biggies.

It's not a conspiracy... it's a compromise.

Display TeX by new500 · 2000-05-19 00:16 · Score: 1

Sort of in reverse order, and see below reply also

"DisplayTeX ?? WTF is that? First you gotta get printers to use TeX, then you can worry about getting designers to use it. I wouldn't bother my head tho' -- printers aren't going to change from Adobe Postscript and designers will follow what the printers want to standardize on.

Given that TeX rasters even a hundred pages in quite accetable time now on your average workstation, you could just pipe the raster into a RIPless printer.

Of course we'd need a better way of replacing the Computer Modern faces in TeX with PS variants to satisfy designers. But hey , with processors under Moore's Law, could someone interpret PS level one into MetaFont. Even Adobe Multi Master fonts are *way* less complex than Knuth's creations. So if you could handle the loss of control which is really what TeX is about, then ssurely that is at leats theoreticalyl possible.

What PS or rather now PDF does much better is handle complex graphics in a way thta can be interpreted (pre-flighted) for trapping and separations. But that mainly matters at the high end. This hardly matters in visual prrofing, only for imposition anyway.

The problem with color is it is NOT just colour. Forget even the hware for a moment. Colour is *perspectival*. Like when PIXAR figured you could cut the render times for photorealism by using Radiosity wherin e.g. you map a white wall next to a red wall with a scene indirect white light as somehow pink, based on proximity and environment rather than tracing every photon (ray tracing). It depends where you are looking from. Just about every color maping scheme is based on a COLOUR SPACE. e.g. CIE lab Color Appearance Model, wherin RGB + Gamma has to be mapped according to space tolerances and other translations. All this before you get to ICC profiling which is "just" trying to match up input and output devices with a common calibration technique.

The real reason I put in the invention "Display TeX" is because Knuth gave that away. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE. Which is how Adobe use some of his work now. Bet they wouldnt if TeX was under GNU. So being public domain, and even allowing the fact that color plus fonts plus raster plus user display environment woul dbe *non trivial", it would be nice to think for a moment that this MEANS OF COMMUNIATION - PRINT could be harnessed without tolls from companies wishing to sell you every tool in your box with a prohibitive expense to choose or even Think Different about your work and its process.

I ought to sign off. Thanks for your above reply. Bye for now

Re:Looks like apple got it right by Bill+Daras · 2000-05-19 00:16 · Score: 1

Some dude at Ars Technica put 3000 items in the Dock and they were so small they all but disappeared.

What's the problem? My KDE dock can take far, far less.

Re:How UNIX is OS X? A LOT. by ArsSineArtificio · 2000-05-19 00:21 · Score: 2

From the point of view of a sysadmin, it'll be a BSD box. You can telnet into it; it's an *NIX. It'll have all the standard ports for telnet, web activity, etc. Apparently Apple is not going to make a terminal application part of the standard OS install, but perhaps as an optional install on the Mac OS X CD-ROM or as an unsupported download utility. I expect there will be a metric ton of third-party terminal apps as well; this is kind of an obvious thing to write.

Incidentally, the reason for Apple not shipping a terminal app as part of the standard install is to prevent lazy developers from making CLI instructions part of the installation of any application. If you can't assume the user will have a virtual terminal available, you can't assume that they'll be able to configure anything that way. Better just do it in the GUI.

------------------------------------------------ -------------------

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.

Re:the kernel ain't bsd by bugg · 2000-05-19 02:16 · Score: 1

MACH _is_ a BSD, silly.

--
-bugg

Something is missing� by Miska · 2000-05-19 02:17 · Score: 1

All right, all right

Lots of 'nice' screen-shots of the OS (be they good or bad) but what I _really_ want to see is what it looks like when there's a crash

What does a MacOS X bomb look like? Has it been replaced with something more timely (read: PC) - a popping baloon?

Has it been replaced by a quicktime animation - (the system stays up only long enough to play it ;-).

--
-

Re:Something is missing� by ArsSineArtificio · 2000-05-19 02:37 · Score: 1

Well, owing to its new UNIX underpinnings it won't "crash" (at least in the catastrophic, whole-computer-going-down way that the present Mac OS dies); an individual program can segfault, though, I suppose. I'd imagine a discreet dialog appears saying that application "XYZ" has quit unexpectedly, and asking if you'd like to restart it.

The "Classic" environment, however, being the present Mac OS running as an application (like an emulator), is free to have the emulated OS crash. In that case you'll probably see the "bomb" dialog within the Classic application, followed by the discreet dialog I mentioned above asking if you'd like to restart the emulator.

------------------------------------------------ -------------------

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Re:Something is missing� by FyreFiend · 2000-05-19 03:31 · Score: 1

My main consern is something along those lines. What happenes then a program crashes (unix programs *do* crash sometimes)? Do you get a core dump? How about if a driver takes a dump? Do you have to comment it out of an init script? My main complaint about them killing INITs is just that. If the new driver for my xyz drive/card is buggy I can just remove it from my extentions folder or turn it off with CC or the like. My mom can do that. I can't see her tweeking init scripts.
Don't get me wrong, I do like Unixes. I have a NetBSD box and a Linux box but it takes for ever for a Mac user (like me) to rap his/her mind around rc.d scripts and the like.

(yes, calling extentions INITs does show that I've been a Mac user for a long time)

--
- Apple Computer......proudly going out of business for over twenty years.
Re:Something is missing� by 47Ronin · 2000-05-19 04:27 · Score: 1

Basically if an app crashes, OS X will put up a window saying that "an application has unexpectedly quit. The system and other open applications are not affected" with an "Okay" button to dismiss the dialog. Much better than crashing through the roof like Macs of the old days...

-----
Linux user: if (nt == unstable) { switchTo.linux() }

--
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
Re:Something is missing� by Anarchitect · 2000-05-22 04:52 · Score: 1

but what I _really_ want to see is what it looks like when there's a crash.

I'm a mac geek, not a *nix geek (though I'm currently fiddling with a NetBSD install onto an old mac IIci). After firing up ping under terminal app (OS X DP4), I forgot how to make the process stop. Z wasn't right, so I tried kill to get a look at the options. I knew that my ping had been listed as process 1, so - 'kill -1'. Oops. The whole thing paused for a bit and *BANG* full command line, no GUI. But it was fully functional from the CLI, and it appeared that I was still logged in. Now if only I could figure out how to relaunch the GUI portion, I wouldn't have felt quite so dumb.

--
QA implies some kind of quality to begin with.

Re:Aqua & X11 by new500 · 2000-05-19 02:17 · Score: 1

Postscript httpd already done!>

Re:They Realy Oughta Let Loose... by syates21 · 2000-05-19 00:22 · Score: 1

Hmm, I must be getting senile, because in the early days of the Mac that I remember, there *were no* "Windows shelves".

How much of NeXT is left? by WiseWeasel · 2000-05-19 00:23 · Score: 1

Well, I'm no developer, but I do have a copy of DP4 running on my G4, and I can tell you, it looks almost nothing like NeXT. The file browser is similar (columns view) which I like, services are still alive and thriving, packages are the way to distribute software, and then they're installed with InstallerX, a nice, streamlined installer proggie. There's no more application menu, and all open apps are located in the left side of the dock. Objective C is still a very viable development medium, and frameworks are a very big part of Cocoa programming. It is pretty much NeXT with some added APIs and a different interface and graphics system. Yay for progress.

--
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)

Re:BeOS supports 8way SMP with multithreading by Rand+Race · 2000-05-19 02:29 · Score: 1

Actually, Be supports N proccesors but has only been tested up to eight. I also hope you meant "nearly halves..." rather than "nearly doubles...", since it does.

--
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Frymaster · 2000-05-19 00:24 · Score: 2

On the mandatory "once you've owned one":

I did it backwards. Bought macs for ten years then got an x86 laptop (god, it was so cheap)) oops! After 5 hours of not being able to get a functional X (anyone got a config for a Mag Verity? Thought not...) I resorted to the dark side. My favourite error is "operating system not found". Wow.

Carbon isn't emulation. It is a "quick fix", but it is a valid OS X api that is fully buzzword compliant (protected this, premeptive that). "Classic" is run as emulation and does a good job of it. It even supports 68k specific memory calls (notably the A5 World) although I would be leery of using a 68k app in the first place (if your really need to play gang wars, buy a used SE for $50) Of course the holy grail is cocoa. However, you will see a lot more carbon apps than cocoa ones for a variety of reasons:

a) Carbon is easy. You can download Apple's Carbon Dater to test your current apps for Carbon compliance. This tells you what you need to change and pretty much how to do it. Sadly, it usually reccommends you change your event loop (a good idea since WaitNextEvent is where cpu sharing parameters are set) however, this has got to be one of the best porting tools I have seen.

b) Cocoa is tied to not-so-popular languages. Well, okay, Java is pretty popular, but not for heavy stuff. The language of choice for Cocoa is Objective C. Ever heard of it? Neither have a lot of other people. So, in addition to learning the API, you really have to learn a new language. With carbon you can keep your C/C++/Pascal app and carbonize it.

The "big plan" of course is to have current apps carbonized ASAP and encourage new products to be written Cocoa from the ground up. In the meantime, don't dis carbon. It means that you will have a ton of native apps pronto.

Apple has already been through one earth shaking change (68k to PPC) and they really learned their lessons. This transition, so far, promises to be smooth. Remember that Rhapsody was canned because the transition from Classic to Yellow Box was considered to be too big a leap too quickly that would lose a lot of developers. Apple's doing it right.

--

2 1337 4 u!

HolyMac.com Back up! by flash23 · 2000-05-19 02:30 · Score: 3

Hey guys, Justin Hilliard here from HolyMac.com... The problem was a little bit too much traffic and the server shut itself down. Everything is back up, and you can check it out now. Enjoy!! -Justin Hilliard jhilliard@holymac.com

Re:Aqua & X11 by new500 · 2000-05-19 02:34 · Score: 1

How about running a deeply iterative Mandelbrot set render on a postscript printer engine? This has also been done. Some code here but not sure this would do the trick - i havent the time to look at it in detail. First link the guy who did this on LaserWriter IINTX, which had a '30 processor when Apple's best computer had only '020s !!

I dont know about executing this as a virsu like program, but maybe you could just embed it in an innoscent looking document market SecrE7$Ov_cMDrtACO'S_gIRL.PS.GZ and watch as Ghostscript dies or hangs in a multiday caluclation #8-)

Looks like apple got it right by Paladeen · 2000-05-18 21:05 · Score: 1

Well, it looks like Apple got it right this time. Some of the descriptions in DP3 sounded right awful, like the Dock which could hold any amount of items and they just got smaller the more you added. Some dude at Ars Technica put 3000 items in the Dock and they were so small they all but disappeared. I sure hope they fixed that glitch....and also the clumsy conflict of the Apple icon in the centre of the menu bar that some applications embroil their menus in.

Re:Looks like apple got it right by Master+Bait · 2000-05-19 03:10 · Score: 1

You can't expect everything to be perfect. Wait 'till the final release in January before you start your bitching.
Apple had a perfect OS when they bought it from NeXT in... 1996? Or was it 1995? What has taken Apple all this time is the de-evolution of NeXTStep into that awful legacy compatibility kludge AKA Carbon. The pretty interface is simply a natural, timely progression vis-a-vis interface design. Aqua is fashionable, to be sure.
Apple is under a tremendous amount of pressure in releasing, not merely a good OS, but a GREAT OS, because of all the super-hype surrounding OS X.
...Apple's own manufactured super hype to be exact. In hindsight, Apple should have released NeXTStep for PowerPC about 6 months after they aquired NeXT, then released upgraded version along the way as they added the legacy MacOS trash. It would have kept the then-current NeXTStep software developers eating.
The big problem is what the problem with NeXTStep always has been: Objective C and what is now called cocoa. NeXTStep was a wonderful API and Ojective C was wonderful (for me), but very few developers made the leap. It seems few more are, and will do tyhe Carbon thing, but I don't think we will see very many cocoa apps.
You have to consider that they're practically building a new OS for the Mac from scratch...
Shill! SHILL!

--
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Re:Looks like apple got it right by robertchin · 2000-05-19 08:16 · Score: 2

Well, actually that was something in DP3, now for DP4, they added a magnify on mouse over feature which is nice looking and very useful. X should be able to do this. You can take a look over at the MacOS X Theater on the apple web site.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by MaxwellsSilverHammer · 2000-05-19 08:25 · Score: 1

There are/were several shareware type thingies for MacOS that allowed this back in around 1995! I forget their names, though :|

It was/is called "Virtual".
Re:Looks like apple got it right by DrXym · 2000-05-19 04:18 · Score: 1

The Apple logo is still there and it *still* looks stupid. I think someone in Apple tought it would be a great idea to put something that looks like a button but isn't slap-bang in the middle of the menu real estate just to confuse users and complicate the menu code as much as possible.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by Enahs · 2000-05-19 10:40 · Score: 1

>Why do you think Carbon is legacy compatibility crap?
Here's why *I* think it's crap...NeXT has been around since, what, 1988? There are a number of apps written for NeXT/NeXTStep/OpenStep that are great, and the API has been around for *years*. The fact that OpenStep at one time was around for WinNT doesn't hurt, either. :^)

In short, since MacOS X has BSD/Mach & OpenStep at its core, Apple should *insist* on rewrites of software, rather than breaking the OS with code which only adds to the system's instability.

--
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by Enahs · 2000-05-19 10:42 · Score: 1

>You have to consider that they're practically building a new OS for the Mac from scratch (counting out the BSD core, of course).

You can count out a lot of the core of the OS, since it's also based on legacy code from MacOS AND OpenStep. If you want to see a Mac-intended OS that was built from scratch, take a look at BeOS (or don't, if you value stability in an OS.)

Perhaps the original poster wasn't the only one who posted something that was ill thought-out. =)

--
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by kirwin · 2000-05-18 21:31 · Score: 1

What about virtual desktops? I need a *lot* of workspace. And don't tell me about dual headed video cards.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by KirkH · 2000-05-18 21:39 · Score: 1

I agree. Looks slick. And Apple's needed a robust kernal for a while now...the move to a solid BSD core is excellent. Obviously, there are still a few rough edges to smooth out, which is why they're delaying the official 1.0 release until January, I assume. But once it's completed, it looks like they'll have an OS that body-slams Windows.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by troc · 2000-05-18 21:44 · Score: 1

X has been ported to MacOS X - not fully yet but there's no reason why it can't be made to run perfectly (or as well as in linux anyway :) so you can get your virtual desktops and Gnome IDE etc that way. Not sure whether the Quartz drawing engine in OS X allows for virtual desktops but it probably does - I know you can get them for OS 9 as a shareware package or something.

troc

--
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
Re:Looks like apple got it right by MassacrE · 2000-05-19 05:34 · Score: 1

Open folder "My Pictures"
Select All
Open by clicking
should the machine be unusable because the user accidently double-clicked rather than dragging to the destination folder?
Re:Looks like apple got it right by nagora · 2000-05-18 22:33 · Score: 4

Some dude at Ars Technica put 3000 items in the Dock and they were so small they all but disappeared.
I'd say that was a glitch in the user.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:Looks like apple got it right by Paladeen · 2000-05-18 22:42 · Score: 1

I'd say there were plenty of glitchy users around....=)
Re:Looks like apple got it right by rthille · 2000-05-18 22:44 · Score: 2

I've got a Virtual Desktop Manager for my NeXT box. It's called Virtspace, and it runs on NeXTStep 3.3 and OpenSTEP 4.2. It was written by Garrick Toubassi and David Koski and distributed by NYRO Technic, Inc.

From the Apple Developer docs I've read on the web, it doesn't seem like they've changed the windowserver client/server architecture that much, and so it's probably still possible to write one.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Looks like apple got it right by Paladeen · 2000-05-18 22:46 · Score: 1

Look, dude, this is like a developer release!

You can't expect everything to be perfect. Wait 'till the final release in January before you start your bitching.

Apple is under a tremendous amount of pressure in releasing, not merely a good OS, but a GREAT OS, because of all the super-hype surrounding OS X.

You have to consider that they're practically building a new OS for the Mac from scratch (counting out the BSD core, of course). That's no small task, especially since Apple does NOT have endless trillions to spend on the best programmers, like Microsoft. Yet they continue to release bad Windows, year after year after year.

Hey, just me blabbering and responding to a post I found to be ill thought-out.

And sorry about the first-post, guys. I just couldn't resist...=)
Re:Looks like apple got it right by proj_2501 · 2000-05-18 23:12 · Score: 2

There are/were several shareware type thingies for MacOS that allowed this back in around 1995! I forget their names, though :|

But you can always use a video card with zooming capabilities, make your desktop 1920x1080 and just zoom in!

--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-18 23:27 · Score: 1

On the mac you don't need dual headed video cards... any additional card will do.
Re:Looks like apple got it right by kirwin · 2000-05-19 01:31 · Score: 1

Looks like I will stay with Linux and Digital Unix

UI Designers: Please read Edward Tufte by Ars-Fartsica · 2000-05-19 02:34 · Score: 1

Can anyone figure out what all those icons mean???

Why not just have a small icon that says

EMAIL

and a small icon that says

WEB BROWSER

??????

Aqua is very cute, but as a UI, it appears to be completely counterintuitive. I can't figure out what half of the icons represent.

Re:UI Designers: Please read Edward Tufte by be-fan · 2000-05-20 01:50 · Score: 2

Because you're a nerd and have no asthetic sense.
(Whoa, put that keyboard down, just kidding!) Seriously though, people like pictures and icons and shiny things. If they didn't everyone would be using Motif. There is something to be said for asthetic appeal. People don't live in ugly houses, they don't like reading books with ugly formatting, they don't like reading magazines without lots of color and pictures. Humans are visual creatures used to seeing lots of color. A grey icon that says EMAIL might be efficient, but it would bother the hell out of some people. Second, it might not even be more efficiant. Often, when one gets a desktop organized just so, people can actually access things faster than by reading an icon. Once you have the icon memorized (through familiarity) it is processed by the pattern recognition part of the brain. This is significantly faster than sending it through the analytical part of the brain(mainly because humans don't do pattern recognition with plain, black characters). For me at least, I access icons on my desktop and BeMenu more by color and shape of icon rather than anything else. This is shown very well by the default helix GNOME menu. The icons for terminal and logout are the same shape. So my brain, (using shape before it reads the text of the icon) will often cause me to logout when I wanted to start a terminal.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

Re:general mailaise, specific malaise by new500 · 2000-05-19 00:27 · Score: 1

Sorry, I deserve a "Redundant" point off my karma for that.

I meant to preview the post as a reply below, then added a bit, though it wasnt quite a reply anymore and subbed at root. Only when I refreshed the story did i see I had accidentally subbed twice. Sorry again, because it wasnt proly worth a root post reading again, and I overkilled that RealTech link. I should like to learn a stack more about SIMD issuance tho' and just how much Altivec can affect the sware architecture of OSX.

'cause you seem bored to see my post I get the impression you think the argument is moot, and like im missing some valid point which would make the post null . . .? This prolly seems over earnest, but I am trying very hard to find out everythign I can about this OS for critical use in my company as well as some development work, and I just dont want to feel that buying hware to run this alpha code is a illconsidered move. Hence my zealotism (sic) Have a good one.

Open source, and compatibility... by ChiaBen · 2000-05-18 21:07 · Score: 1

So, will mac open-source their Mac XOS? I'm a linux guy through and through, but having someone else add/refine another '*x' kernel sure would be nice... also is there any talk of recompiling for Intel/Alpha processors, and what kind of compatability will Linux apps have on this OS?
regards,
Benjamin Carlson

--
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY

Re:Open source, and compatibility... by Phroggy · 2000-05-19 03:09 · Score: 1

No, Apple will not open-source Mac OS X, but they've already released Darwin (the core BSD part) as open-source, and they've got a couple of other open-source things too. They're testing the waters, and you can expect to see more projects opened later once they confirm that nothing bad comes of opening what they've already opened.

As for Mac OS X on Intel, Darwin is fully x86-compatible and is distrubuted with fat binaries that run on either CPU. Most of the rest of Mac OS X is rumored to work on x86 as well, but Apple's keeping this quiet. It's good to see that they appear to be working to maintain cross-platform portability, even though they may not plan to release an Intel version.

The intelligent thing, of course, would be to release Cocoa APIs for Win32, Linux and BSD; that would make it possible to write cross-platform applications with a single API set - and the same app would be able to run on both Win32 and Linux/x86 without even the need for a recompile (same with Mac OS X and Linux/PPC), and a fat binary (containing both PowerPC and x86 code) could run on any x86 or PPC box with Cocoa libraries available.

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by ChiaBen · 2000-05-19 00:43 · Score: 1

Well, Microsoft open-sourced theirs... :o) (I'm sorry just had to!) Ben

--
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by troc · 2000-05-18 21:22 · Score: 2

Well the OS is about 99.9% POSIX compliant, so most *nix stuff will compile fairly easily without too much hassle, just the odd Makefile alterations we are all used to....!

Troc

--
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by toupsie · 2000-05-18 21:30 · Score: 1

So, will mac open-source their Mac XOS?

Yes and no. It appears that Apple will/has open sourced some of MacOS Xc. Currently, Apple has released the core of MacOS, Darwin, to the public. I doubt that Apple is going to open up the source to Aqua, Quartz, QuickTime and the other high level components to the general public. I think some of the reasoning behind this is that they are licensing code from other companies to build these high level compenents of MacOS X. Thus would not have the right to release the source code.

Plus, Apple is a for profit company that produces hardware and software. I doubt they are just going to give away their cool tech. So if you hate closed source, stick with Linux. I will be happy to run MacOS X on a 4MP G4. If its cool, powerful and easy to use, who cares whether its open or closed source. I just use what gets the job done, period.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by ChiaBen · 2000-05-18 21:43 · Score: 1

Toupsie,
Thanks for your informative reply, I agree with you that we need to use whatever gets the job done, but I also think that using an innovative, yet free product is the best way (within reason) to get the job done. I also use Closed-source, for-profit software, but I loathe paying actual *money* for it! :o)
anyhow, thanks for the answers,
regards,
Benjamin Carlson

--
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by be-fan · 2000-05-19 05:27 · Score: 2

*nix apps should compile, since OS X IS a UNIX.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by Paladeen · 2000-05-18 22:28 · Score: 2

Apple will most definitely not open source MacOS X? Why should they? It's their lifeblood. As for moving to Intel/Alpha, they sell hardware and it's their major source of revenue. Why would they do Wintel guys a favor and give them their OS, which they've spent a lot of time and money developing, just so those guys can rip it and install it on an ugly Intel machine?

I think console apps can run straight off, of course those who use GTK won't....and there'll propably have to be some modifications.

I know for one that at least you can run Perl scripts straight from the console, not just from the MacPerl app as in current MacOS...which is the most annoying thing in the world for a Perl lover like myself. In fact, because of this I have been abandoning MacOS in favor of LinuxPPC.

This should also be a tremendous boost for Macs on the server market. The G4's Altivec may not be the most desirable processor trait for servers, but with a beautiful OS like that I think Apple will entice a lot of new buyers into choosing Mac.

Just my 2 Icelandic crowns.
Re:Open source, and compatibility... by Phroggy · 2000-05-24 04:25 · Score: 1

Unlike Java, Cocoa is a pretty complete API set, so there wouldn't be much incentive to write for Microsoft-specific extensions. Plus, considering the growing popularity of the Mac as a consumer platform, it'd be stupid to throw away that compatibility.

And the difference between Microsoft and Apple when it comes to Open Source is, while Microsoft releases excerpts of their code to select developers who pay boatloads of money and sign restrictive NDAs, I can get the source code to Darwin and Apple's other open-source projects for free. True, it's not as open a license as some would like, but their heart appears to be in the right place.

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

I know DP4 and aqua are not synonymous by firewort · 2000-05-19 02:39 · Score: 1

Thank you to everyone who posted to say that DP4 and Aqua are not synonymous. When I submitted the article in the first place, I knew that.

I was attempting to be concise. The review that the link pointed to reviewed DP4. All the screenshots are of the UI (as they should be, after all, they are pretty pics!)

Apple's created a lot of terminology for us to deal with, Darwin, the BSD influenced core. Quartz, the layer on top of Darwin (pdf?), carbon and cocoa, and Aqua, sitting on top of it all as a pretty face.

Mostly, I'm glad people got to see the new screenshots, make mirrors, and read the review before it was removed.

Apple is very aware they have something people are interested in. They've had websites using the look taken down. They've had themes removed from themes.org, as well as people making themes that work in MacOS9.0.4 (appearance manager or kaleidoscope) themes. People are attracted to this interface. I know I'm ready to get a hands on experience and see if it performs, no matter how many "rules of good UI design" it breaks. Face it, this is the first modern interface for us, on a visual level.

on a linguistic level, we haven't even begun. Our computers don't communicate with us on any real level. The error messages are rarely coherent to an ordinary user. The only message we're asked at all tends to be "Do you want to save that file before quitting?"

When we see some development in this area, I'll be really excited. in fact, if anyone has thoughts for this I'd like to here them. Email me!

until then, I want to play with OSx (waiting waiting waiting)

--

Much improved QuickTime player by qsi · 2000-05-19 00:27 · Score: 1

Of the screenshots posted, I found the ones of the new QuickTime player particularly encouraging. The current incarnation of the QT player is an affront to UI design principles, and has been rightly pilloried and excoriated. The screenshots of the new QT player seem to address the bulk of the criticisms made; perhaps it's a testament to my cynicism that I am encouraged by a company that seems to have listened for a change.

Coupled with the changes to the Dock, I am now more hopeful that the final version of MacOS X will also take into account the critiques of the previous preview that have appeared on the web.

--

---

Felix qui potest rerum cognoscere causas

Re:Basic components don't need to be intuitive by Tralfamadorian · 2000-05-19 00:33 · Score: 1

Thank you!

I have recently been experimenting with different window managers, and to test them, you have to use them a bit. It takes very little time to learn the buttons for the manager. And most of them share similar features/indicators with other managers and graphical shells.

I understand what the original poster is typing, it makes sense, but I wouldn't consider it worth even mentioning as an example of bad design for the new mac OS interface. Things which are worth mentioning are things which become annoying. Like in GTK the menus require you to select a submenu, and move your mouse horizontally to the submenu's menu rather than moving it diagonally to the submenu (doing this causes the mouse to select the menuitme below the submenu.) But since GTK+ is open source I am not going to complain lest I get the "code it yourself" reply :)

He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man

Re:Aqua & X11 by Anarchitect · 2000-05-19 00:34 · Score: 1

I suspect that the real roadblock in opening Quartz is not Apple but, rather, Adobe which maintains a pretty tight leash on PostScript (for good reason). I implore everyone who's been crying out for more open source code from Apple to focus their efforts on Quartz and to extend their cajoling to Adobe.

Adobe? Don't bother - they've nothing to do with Quartz. PDF is an open standard. Quartz is using PDF because Display PostScript was fairly expensive due to Adobe royalties (and, IIRC, there may have been some technical issues, too).

Just a clarification, hassling those folk will accomplish about spit in this arena.

--
QA implies some kind of quality to begin with.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by marmoset · 2000-05-19 00:35 · Score: 1

Classic is the emulation layer. Carbon is a tuned
API set that shares calls with Classic but drops
the deadwood (API's that touch system globals, etc.)

In the sense that apps built against the Carbon
API set don't go through any runtime emulation
layers, Carbon apps are indeed OS X native.

Wow, this is nice by mwalker · 2000-05-18 21:11 · Score: 1

I remember when I had an apple II, it didn't tell time nearly as well. Now Macintosh has an ANALOG CLOCK. Wow. Now that they've finished that, maybe they can work on a journaling file system. Sweet.

Btw obviously rob's "gf" doesn't mean "girlfriend" but rather "gnashing fiend". Everyone has a few demons lurking somewhere (:

--

--
What happens when you outlaw guns

Re:Wow, this is nice by mikpos · 2000-05-18 22:57 · Score: 1

Haha ya they have interesting priorities. I can just see AC taking a break from kernel development because X is lacking a decent analogue clock (admittedly xclock isn't very pretty).
Re:Wow, this is nice by Genom · 2000-05-18 23:59 · Score: 2

ASClock.

Does digital or analog.

Does GNOME or Windowmaker or AfterStep (or probably anything else with a dock/wharf/panel type thing except maybe KDE)

Looks damn cool.

Admittedly it can't do transparency.

Candy? Try pills. by yerricde · 2000-05-19 06:26 · Score: 2

i can't resist those jolly candylike buttons

Looked like NyQuil LiquiCaps to me. In fact, the capsule-like appearance of the buttons inspired me to write a Dr. Mario clone that works on everything but Mac (it'll work on OS 10 as soon as it gets a stable x11 server).

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

The real power is Cocoa by burris · 2000-05-19 02:47 · Score: 1

It is important to remember that Aqua is essentially just a widget set - the real power behind the interface is Quartz, the new PDF based rendering engine.

Aqua is just a set of graphics and Quartz is just a window manager that can manage the screen between multple graphics systems, such as DPDF and Quickdraw. PDF has a powerful graphics model but it's not much different from PostScript, except that it works with PDF files.

The real power lies in Cocoa, the Frameworks Formerly Known As NeXTStep, then OpenStep, then YellowBox.

These Frameworks are the most advanced and mature API's available. They make writing powerful applications easy since they provide such a rich set of classes. It's hard to sell something based on the API's but Mac OS X has by far the best. By comparison, programming in your typical X window manager is much more difficult, as evidenced by the fact that few X applications even support cut and paste.

Burris

Re:Same Old Mistakes by Huge+Pi+Removal · 2000-05-19 02:58 · Score: 1

"The mouseover states mean that you have to mouse over them to get that info. "

Well, yes, but if you mouse-over one button then all three symbols show up in their respective buttons.

Personally I think the "Stop using this window" works as red. Green I can very easily relate to maximise (moreso than just a box with another box in it) - it just feels right to me. And of course, yellow is the perfect compliment to red and green, a recognised "in-between" type button.

Anyway, the fact that just moving into the area of the buttons displays all three "pictures" definitely makes this feature novice-friendly in my eyes at least...

- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler

--
- Oliver

The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by cpt+kangarooski · 2000-05-19 03:00 · Score: 1

The reason everything "works" when plugged into the Mac is because everything is controlled by Apple.

I guess you found out the big secret. Apple is actually the largest hardware company in the world. Plug in a (Quantum, IBM, Western Digital, etc.) SCSI, IDE or Firewire hard disk and it just works. Because all of the drive manufacturers are Apple fronts.

USB keyboards and mice? (and on a few rare machines, PS2, no kidding) All Apple. Even MS hardware is actually a division of Apple.

Modems? Apple. Video cards? Apple. Drive controllers? Apple. Monitors? Apple. RAM? Apple. Processor upgrades? Apple.

If only they had simply published specs that third parties could develop for, knowing that compliant hardware would just *work* instead of having to ruthlessly take over the hw industry and secretly produce everything themselves. Wouldn't that be a far better solution?

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by gig · 2000-05-19 06:42 · Score: 1

Mac OS X is already better at running Mac OS 9 apps than Windows 2000 is at running Windows 95/98 apps. There's no lack of software. A huge majority of the apps already run fine, without modification.

Even if you limit to Carbon/Cocoa ("native") applications, we already have: IE 5, QuickTime 5, AppleWorks 6, the NeXT mail client, and most of the smaller apps that were included with Mac OS 9, such as Sherlock, Script Editor, and Stickies.

I know Be has a lot of useful software, but Macintosh and Windows are still in another league from everything else as far as the range and sheer number of apps from major vendors like Adobe and Microsoft. Mac OS X only adds to that by supporting apps from Mac OS 7/8/9, NeXTSTEP, Java 2, and BSD/Unix.

Mac OS X is great for everybody except Microsoft. It's going to continue to raise awareness of non-Windows computing, as well as Unix in general. It's a consumer OS that's very interoperable with standards and other Unix and Linux, BSD, etc.

Frog, Funk, and Tink by Dust31 · 2000-05-19 06:57 · Score: 1

As the article says, "The alert sounds include all of the classic alerts and a few new ones (Frog, Funk, and Tink)." Not true, they are not new. They were part of the NeXT OS on the original NeXT cube box way back in 1990.

Re:How UNIX is OS X? by Idiomatic · 2000-05-19 00:37 · Score: 1

under the façade it is just another BSD clone. it'll run telnetd (if you enable it), it'll run sshd (if you compile and startup), and it'll run sendmail, ps, kill, ifconfig, route, dd, rm and reboot. what more could you ask for?

i suspect they will keep many NeXTisms, such as a non-traditional /etc/passwd that borrows features from Sun's YellowPages, and a "lookup" daemon for DNS-like chores. the filesystem might be "reorganized", which putting it kindly.

if you intend to be stand-alone, you can lobotomize the cluster administration services and never be the wiser.

Re:The IMPORTANT Mac Feature... by Gorbie · 2000-05-19 03:01 · Score: 1

It's all a matter of scale...but your analogy is roughly the same as mine.

Re:an aside by B-B · 2000-05-19 03:03 · Score: 2

New Slashdot poll:

Who is the biggest freak?

Mac Freaks
Be Freaks
Linux Freaks
BSD Freaks
Amiga Freaks
Hemos

If I told you who I voted for, I would ave to invest in asbestos undies.

Tom

--
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)

ESR does code. by yerricde · 2000-05-19 07:02 · Score: 2

Or Raymond, a pansy nutcase who couldn't code a VB virus

Half-wrong. Eric S. Raymond maintains all this open-source software. But he "couldn't code a VB virus" because his OS of choice, Linux, doesn't have a working VB implementation, and the VB-compatible scripting language in development at the GNOME project is sandboxed, which means it can't modify files outside a safe area.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Darwin _is_ open-source software. by Gregg+M · 2000-05-19 00:38 · Score: 1

What part of FREE don't you understand?

"Apple can revoke this license, and forbid you to keep using all or some part of the software,
any time someone makes an accusation of patent or copyright infringement. ..."

Open source and free software are different. ESR coined the term "open source" but open does not make it free. I pretty tired of the OS/OSS phrase and wish people would start talking about how FREE software is.

--
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.

Re:Same Old Mistakes by King+Babar · 2000-05-19 03:05 · Score: 2

But which is which? You have no way to know except by experimenting; and you have to remember. Knowledge has to reside in the head. Bad.

Actually, the buttons overlay images when you mouseover them. Still not the best, but when you go over a button, it looks like the close button, etc.

Note that a lot of the UI crappiness in DP3 got resolved for DP4. I suspect that the red/green/yellow button stuff will hit the scrap can, too, if Apple keeps on hearing bad press over it.

And one other point about the "Knowledge in the Head vs. Knowledge in the world" slogan. It is indeed often better to put knowledge in the world, if you have a place to put it. A big problem with the icon interfaces that deteriorated into those gibberific toolbars you see in Word is that there was just no place to put everything, but somebody did it anyway. In other words, everything you put in the interface takes room away from something else. Putting the whole world out there, if you have to scan it all (serially) is just about as bad as if you'd put nothing there.

Of course, the window controls in Mac OS X are totally unforced errors; let's hope that Apple wakes up.

--

Babar

Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by proj_2501 · 2000-05-19 00:39 · Score: 1

It's OK. I'm calm.

"Why don't you leave that poor family alone?"

*BANG!*

He said go back inside.

--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by chrischow · 2000-05-19 00:40 · Score: 1

amen bro, if only others could see the light as clear

Re:Same Old Mistakes by gig · 2000-05-19 07:10 · Score: 1

The symbols appear even when you mouseover the buttons on an inactive window. Once you've used it, if you imagine the symbols being on all the time, it seems like that would just be noise. This is not a Web site ... you're going to spend your first hour getting familiar with which window button does what (if that) and then you're going to just click them without thinking.

Personally, I like the close button by itself, and the manipulation buttons on the other side, like in Mac OS 9, but you can't please everybody no matter what you do. Apple proved that they were listening to outside criticizm between DP3 and DP4 (I can actually remember who complained first on some of the UI features that have been changed), so they will probably continue to listen throughout the rest of the year as they do one or two more beta releases, including one public one. Apple's product line should look spectacular in January 2001.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 00:42 · Score: 2

"If I want to use a video card in a Mac, I plug it in and it works. Ditto for projectors, input devices, et cetera, even when made by many different companies. You can't do that in any other OS I know. "

And in exchange, you get less choice in devices to run on your system. The reason everything "works" when plugged into the Mac is because everything is controlled by Apple.

And what is this nonsense about a PC generally
lasting only two years, compared to a Mac lasting seven years? Any facts to back up that ridiculous assumption? Believe it or not, there ARE quality parts for PC's! Not every PC owner builds there system out of shit. And it's still cheaper than a Mac. You talk about all the extra cost that occurs after you buy a PC... well what about Macs? Any device that can be bought on a PC or a Mac will be more expensive on a Mac ... they have to be, because there is less of a market.

In regards to building my own PC: "And you'll get what you pay for: questionable hardware reliability and zero support."

Hmmm, I don't see it that way at all. My hardware is just as reliable as your hardware, I don't buy garbage. It just happens to be less expensive, because the PC hardware market is not controlled by one company, and the market is so huge, the demand is strong and prices are low. As for support, if something breaks in my PC, I can fix it myself. More than likely the part is under warrantee and I can get replacement for free. If your Mac breaks, send it back to Apple (at least that's what you're implying -- you pay more so you don't have to maintain it).

Having said all that, I wouldn't mind a G4 running BeOS, but I don't have that kind of money laying around.

-thomas

-thomas

Yes, they do. by solios · 2000-05-19 03:09 · Score: 1

Performing a web search using Sherlock WILL flash ads. But then, performing a web search with any engine but Google gets you ads, and going ANYWHERE on the web at all lands the same results- face it, if you have a modem, advertisers have you by the balls. I don't care HOW useable the technology is, I'm interested in keeping two things off of my machine- ads and Windows. Fortunately, if you don't want to search the web, no one is forcing you to.

Bonus: for those of you who absolutely CAN NOT stand the OS 9 sherlock [such as myself], the much simpler, much smaller, much less ugly and disgusting version of Sherlock from 8.5 works just fine.

Re:Yes, they do. by Maserati · 2000-05-19 04:19 · Score: 1

There is a way to hack out the ad banners. But you'll have to watch ads while you're looking for the method :-)

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951

Re:Aqua & X11 by Corrado · 2000-05-19 00:43 · Score: 1

Secondly, Quartz does not use PostScript. Its display system is based on PDF.

Which is basically compressed PostScript.

Later...

--
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!

Fairly OT, but... by Anarchitect · 2000-05-19 00:43 · Score: 1

out of the *BSD family, you'll have to go to FreeBSD or BSDi if you want SMP

My recollection is that Darwin is a branch off of FreeBSD, but I'm not certain - is there a good visual representation of the history of the *BSD family, showing which came from what? I have seen charts like this but they are all fairly old.

--
QA implies some kind of quality to begin with.

Re:How UNIX is OS X? by Ranger+Nik · 2000-05-19 07:15 · Score: 1

just a guess: maybe the designers can't wait to get away from NT and back on their beloved mac boxes, now that the mac has a serious OS again?

n.

Darwin is Open Source AND already runs on Intel. by James_Rolevink · 2000-05-19 07:18 · Score: 1

Darwin is Open Source AND already runs on Intel.

Darwin, the core of the new Mac OS X is Open Source AND Apple has just compiled it run on Intel hardware -- Apple Releases Darwin 1.0 Open Source

Apple Releases Darwin 1.0 Open Source
New Mac OS Core and QuickTime Streaming Server Released to Tens of Thousands of Developers
INTERNET WORLD, LOS ANGELES -- April 5, 2000 -- Apple® today announced the release of Darwin 1.0, the advanced operating system core at the heart of Mac® OS X, and the release of an updated Darwin Streaming Server. Darwin's open source model allows the tens of thousands of registered Darwin developers to modify, customize and extend key Apple software, including the modern mach kernel and BSD layers found in Apple's next generation operating system, Mac OS X.
"The core of Mac OS X is the only mainstream operating system following an open source model," said Philip Schiller, Apple's vice president of World-wide Product Marketing. "The new Darwin 1.0 posting includes some of the most advanced operating system technology available, and it's open to our customers and developers so that we may collaborate on the future of the Mac OS."
The new Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and supports the Kernel Extension Developer Kit (KDK) for developing drivers and loadable modules. Darwin 1.0 gives developers access to essential Mac OS X source code. This allows developers to enhance the feature set, performance and quality of Mac OS X products in partnership with Apple engineers. Darwin 1.0 is processor independent and is built for PowerPC and Intel platforms, enabling Open Source developers to work on Darwin projects on the widest choice of computer systems.
In addition to Darwin 1.0, Apple also announced an update to the Darwin Streaming Server, the open source version of Apple's QuickTime(TM) Streaming Server software, which is used to stream high quality audio and video over the Internet. The Darwin Streaming Server is the only open source, standards based and free Internet streaming server. This update makes the Darwin Streaming Server available for Windows NT-based systems, expanding support for developers creating streaming server products based on five different operating systems -- Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris and now Windows NT.

Lest we forget, Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. I believe that about 90% + of their revenue comes from hardware, so I don't see any economical reason why they wouldn't make Mac OS X proper run on Intel hardware; they have nothing to lose and everything -- draws developer and therefore customer support for the Mac hardware platform as a whole, not to mention any bonus revenue and the overwhelming desire most people seem to have to knock Bed Bug Bill off his perch -- to gain.

Moreover, NeXT, the OS that Apple bought from Jobs to build Mac OS X in the first place runs on Intel. They have the technology, the talent, the experience and the will. My money is on an Intel release for Mac OS X.

Mind you, my money is on a secret "red box" environment (in addition to Classic, Carbon and Cocoa), to transparently run Windows apps in the Aqua environment.

Regarding the recent tête-á-tête you guys are having with MS over their bastardised version of Kerberos, I would point out that in marked contrast, Apple is presently working WITH MIT to develop it for Mac OS X: MIT to bring Kerberos network security to Apple's Mac OS X

What the clever folks will take away from it all is that MS is doomed. Even after being pantsed so hard by the DoJ that Bill now coughs up K-Mart undies, they STILL haven't changed. In light of the court case and the much wider ramifications (including a new-found courage to stand up to the bully of Redmond on everyone's part), the same old tired and now ILLEGAL tactics will of necessity be their undoing.

Re:Aqua & X11 by FalseConsciousness · 2000-05-19 07:19 · Score: 1

The NeXTies on the MacOSX-Admin mailing list were talking about this very thing a few days ago. As it turns out, NeXT had a very early precurs of ILOVEYOU. NeXT MailViever would interpret PostScript and you could send messages to your colleagues containing PS code which, when interpreted by Mailviewer, would cause the Display PostScript engine to wig out in various ways. When this was discovered, Adobe incorporated changes into the next release of DPS to make these sorts of pranks impossible.

Re:Quartz is Adobe's baby by pqbon · 2000-05-19 03:13 · Score: 1

I'm not positive but I believe Sun was using display postscript long before Steve Jobs left apple to form Next.

"... That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas..."
-Buffy Summers
Goodbye Iowa

Re:general mailaise, specific malaise by gig · 2000-05-19 07:19 · Score: 1

I can't believe your original post was sincere ... it reads like one of those automatically generated complaint letters that whine without actually saying anything.

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by burris · 2000-05-19 03:14 · Score: 1

OS-X is based on Mach, which isn't anything like the Linux or BSD kernels. Mach has been in use for quite a long time and is used in more than a few operating systems. So it isn't as untested as you may think.

Burris

Troubles by digitalmonkey · 2000-05-19 00:43 · Score: 1

Any one having trouble accessing the URL, or the site for that matter. I was able to get to it earlier, but now all i get is 403 errors. does this mean someone has pulled the plug on the pages?

--
Man...this is f!@#$%$ weak! -Cartman, Southpark

Re:Same Old Mistakes by King+Babar · 2000-05-19 03:15 · Score: 2

Color is far more important than glyphs for recognition. Given a document, for example, the first thing the human brain will recognize and emphasize is color, which is why it is important not to splatter lots of colors allover documents and webpages - its confusing.

Uh...not quite. Abrupt color changes between regions are excellent cues that for image segmentation (into objects), but only weak cues as to the identity of the objects themselves. The splatter of color is most confusing when it makes the user think there are many (functional) objects on the screen when there usually really aren't.

In the case of the apple window controls, you might be able to make an argument for giving them distinctive colors, but no argument other than possibly aesthetics for making them identical shaped droplets until after the user had to focus on them with the mouse.

As others have noted, there are some decently useful "built-in" meanings for colors, especially "red" for "stop", "yellow" for "caution", and "green" for "go". But I'd argue these conventional meanings (with the exception of "red" for "close") are only poorly matched to the current interface.

--

Babar

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by goober · 2000-05-19 03:17 · Score: 1

Mac == MacOS (notwithstanding MKLinux or PPCLinux, which are addons...you can never eliminate MacOS).

FYI- You can install LinuxPPC 2000 on a Mac without any MacOS partitions present.

Re:Aqua & X11 by redragon · 2000-05-19 00:44 · Score: 1

John Carmack already has X11 ported to DR3 (Don't know about DR4) running as a separtate application on MacOS X. It runs on a second window if I remember his comments correctly.

C

--
- Sighuh?

Re:general mailaise, specific malaise by gig · 2000-05-19 07:32 · Score: 1

I read the Tog Aqua article when it first came out a few months ago, but I can remember that he didn't like the View button in the new Finder, since it looked the same as the other buttons, but wasn't navigational. This was fixed in DP4. He also complained that the icons in the Dock didn't use masks (just sat in the middle of their own square). This was also fixed in DP4. He also wanted the Dock to be split, just like it is in DP4.

Also, the QuickTime 5 Player that's in Mac OS X DP4 is quite different than QuickTime 4, and fixes many things that were pointed out by Tog. The Favorites drawer that he really hated is gone completely. The "transport" controls are completely redone as well.

Re:Aqua & X11 by gcondon · 2000-05-19 00:45 · Score: 2

I agree - PDF is not PostScipt ... but they are clearly kin. As Adobe says ...

"PDF relies on the imaging model of the PostScript ® language to describe text and graphics in a device-independent and resolution-independent manner. [...] A PDF file is not a PostScript language program and cannot be directly interpreted by a PostScript interpreter. However, the page descriptions in a PDF file can be
converted into a PostScript language program."

So, basically, PDF is a more structured version of PostScript with the programming components removed. For a more complete comparison of PDF & PostScript, please refer to section 2.4 of the Portable Document Format Reference Manual Version 1.3.

IMHO, the advantage to Apple is that, if they ever offer a Cocoa environment for Intel, a port of Quartz would provide a cross platform imaging model for developers to target and Apple wouldn't need to rewrite the interface APIs - just recompile. I'll grant that cross-compiling is a far cry from open sourcing. However, given Apple's trouble in convincing developers to migrate to Cocoa (hence the need for Carbon), this might just be the kind of move needed to get the ball rolling. If Apple is harboring any aspirations of being a player on the Intel side of the fence, it's going to take a lot more than the Cocoa APIs by themselves to make it happen.

CPU only by rogerbo · 2000-05-19 03:18 · Score: 2

You don't say what CPU speed the OnyxII was. If it's one of the original R10000 275MHZ Onyx2's then you're comparing a 3 year old CPU to 6 month old ones (The PIII750 and G4).

Also no one buys an Onyx2 for CPU only non-multiprocessing applications. Throw a simulation scene with 500,000 polys frame/ 80MB textures at the Onyx2 and it will smoke any PC or Mac out there.

Yes, your GeForce will do better on games, but games and vissim are very different.

Also throw an application that needs massive memory bandwidth between processes at the Onyx2 and it will also shine.

Re:general mailaise, specific malaise by new500 · 2000-05-19 00:46 · Score: 1

My only observation is that I was thinking *graphics hardware* (specifically in photo realistic mind scene creation as well workaday photoshop / layout stuff

But you do not mention what *graphics* subsystems you have installed on these machines

Surely an appropriate benchmark would be goraud shaded polygons per second or something?And you dont way what kind o fcompiler you are using? HP has awesomely optimised compilers for the multiissuance in their PA Risc. In fact Itanium IA64 woul dprolly no tbe off the ground without their compiler technology. It has very similar origins (from top o fmy memory only) in academia to the VLIW (very long instruction word) concepts behind Transmeta's Crusoe.In 1993(maybe 94) I was at a multimedia conference in London checking out SGI's Reality Engine (1st edition thereof). I had if I remember correctly, up to 4 processing units - on each card in the substem :) with like 64mb texture memory, 64mb vram 63mb z buffer per processor Sounds as if I'm on crack. Oh yes, it was close to £1mln if you wanted one :) which gives me the retrospective idea that is PROCESSORS HAD TRUE VALUE - THEN THINK ABOUT THIS. - - - - if i had started tosave my salary then, all of it reinvested to but a Reality Machine, could my meager earnings have caught up with Moore's Law and say a 25-40k Octane today in terms of value. Is it just maths or is any economy based on such caluclations totally messed up?? :')

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Chris+Phillips · 2000-05-19 00:47 · Score: 2

I agree with most of your post, but you are simply incorrect when you talk about 3D.

You wrote:
3D cards have absolutely nothing to do with professional 3D graphics.

Have you ever tried to animate a complicated, textured, and lit character using a crappy video card? Do you rember SGI- they were used for 3d because they had the best video cards. Cards don't matter for rendering, but they sure as hell matter in the animation/modelling part of 3d. This is a problem for Apple, but not that big of one.

Also, if you can get me a copy of 3d studio max for Mac, I'd sure like to see it.

To end with a positive note, Alias/Wavefront just announced that they were porting Maya to OS X. No rumor, actual press release.

Re:Looks like the link has been disabled... by Graymalkin · 2000-05-19 03:19 · Score: 2

Uh dude, try the fact that a thousand slashdot readers just went to the page at the same exact time. You idiot.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Re:My thoughts. by dbrutus · 2000-05-19 03:22 · Score: 1

I would agree that Crusoe rules if the Crusoe in question is running a PPC firmware set and running Mac OS X

Yummy.

DB

Re:cool screenshots :) by zeck · 2000-05-19 00:48 · Score: 1

If any of that was true, would you really be bragging about it on Slashdot? By the way, what the heck is MAJPR?

Re:cool screenshots :) by zeck · 2000-05-19 00:49 · Score: 1

Why don't I have permission to access the screenshots?

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by cbuskirk · 2000-05-19 00:52 · Score: 1

I think that article hit it right on the nose. John Q Public is a stupid f'ing retard. He's the guy who buys a PIII over an Athlon because it's Intel. He is the guy who takes home the free 'puter from Circut City. He sees Ghz Windows machine (read Intel computer) and assumes they must be best. Of course he isn't shelling out for a Ghz machine either he is getting a 500 Mhz Celulose. Very few of these speedy Ghz are availible. IBM has stated that 700Mhz G4 have come off their line, but there are two problems that exist. First the relationship between IBM and Motarola G4 is strained at best. IBM has better production so more chips off the sheet clock up. IBM probably can't sell those 700Mhz CPU's till Motarola catches up. Second reason is that Apple is getting burned, because supply so far exeeds demand. Remember what happend to them when the introduced the 500Mhz G4 they had several hundred thousand pre-orders which they could not fulfill. They arn't going to make that mistake again. They are going to wait until they are ready to sell from now on. Lastly as reported by Mac Addict and their sister publication Maximum PC nearly meets or sometimes exceeds the Athlon and both leave the PIII bloody and twisted on the side of the road.

Re:Same Old Mistakes by zeck · 2000-05-19 00:53 · Score: 1

The metaphor does not directly relate to the object in question here (the window).

If it did, you wouldn't call it a metaphor.

My view by proxima · 2000-05-19 08:09 · Score: 1

I have only recently begun my quest to understand the latest things happening with Apple, about a year I ago I just didn't like anything that I saw (the Imac for instance). Admittedly, Darwin is pretty cool, and I like the idea of non-technical users having some of the benifits of a well-built kernel.

Having a look at these screenshots, I think they look pretty, but I find it hard to understand what's so cool about them. To me, this is nothing but a nice-looking window manager, except this is currently incompatible with X11, which makes it significantly less cool. I'm more interested in how the new kernel actually compares performance-wise and how useful Apple's new OS will be for servers, end-users, etc.

I'm not going to argue that PC hardware architecture is superior to that of the Mac, because I'd be wrong. Though I really like the incredibly powerful G4 processors, I cannot see myself buying a G4 because the hardware is far less supported to upgrade (not as many options). Granted, Macs have come a long way in terms of upgradability. If I were to buy a Mac, I would definately use LinuxPPC, because Mac OS X has failed to impress me. I've personally witness two servers running Mac OS X (whatever the actual production server OS is, I'm not really sure, I don't have admin access to it) bog down a really nice Apple server, and crash. Nothing is more annoying than a really nice computer (G4) be slowed down incredibly by a slow OS (IMO, Mac OS, even this article references "slow scrolling"...maybe it's just me, but computers these days should not have problems scrolling). I'll wait, and eventually I'm sure Apple will turn out an OS that offers better performance even with the pretty GUI. I apologize if anything I said here is wrong (using wrong name to describe Apple product), like I said, I've just recently been reading about Apple again after hearing about Darwin.

Just my $0.02

--
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan

carbonized explorer by burgess · 2000-05-19 08:14 · Score: 1

"mac os x comes with a carbonized copy of internet explorer" (or similar) - does this mean we'll see IE for *BSD before linux?

Re:carbonized explorer by Potatoswatter · 2000-05-19 22:15 · Score: 1

This version of IE was written for the revised MacOS API (Carbon) and graphical interface (Aqua). A port to BSD is still a long way off.

Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0

--

Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra

Re:Same Old Mistakes by binarybits · 2000-05-19 03:27 · Score: 1

Actually, the zoom box was added with system 6 (or might have been 5) and the windowshade box came with 8.0.

If you look at really old documentation for the Mac OS API, the bit that flags whether there is a zoom box on a window is marked as an "extra" flag. Early versions of the Mac OS didn't have a zoom box--just a close box.

The biggest problem *I* see with the new layout is that the three buttons are close together, and the "single window" button is retarded. I wish they'd just drop that one, because it wastes prime real estate and is worthless to anyone who's used a computer for more than a few months.

I wish they'd move the yellow and green buttons over the the right where they belong and make the green one "zoom" as it is in the current OS. This allows "maximize" do the "right thing" depending on the application. There are a lot of apps for which "zoom" is useful while "maximize" isn't.

For that matter, I'd prefer they just use the original symbols. They were just fine the way they were.

to all graphics/ui hackers by warrior · 2000-05-19 08:56 · Score: 1

I could hack this myself in a couple of months. There is nothing ingenous about this UI. We've seen it before. You want a good desktop? Try indigo magic under irix, it is very nice, although I myself have found ways it could be improved. As a hacker, I think you'll all agree, nothing is better than plain old _Enlightenment_ written by hackers, for hackers. Hell, why waste time hacking to make an Aqua-like environment, you can configure E in a few hours to do the same (okay, efm is still in dev, but give raster a break) Aqua is nothing special.

Mike

--
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn

Re:to all graphics/ui hackers by Potatoswatter · 2000-05-19 22:53 · Score: 1

Looking at the original Aqua, and given a graphics engine to work on top of w/ capabilities like Quartz's, you could duplicate this? W/ all the vector animations and all, that's pretty incredible. This interface is big on glitz - lotsa animation, movement, and transparency - and that is hard to duplicate (and impossible in X11).

All that says nothing about its usability. Aqua is only a theme built on top of quartz (see my post a few comments up from yours). There will probably be a lot of themes out soon after OSX's release, and UI hackers like you will have a sweet set of tools to use for creating your own skins.

Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0

--

Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra

Google does show adds by _Bean_ · 2000-05-19 09:04 · Score: 1

Depending on what you search for google will show adds. Try searching for web hosting and check out the Verio add(although it text and doesn't really stick out)

Re:How UNIX is OS X? A LOT. by Glowing+Fish · 2000-05-19 00:54 · Score: 1

My question is, is it running bash, c shell etc, or did they custom right a new shell for telnetting, etc.?

And does the GUI run on top of the C shell, or does it run on top of the kernel?

--
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.

Re:Quartz is Adobe's baby by WillAdams · 2000-05-19 09:07 · Score: 1

To quote from John Warnock's Preface to ``The Purple Book'' _Programming the Display PostScript System with NeXTstep_,

"Adobe(R) and NeXTTM began joint development on PostScript software for displays---the Display PostScript(R) system---in 1985, soon after NeXT Computer, Inc. was founded.... The Display PostScript system was originally developed for the NeXT platform because Adobe and NeXT share a similar vision of the future of computing. Both see the advantage of having the same imaging model drive the display and the printer...."
 
 
That's scarcely ``paying Adobe to develop DPS'' Also, DPS is available for X Window on Solaris, and is used in Xy Corporations XyVision products. 
 
Similarly, Quartz was developed entirely in-house by Apple---having had the rug pulled out from under them once with Adobe's renegging on their agreement for a free DPS license for the Yellow Box for Windows run-time, they could scarcely allow for the possibility of such an occurence again, no?
 
 
William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

Re:general mailaise, specific malaise by webmaven · 2000-05-19 00:55 · Score: 3

Well, while I think that the article you link to has quite a few good points to make, those points deal exclusively with Apple hardware (specifically the RISC based PowerPC CPUs).

Here is a more relevant article about the shortcomings of the Aqua interface, and another article about the improvements that Apple should be making.

Both of the previous articles were written by Bruce 'Tog' Tognazzini, who founded the Apple Human Interface Group, so his opinion should count for something.

Another article, that is slightly less relevant, dissects the UI of the new QuickTime player. It isn't kind.

I hope that these references are of use to anyone reviewing the UI changes that Apple is incorporating into Aqua and it's software, so as to avoid making the same mistakes WRT Linux GUI design.
--

--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.

Re:the kernel ain't bsd by TheGS · 2000-05-19 03:35 · Score: 1

MACH is _not_ a BSD.

Mach is a microkernel which can host different operating system personalities.

One of those personalities is BSD (e.g. Darwin and MacOS X), another is Linux (e.g. MkLinux).

GNU HURD also uses MACH as its microkernel.

What the hell are *you* talking about? by dbrutus · 2000-05-19 03:38 · Score: 1

Let's say it slowly, "That dual Xeon system will be ... much cheaper [than a Mac]". What are you talking about? The MP Macs aren't out yet and somehow you know that the overpriced gold plate that is Xeon will automagically be superior in price and in speed.

Your upgrade options for old 486 machines at this point are to replace motherboard, CPU, power supply (486 power supplies aren't stable enough for Intel's current chips), in short, everything but the case and you probably will have to drill new holes in the case to accomodate your replacement motherboard. This is hardly a $100 upgrade.

DB

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by Eccles · 2000-05-19 00:55 · Score: 1

While I'm sure the author of the article has some points, keep in mind that none of the benchmarks (except maybe the memory bandwidth one) take AltiVec into acount.

Note that memory bandwidth could limit just how much benefit you can get from Altivec.

However, at this point one of the main weaknesses of the Apple machines, compared to Intel ones, is the 3-D rendering ability. The ATI Rage 128 chipset is definitely a second-class citizen compared to the latest chips from NVidia and 3DFX. Hopefully they'll be looking at using ATI's upcoming chipset, and that will live up to some of the hype.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by cyber-scoudrel · 2000-05-19 03:39 · Score: 1

"yeah, I know it is REALLY BSD-like...same diff" \n \n ...I think I hear the scream of the BSD crowd from here!!

Re:ad-free google by whyerd · 2000-05-19 09:09 · Score: 1

Google is one ad-free search engine, Raging is another. It's Alta Vista's response to the popularity of Google.

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by PantalonesVaqueros · 2000-05-19 03:39 · Score: 1

Throwing more chips at processing tasks is nice. However, the article nicely pointed out some severe problems Apple has with bandwidth, and linking together all of their components on a nice fast bus. That's what makes SGI's machines so beautiful, and Sun's so remarkably, well, sun-like :) I think PCs have pretty poor bus designs, but they've got better throughput than current Macs. Bonus points to whoever can implement something like Wildfire or SGI's NUMA hardware.

Setting the record straight Re:Quartz is Adobe's by plsuh · 2000-05-19 03:40 · Score: 1

Just to set the record straight, PDF is an open standard. There is NO licensing fee necessary to utilize the file format. As Apple has written its own PDF display engine, called Quartz, Apple owes no licensing fees to Adobe for the use of PDF, although it did owe them for the use of Display PostScript. The original comment in this thread should be moderated down to -1 as it contains definitely incorrect information presented in an inflammatory manner.

--Paul

Re:Aqua & X11 by gcondon · 2000-05-19 00:59 · Score: 1

Thanks - I was not aware of that.

I assumed that PDF carried much of the same baggage as PostScript and I am happy to hear that is not the case.

I retract my call to arms against Adobe ... that means we can focus our efforts on Apple! ;-)

Or how 'bout this... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 01:00 · Score: 1

Both of you need to stop using your +1 bonuses for posting such irrelevant, offtopic bullshit.

Re:the kernel ain't bsd by cyber-scoudrel · 2000-05-19 01:01 · Score: 1

uhhhh wanna bet? The purpose of mach is to allow multiple os's to run at the same time, the unix kernel is still there it just talks to the mach kernel.

Screenshot mirror by gorman · 2000-05-19 01:03 · Score: 1

In case you haven't already seen them, I have posted an active mirror at www2.deskmod.com/macss.

--
Thanks,
David Gorman
http://gorman.modblog.com

Too bad not many people realise this by warrior · 2000-05-19 09:16 · Score: 1

Yes, your issue over price/value is right on the money. Case in point: people knocking sgi boxes because of low quake performance!!! (although the latest sgi linux/NT boxes run quake3 at mind boggling speeds) Also keep in mind these sgi boxes are designed for _professinal_ graphics, not games.

Oh, and wrt professonial graphics and ray-tracing renderers. The very best aren't done on pc-class machines, try sgi's origin boxes (not many examples to give, most work done on origins is classified, cept yer local weather forecast, oh, I guess most /. readers are familiar with Star Wars). Don't let the 400Mhz cpu fool you, it'll kick your pentium/athlon/g whatever to hell and back.

Mike

--
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn

This is a Developer Release! by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-18 21:12 · Score: 5

Before you start bashing DP4, remember this is an Alpha quality product meant for developers to tune their wares. Apple will be releasing a public beta during the summer to receive feedback from Joe Mac User on the user experience. But even with that, MacOS X looks like a winner already. It will finally put a consumer-based interface on top of a hard core UNIX engine. It looks like Steve Jobs is going to beat Linux to the consumer desktop!

Brag all you want with Linux and Intel, but once I get my 4MP G4 running MacOS X on Jan. 1, 2001, all I will see is GNU/Linux i386 in my rear-view mirror!

Re:This is a Developer Release! by superlame · 2000-05-20 07:05 · Score: 1

You know, most of us Linux fans don't really care that much for Intel. We'd be just as happy with a quad G4 running linux as a quad xeon. So maybe you'll see GNU/linux i386 in your rearview, but what about GNU/linux PPC?

--
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/

Re:Price/performance isn't the issue by WillAdams · 2000-05-19 09:25 · Score: 1

It's not all that expensive switching to another platform, particularly not to Windows, since one can merely up-grade one's Mac apps at the next version to Windows ones (or vice versa). For fonts, one need merely purchase a ``sidegrade'' from the font vendor---Adobe is particularly nice about this.

For my part, a couple of years ago I got sick of Windows and the Mac OS and managed to get a NeXT Cube and still use it as my primary workstation, and far prefer it to the G4 or Pentium III at work.

I hope Mac OS X will live up to the legacy of OPENSTEP, but it still looks like NeXT users will have to give up a lot of things I value highly:

Movable main menu
Tear off menus
scroll bars on the left
top-level print, hide and quit menus
rich set of clients for services (how long/how much will it cost to put together an equivalent to Webster.app, Oxford's, Digital Shakespeare and Hacker.app?)
Window controls which are always identifiable
icons at the top of browser columns
a shelf

William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

Or... by Greyfox · 2000-05-18 21:15 · Score: 1

Grey Fox?

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Or... by Bad+Mojo · 2000-05-18 21:38 · Score: 1

Of all the posts I've seen you make, this one is the MOST obtuse. ;)

Bad Mojo

--
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Master+Bait · 2000-05-19 03:45 · Score: 1

Classic runs regular ol' MacOS 9 in a little box tucked away in a corner
Like WINE.

Carbon is the MacOS 9 API with the old cruft removed.
Like WineLib.

--
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman

cool screenshots :) by Cybersonic · 2000-05-18 21:19 · Score: 5

In case they get slashdotted, i put up a mirror of the screenshots here ... :)

Im looking forward to playing with this gui...

--
Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell

Re:cool screenshots :) by tealover · 2000-05-19 05:25 · Score: 2

My God. I've never seen such venom directed to a guy trying to help out! This guy just posted a link that he thought would be helpful. He didn't moderate his own posts up. Why are you mad at him ?!?

Anyway, I think his website is cool. He seems to have it together much more than you cynical bastards.

--
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Enahs · 2000-05-19 10:07 · Score: 1

>Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers,

What the #$@! is a raytracing renderer? A 3D package raytraces, renders, or combines the two. I have never heard of a raytracing renderer.

A raytracer traces light rays from the viewer back to the light source to form an image of a scene. A renderer uses a series of (extremely clever) tricks to approximate the effects of lighting, texture, etc. to approximate similar effects.

--
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.

Aqua rocks by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-18 21:20 · Score: 1

I've had mine for about a week now. It's a pure automated sleep depravation machine. Ever notice how time flys when you are near to a computer?

Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed maybe? by new500 · 2000-05-18 21:21 · Score: 3

I have beeen real close recently to shellingout for a shiny new G4, thinking hard how much I want my hands on OSX.

Then yeasterday I read this analysis of G4 / mot performance and im starting to think all over again.

Im feeling pretty bummed out that Apple could be so misleading with their advertising.

Looks like they are over using a whole bunch of ppls goodwill to remember them as an idealistic company so not to question the assertions they make. I should welcome myself to reality or something.

an aside by Lowdown · 2000-05-19 01:05 · Score: 1

i really wish there was some objective way of measuring levels of delsusion and fanatacism cause then we'd finally know who's worse off, the linux freaks, the mac freaks, the be freaks or the amiga freaks.

Re:an aside by Golias · 2000-05-19 05:59 · Score: 1

What I find interesting is that there isnot , and never has been, a movement of Microsoft Zealots (other than Balmer himself... and he has an obvious bias).
People who use *nix, Macintosh, Be, and even Atari & Amiga get attatched to their systems, the way some people can get attatched to a really great snowmobile or motorcycle. We find the machines become and extention of our will, which leads to thinking of them as part of our identity. This is sometimes a good thing.
Unfortunately, some people are inherently insecure. As a result their zeal ("my favorite OS is the best!") is overshodowed by platform bigotry ("you are a moron for using an OS other than my favorite").
One endearing quality of the various OS freaks, is that they are often smart people who are aware of their delusions. It was Apple users who were the first to insist that there is a "reality distortion field" surrounding Steve Jobs at all times. In spite of this awareness, they continue to dwell in their worlds because they love their systems.
So hooray for the zealots and freaks! Think Different! Penguins are our friends! Chicks dig UNIX! Viva La Be! Of course it runs NetBSD! Down with the Evil Empire! Rah Rah Rah...

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:an aside by scruffyMark · 2000-05-20 05:10 · Score: 1

we'd finally know who's worse off
Worse off? what's wrong with delusion and fanaticism? I love my delusion and fanaticism, don't you enjoy yours?
Or are you a Windows user, with no silly delusions about computers being potentially useful or pleasant to work with?

--
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Re:an aside by Lowdown · 2000-05-21 22:55 · Score: 1

perish the thought.
i'm reality-distorted.
go abusurdity!

This is not Aqua DP4!!! by toupsie · 2000-05-18 21:21 · Score: 5

Uh, excuse me, but Aqua is just the user experience. Aqua is a part of MacOS X. These screenshots are from MacOS X DP4 -- meaning Macintosh Operating System Ten Developer Preview Four. MacOS X DP4 has more enhancements than just Aqua. Many of the various parts of the operating system have been updated and about 95% of the APIs are now complete. This is a HUGE leap from DP3.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

VirtSpace by Big+Ben+August · 2000-05-19 03:54 · Score: 1

Oh, yeah... VirtSpace was cool, but it kind of bugged me by not allowing n (where n=4,9,etc) discrete virtual desktops (like FVWMPager), instead, it had one monstrous screen that was viewed one screenful at a time.

Anyway, I hope the folks who bring that functionality to Mac OS X do it the former way.

--Ben

--
--Ben

Apple / Cases (offtopic) by timothy · 2000-05-19 01:07 · Score: 1

RandRace wrote: "I consider the G3/G4 translucent cases to be one of the finest designed cases of all time. Yank the power cord out, lift the handle, and every thing is right there. No unscrewing, no sliding panels, and best of all no cutting your hands to ribbons on sharp metal edges. Kicks my Enlite case all to hell and back... and I like my enlite. "

True. When I installed a Zip drive in a friend's G3 last year, I was stunned with admiration. Being me, I actually did manage to cut my finger on something, but that's why I always scored high on the "accident prone" section of the report card. Pop, swing, swivel, insert, click, swing, BAM. That was it, it worked.

That the software part was simple only added to the fun. Contrast this with a bastardized PC case a friend and I tried to upgrade recently and discovered that the CD drive rail screws were (how the hell I have no idea) *hidden behind a rail, itself immoveable*!! Seriously. You could see them, but not even a flex-tip screwdriver could get any play.

The first company that can offer a case with even 85% of that function has my money -- and a lot more than I'd pay for a typical PC case, too.

- I want it to be motherboard agnostic (who knows what the future holds? Make it a conservative thing that I can insert AT, ATX, MicroATX, CHRP, whatever motherboard I want in there ... )

- Has to have a good power supply, for the hoped-for Athlon

- Must use thumbscrews or other toolless fasteners on everything possible. Bender on Futurama once said "Bodies are for hookers and fat people. All I need is a wad of cash with a head wrapped around it." I feel the same way about tiny screws in mazelike case interiors, sort of.

- Needs extra-adequate clearance so ribbons and cards aren't constantly at odds ... the inside of my old digital Celebris XL 590 is like a kafka jungle gym.

anyhow

timothy

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by binarybits · 2000-05-19 03:56 · Score: 1

Just to echo the previous posters, Carbon apps will be 100% native and fully buzzword compliant. Carbon apps do *not* share memory or other resources with classic, nor should you see any substantial performance penalties. The whole point of carbon is to allow apps to take full advantage of the modern OS without major performance penalties.

Re:Mac OS X =! Threat to Linux by Enahs · 2000-05-19 10:25 · Score: 1

I really have trouble seeing it as innovation.

One. The new look-'n-feel screams "eye candy". That's about it. It's based on OpenGL and Display PDF. Good for them. They get a cookie. What does it do other than look pretty and open the posibility of a bad PDF crashing the GUI? I dunno; most folks reviewing it seem to be concentrating on:

1. Display PDF
2. Pretty antialiasing and alpha channels
3. OpenGL

Second point. Repeat after me MacOSX==(BSD/Mach + OpenStep + MacOS treatment + Display PDF - Display PostScript). Innovation? Please; don't make me laugh. The main interface is OpenStep with DPS ripped out and DPDF thrown in. The floating menus have been replaced with the (blech) menu bar many of us (and I use Macs more than most Mac enthusiasts) have come to hate. Finder? Try Workspace.app, with some Mozilla-like buttons replacing the Shelf. Oh yeah, and the Dock is still there.

Innovation? Not here...BeOS was actual innovation (mostly new design, with some POSIX compliance thrown in for good measure), but Apple couldn't stand the thought of paying their former CEO for an OS. Now, Steve's back! Hi, Steve! Care to run the company into the ground one more time? Okay, howsabout running it into the ground with your delusions about the perfect computer again? And, just for giggles, let's make it the Mac again? Perfect!

Personally, I was jazzed when Jobs came back on board and the announcement was made that the next MacOS would be based on NeXT technology (ironic, isn't it. :^) Finally, a decent interface instead of that damn MacOS interface. Guess I was wrong...now it's the Mac/NeXT bastardization, with pretty eye candy, running on a *NIX kernel. Joy. So when's QuarkXPress being ported to Linux again? :^)

--
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.

Re:Same Old Mistakes by lunartik · 2000-05-19 01:09 · Score: 2

"The more a design relies on knowledge in the head, the less usable it is."

Let me get this straight... you are a "NT, Linux & Solaris" user and you are bitching about a Mac not easy enough to use?

By your own definition Linux would be horribly unusable. Maybe Apple should include freecell and change the trash can to the recycle bin so that OSX is a little more intuative for everybody. Personally I think I can withstand the intense mental concentration it will require to open and close the windows. And while I may have to forget some of my extensive knowledge of beers of the world in order to fit the information into my brain, I think that after using the software for about 5 minutes it will become intuitive.

I think what you forget is that no matter how hard you try, unless you want to copy something exactly, an interface will feel awkward at first. When I made the switch from a Mac to the vaunted Windows 3.x it felt clumsy and odd at first. The trash can/recycle bin location was different as well as the computer icon on the desktop. Floppy icons did not appear on the desktop when discs were inserted. The close window button was on the other side. But as you pointed out, the design was easy to understand and with very little learning it was easy to use.

I think that somebody needs to lead us forward in operating system interface design, and you know it will not M$. It will be interesting to see where all of the current technologies take us and if they ever converge. But guess what? We'll all be using our heads a lot more (hopefully).

the kernel ain't bsd by heh2k · 2000-05-18 21:26 · Score: 1

it's mach with a bsd syscall interface. the userland is bsd, though.

Re:the kernel ain't bsd by bugg · 2000-05-20 02:22 · Score: 1

Sure, you're correct.
But MACH _is_ a BSD. Mach was based on 4.2BSD, and by the time Mach 2.5 rolled around it was enhanced by code from 4.3BSD.
In fact, the improvements from CMU/MACH eventually made its way into 4.4BSD... most notably the VM subsystem.
Want proof? Besides any BSD/UNIX family tree, or the 4.4BSD book, there's always the following URL:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/ public/www/FAQ.html
Despite all of the mentions of 4.3BSD, if you're too lazy to follow the URL or just want a summary, this line covers all bases:
Before you can get a Mach license, you must have a Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution (4.3BSD) license.
Please don't try to correct someone when you don't know what you are talking about!

--
-bugg
Re:the kernel ain't bsd by TheGS · 2000-05-22 22:26 · Score: 1

You're right.

There's the pure Mach microkernel itself, an integrated kernel, and a full (but outdated!) Mach-based OS distribution derived from BSD.

This URL provides more information about the different forms of Mach that are available:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/ public/FAQ/distribution.info

Re: Features, yes. Software, no. by Armage+Bedar · 2000-05-19 04:02 · Score: 1

"That's what I never understood about BeOS, charging $100 for an OS that you can't really use for anything 'cept browsing the web to see if anything *really* useful has come out yet!"

...but you don't HAVE to pay for BeOS. You can get the fully operable BeOS R5 for download at free.be.com. You can easily circumvent the artificial partition limits by using instructions at BeNews.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by new500 · 2000-05-19 01:24 · Score: 1

"You know nothing about graphics, apparently. 3D cards have absolutely nothing to do with professional 3D graphics. Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers, which deliver the best quality you can get but are very slow. "

Erm PIXAR, which managed to do quite well whilst S Jobs was distracted with NeXT, developed hardware for RADIOSITY rendering, i.e. *not* RayTracing. Radiosity is based on environment variables like luminosity and proximity to orther colours,as opposed to photon path estimation. Okay you still want specular highlights and to ray trace for that.

Im not aware of any radiosity hardware other than that which PIXAR built. They also created a nice language, RenderMan. But I am quite sure that *not all* pro graphics hardware i sbased on raytracing.

In any case do you need RayTracing to do Photoshop? Hell this argument wasnt even delineated as 3d / 2d or whatever.

"It should also be noted that the average useful life of a Mac is four years (and personally, most of the Macs I've seen tend to last seven). The average useful life of a PC is only two. "

Im still using plenty of old intel hware. And I can always put Linux on my Pentium Pros :) - which chips really rock. Apparently th echief architect for Intel P Pro also worked on a chip to do ADA - with stuff like Object Persistance in Silicon, and all sorts of RISC stuff that Intel won't admit to anymore. They had real nice on chip caches too.

"If I want to use a video card in a Mac, I plug it in and it works. Ditto for projectors, input devices, et cetera, even when made by many different companies. You can't do that in any other OS I know. "

finally M$ is catching up with their hugely diverse hware base. This was inevitable given their model. Instead of actually developing a nice consistent OS + hware from the start they are totally based on getting the larges number of OS licenses out of the door and into use. Sadly one of the "upshots" of their dominance is that with all the $$$ they mint out of everyone they can at least get stuff to work with their driver models under Win2k. I have it on a Thinkpad and was well impressed to have all sorts of kit work without a long days installation.

MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by Frederic54 · 2000-05-18 21:28 · Score: 1

according to bedope, nothing spectacular in MacOSX, the feature they show are in BeOS for almost 10 years!!! go to bedope to read the report :o)
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!

--
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking

Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by proj_2501 · 2000-05-18 21:33 · Score: 2

BeOS hasn't been around for anywhere close to ten years. More like 5. And Mac OS has the additional benefit of actual useful software.
--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by adamk · 2000-05-18 22:23 · Score: 1

I think it's safe to say that there is very little useful software for Mac OS X... However, go to www.bebits.com and take a look at all the useful software for Be :-)

Adam
Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by KirkH · 2000-05-18 22:28 · Score: 1

10 years? what??? The article says 1997...is it 2007 already?!

Sure, the core OS features (memory protection, preemptive multitasking, etc) have existed in other OSes for a while. But I wouldn't brag too much about BeOS. It's slick enough, but it's hurting from a lack of 3rd party support.

And besides, all those fancy OS features have been around for decades. You didn't think BeOS invented them, did you??
Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by latro · 2000-05-18 22:48 · Score: 2

umm, after reading these comments I'm beginning to wonder whether or not you people realize that bedope is a joke news website?

-------

--

-------

"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Re:MacOSX = BeOS PR2 by swdunlop · 2000-05-19 00:05 · Score: 1

Oh come now, lighten up.. For those of you quick-trigger zealots, BeDope is a /parody/ site.
What next? Flaming segfault?

--
Weapons of Mass Analysis

Re:How UNIX is OS X? A LOT. by Maserati · 2000-05-19 04:17 · Score: 1

1) It runs tcsh

2) The gui runs on top of the kernel. There is a terminal app available (in the dock by default for the Admin account). Much like how Linux boots into KDE or Gnome. OS X just hides all the text messages at startup (by default)

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 01:24 · Score: 1

Well, I wont switch to Macs but not because I think they are somehow inferior to PCs...it is simply because I have a lot of software and time invested in PCs. I like to build my own and I have never had any problems at all - no hardware failures that weren't covered by a manufacturer warranty, no driver problems, no compatibility problems. I have never had a problem that some tech support person would need to deal with. I haven't even had an IRQ problem for many years.

I was THIS close to actually switching to powerpc-based systems when the cloners were in their heyday. I was ready to buy a dual 604 motherboard to put in my ATX case and go but then Apple killed them off. My only problem with the Mac is that I don't WANT a simple appliance. I want something that I can open up, modify, upgrade as I see fit with off-the-shelf hardware from an online shop or local small techie shop. I want to select all the software, including operating system, that goes on it. I don't want MacOS (and I don't want Windoze). I want linux for now (before, it was OS/2 that I used and wanted).

With PCs I have total, absolute control over all aspects of the computer, top to bottom. I have never had a bad motherboard, cpu, harddrive, video card, network card, etc. I have never had anything go wrong that needed me to send the thing back to some shop somewhere for repairs (my daughter's Mac, when it has problems, has to be sent or dropped off at a shop for lengthy repair/work wherease my PC is fixable by me in an afternoon).

MacOS X is tempting...because it is linux-like with improvements (yeah, I know it is REALLY BSD-like...same diff)...but it still would require that I change over all my software, lose my favored games, and not be able to choose among the ample hardware available for PCs to upgrade the thing myself. As far as that goes, I wouldn't mind MacOS X as much if I wasn't required to use the Mac interface. I just don't like the Mac GUI. There are things that are nice about it but I don't like the choice of UI being made by Apple anymore than I like the choice being made my M$ for Windoze.

In short, there ain't nothin' wrong with Macs in regards to performance (by a long shot), and the graphics capabilities are nice, though the only graphics work I need to worry about is 3D game rendering on the screen and povray performance. The holy war between Mac-lovers and Windoze-losers is kinda old and moot (Mac users tend to lump PC users into the Windoze catagory, I notice - when several Mac-user coworkers gripe about PCs, they REALLY are griping about Windoze, not the PC). PCs != Windoze BUT Mac == MacOS (notwithstanding MKLinux or PPCLinux, which are addons...you can never eliminate MacOS). praedor

Apple / Cases offtopic II ;) by timothy · 2000-05-19 01:25 · Score: 1

RandRace also mentioned the Convection cooling in the DV iMacs - which is excellent;)

Another point about the iMac cases is that the "input" port area has improved dramatically since the early ones. More room there, though I think the USB ports are still too close together.

Here's what I want to see in a PC case:

(At least of the most-rectagular, boxy variety.)

The *** below indicates where I'd like a interface junction to be -- PS/2, firewire, USB, SCSI, whatever it is should come out in a place that is at least possibly accessible without moving a typical PC totally out of place, but without wires snaking around the front.

I will pay a finders fee of 10% to anyone who can point me to a case built like this which actually end up buying.

top
--------------------
* / |
* / |
* / | f [where the usual
/ | r front-side stuff
| | o like floppies
| | n and CD-R live]
r | | t e | (side) |
a | |
r |_______________________|

just a thought,

timothy

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:Same Old Mistakes by doce · 2000-05-19 01:27 · Score: 1

lovely time for slash to start posting my stories in the text format actually stated... for the longest time, i've had to choose "plain text" to get extrans... oh well.

--
woof!

MacOSX Components 101 by Aigeanta · 2000-05-19 12:21 · Score: 1

Just to clear up some confusion, here is a diagram of the relationship between Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, and Aqua layers. Also, here is a link to Apple's MacOSX theater, which has Quicktime movies of the interface in action. I recommend reviewing these before you critique Aqua based on screenshoots. For example, the problem with the stoplight widgets, not having icons to indicate what they do, is actually bogus, because when you approach them with the cursor they are overlayed with x, -, and + to indicate Close, Minimize, and Maximize.

--
a prophet on the burning shore

Re:Darwin _is_ open-source software. by Darchmare · 2000-05-19 04:25 · Score: 2

RMS = "The code must be free! It's a matter of ethics and morality! What, were you for slavery too? Why, we have a RIGHT to FREE CODE!"

ESR = "Open-sourcing code is great, it has all sorts of benefits for users AND companies. Do it right, and it's a win/win situation."

One is a zealot, one is at least halfway practical. One alienates people, the other embraces them. One understands that people need to make money, the other believes everyone has a grant from a major university to live off of.

I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which is which.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

--

- Jeff

Re:Darwin _is_ open-source software. by Darchmare · 2000-05-19 04:27 · Score: 2

Sorry, some people don't equate the _privilege_ of using someone's source code to the _right_ of people to free speech, to be free from enslavement, etc.

People need to put things into perspective...

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

--

- Jeff

Darwin _is_ open-source software. by yerricde · 2000-05-18 21:33 · Score: 2

Darwin, the kernel of Mac OS X, is open-source software, but RMS doesn't think it's free enough.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Darwin _is_ open-source software. by mysticbob · 2000-05-18 22:00 · Score: 3

Darwin, the kernel of Mac OS X, is open-source software, but RMS doesn't think it's free enough.
... and esr/opensource.org think it i>is free enough. (reference -- the apple darwin faq)
imagine that - two sides to this debate.
Re:Darwin _is_ open-source software. by electricmonk · 2000-05-18 22:33 · Score: 1

From RMS's review of the APSL:

Disrespect for privacy

The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.
Is this to say that RMS likes the BSD license?

--
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Re:Darwin _is_ open-source software. by mikpos · 2000-05-18 22:54 · Score: 1

No, he doesn't like the BSD licence because it doesn't offer an incentive (i.e. legal restriction) for people to make public changes free software. That's beside the point, though. The thing he's talking about is something which I think he's considered paramount to the GPL since its beginning: if you make private changes to code, they can remain private.

Just an observation... by jlgriffiths · 2000-05-18 21:34 · Score: 1

But: Aesthetically speaking, the candy-colored IMac is to Mac OSX is to the 'New Beetle'... I know that not all computers have to be rectangular beige boxes, but at the same time all 'cutting edge designs' should be colored translucent plastic...

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by pipeb0mb · 2000-05-19 12:46 · Score: 1

ANDOVER.NET:::
PLEASE, for the love of God, PLEASE implement a 'spell/grammer check' module of some sort.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.

Please, before he posts again...or at least aadd some sort of '4th grade level' browsing option...

"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)

Re:general mailaise, specific malaise by Aigeanta · 2000-05-19 04:29 · Score: 1

I would like to point out that the MacOSX articles refer to the DP3 version of Aqua, not the current one. In addition, the critique of the Quicktime Player is of the 4.0 version, not the new MacOSX Quicktime interface, which addressed most if not all of the problems brought up in the critique.

--
a prophet on the burning shore

Re:The IMPORTANT Mac Feature... by Darchmare · 2000-05-19 04:43 · Score: 2

The thing is, there's a certain critical mass. The MacOS can have 1/5th the amount of software that Windows has and remain viable. Many developers of the more important software are dual platform.

Be doesn't have that critical mass. They have a fraction of the MacOS marketshare, which is a fraction of Windows'. And even then, one only needs so many email clients and mp3 players.

Simply put, there are at least 1-2 of each kind of app type for the Mac, and usually several choices. BeOS, in contrast, usually doesn't have a given kind of app - or if they do, it's buggy as hell.

It's a matter of critical mass. Be doesn't have it, Apple does.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

--

- Jeff

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by pipeb0mb · 2000-05-19 12:49 · Score: 1

Would it be ok if I pretended that I MEANT to spell 'add' 'aadd' ?
Thanks.

"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)

Apple is just appeasing the search engines by J.C.B. · 2000-05-19 13:07 · Score: 1

The ads are part of Sherlock. Apple added them to appease the search engines after they raised a fuss about users using their service, but not seeing their ads.

The add is only present in the web search component. All of the others are addless.

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Matt+Gleeson · 2000-05-19 04:59 · Score: 1

You know nothing about graphics, apparently. 3D cards have absolutely nothing to do with professional 3D graphics. Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers, which deliver the best quality you can get but are very slow. 3D cards use scanline renderers, which are much faster but give lesser quality (however, the quality is still easily enough for games). But because that's not used in professional 3D graphics, the fastest 3D card in the world makes no difference at all for pro stuff.

_I_ know nothing about graphics, so I don't feel ashamed to ask you this question:

How does one do 3D modelling with a raytracer? I though it was desirable to actually interact with the model as you build it...

What the hell are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 13:26 · Score: 1

You know nothing about graphics, apparently. 3D cards have absolutely nothing to do with professional 3D graphics. Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers, which deliver the best quality you can get but are very slow. 3D cards use scanline renderers, which are much faster but give lesser quality (however, the quality is still easily enough for games). But because that's not used in professional 3D graphics, the fastest 3D card in the world makes no difference at all for pro stuff.

Apart from the other replies on this...
You NEED a fast 3D card if you're going to sit there building models without waiting 5 minutes between screen updates.

Also, 3D cards use hardware geometry engines, not "scanline renderers", which are the lower-quality secondary renderers in programs like Infini-D. 3D cards provide interactive rendering, not raytracing or any final rendering support. (Once upon a time, YARC cards were final rendering support cards, kind of like having one-trick Multi-proc rendering...but they disappeared during the PPC era.)

PC and Alpha workstations have long heritages of 3D cards... we're not talking 3dfx or nVidia here. Evans & Sutherland, Accelgraphics (now part of E&S), Elsa, 3dlabs, etc. have been providing 3D workstation cards for many years.. for PCs. These are used for CAD visualization and intensive 3D work, and have (unfortunately?) been helping PCs infringe on the bottom end of the SGI market.

And finally, Lightwave has been available on the Mac for a couple years, but not 3D Studio MAX (unless it has been recently announced). It was very hard to take Macs seriously as a 3D work platform until Lightwave made the jump (and it oretty much still is, thanks to the continued lack of decent 3D hardware).

Re:What the hell are you talking about? by rabidMacBigot() · 2000-05-19 18:08 · Score: 1

Classic runs regular ol' MacOS 9 in a little box tucked away in a corner
Like WINE
Not quite. More like VMWare. The Classic environment is an actual instance of OS 9 that boots as an ordinary process in OS X. It basically is OS 9. Just like VMWare is WinXX running as a process under Linux, with its own little microcosm.
Carbon is the MacOS 9 API with the old cruft removed.
Like WineLib
No again. Carbon is a subset of the OS 9 API; anything written to Carbon (and only Carbon; no Classic Toolbox calls) will run under both OS 9 and OS X. WineLib, if I understand correctly, is a reverse-engineered version of the WinXX APIs, in theory, anything written to a WinXX API shouldn't know that its return isn't coming from Win.
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by mr3038 · 2000-05-19 18:43 · Score: 1

You don't honestly think that Microsoft writes all the drivers for IBM hardware do you?
Of course not, but neither does any other company.
I was trying to point out that you can select (virtually) any PCI or AGP card from local store and it will work with your PC (in this case with windows because that's what manufacturers are supporting). If there reads "Mac" in the box it will work in the mac just in the same way as box which has text "linux" works in linux.
And I cannot see how for example cards having nVidia chip can be supported under mac in any better way than under linux if nVidia is not going to release specs or give direct support. I'm sure you wouldn't buy $300+ for a graphics card that your OS can support only via VBE or similar (generic/rather slow) interface.
So don't say that it's Apple's fault that there are fewer pieces of hardware immediately available for it. 'Cos it's not.
But I think that wasn't the point in the post but hardware that is usable under mac.
_________________________

--
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by mr3038 · 2000-05-19 05:48 · Score: 1

Modems? Video cards?
I cannot believe that you are telling that if I buy a "winmodem" or any video card from local store it works under MacOS.
Show me a mac that can use, say GeForce2 or G450 as it's video card (with acceleration, not in basic (S)VGA mode!) and any software modem. Suddenly it seems that Apple isn't manufacturing all those parts you were listing...
I'm pretty sure that linux/x86 can support more hardware than MacOS/ppc. (btw, I think that listing those hard disk types as an example is simply naive because all of those are using standard protocolls. It's the same as saying that my NE2000 10Mbps ethernet card works with my friend 3Com card in the same net *only* because I'm running superior linux operating system!)
_________________________

--
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by cpt+kangarooski · 2000-05-19 06:24 · Score: 1

Yep. That's the trick.

MacOS has some generic drivers. When you plug in a video card designed for those drivers it will just work. (The drivers are pretty good though, and can handle quite a bit) If the hardware isn't sufficiently similar to what the driver supports, the manufacturer needs to write a driver. And even for cards that do work out of the box, drivers are usually needed for special features. This is nothing unusual.

You don't honestly think that Microsoft writes all the drivers for IBM hardware do you? They do their own, they probably do some generic ones, and they write specs for other people to follow. Rather like Apple.

Apple also publishes specs. If a hardware manufacturer doesn't write a MacOS driver, it's a problem to complain to them about - they're capable of doing it. It is not a problem to lay at Apple's door. They are not in that business, nor should they be.

Or you can follow the Linux route, and develop your own driver. With some knowledge of Mac system programming and open specs on hardware you too can create a driver. Not really different than what Linux folks already do.

But it's not a HARDWARE issue. Macs have frickin' PCI and AGP slots. Things plug in just fine. It's just a matter of who wants to support some given market. Apple does not control what hardware is compatable with their systems. HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS do that. So don't say that it's Apple's fault that there are fewer pieces of hardware immediately available for it. 'Cos it's not.

Additionally, I am perfectly aware that Apple is not the secret master of the hw world. In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. Duh.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by cpt+kangarooski · 2000-05-20 04:39 · Score: 1

Millenium had said:

Ah, but there are many disadvantages also. Hardware is very different from software; openness doesn't have the same benefits and drawbacks as it does with software. Point one: the multiplicity of useless drivers. If I want to use a video card in a Mac, I plug it in and it works. Ditto for projectors, input devices, et cetera, even when made by many different companies. You can't do that in any other OS I know. USB was a step in the right direction, but it's still not enough. This is the disadvantage from having a too-open platform, one where no standards were ever defined.

To which an AC replied:

And in exchange, you get less choice in devices to run on your system. The reason everything "works" when plugged into the Mac is because everything is controlled by Apple.

So the initial argument (which glosses over the fact that there's still got to be a driver in there someplace) was that hardware (supported by the generic Apple driver) just works.

I honestly kind of doubt that Millenium has done this very much. Every video card I've ever seen on the Mac *other* than the ones that Apple itself uses has had additional drivers to do anything more than the generic driver supports.

But even though this is a mildly crappy argument - yes most hardware should be able to use the generic driver at the very least - the AC made the outrageous claim that the lack of drivers was somehow Apple's fault. I was pointing out that Apple has no control over this. Neither does Microsoft, or Linus. It's all manufacturers.

(I mean, you wouldn't go out and buy a piece of Mac only hardware either? Nothing weird about it either way)

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by iso · 2000-05-18 23:39 · Score: 1

Once you've owned one, you understand. It really is worth the money. well, as an x86 user for almost 15 years, i bought a PowerBook G3 266 used in September -- more out of curiousity than anything. this is already dated hardware when i bought it (it was new in late 1998).

all i can say is that the man who wrote this message quoted above is 100% right. you get what you pay for, and i can't really see myself spending any serious cash (even over around $500) on anything PC-related these days. trust me, it's a joy to use a Mac. and this will only get better when MacOS X matures.

- j
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by banky · 2000-05-18 23:48 · Score: 1

Once you've owned one, you understand. It really is worth the money.
I have to agree strongly here. While I adore my PIII powerhouse Linux machine, I'm on a Mac crusade. My experiences so far have been exteremly pleasant.
However my problem is this: despite the OSX Carbon layer (its carbon thats the 'emulation' layer, right?) I want native apps. And not just high-end rendering things, I mean, Office 2k and so forth, and I want them native, not pumped through a new API (I don't trust MS enough to learn an API that isn't theirs). We're seriously looking at some Mac hardware, but its gotta run that killer app of killer apps, Office.

--
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Re:What the hell are you talking about? by HeghmoH · 2000-05-19 00:06 · Score: 3

Carbon and classic are similar APIs, but extroardinarily different implementations. Classic runs regular ol' MacOS 9 in a little box tucked away in a corner. This falls under the category of ugly-hack-that-work-fairly-well. Carbon is the MacOS 9 API with the old cruft removed. The API isn't as modern as it could be, but programs written to use it will run native and happy. Cocoa is the fully object-oriented API that MacOS X inherented from OpenStep. It's supposedly far superior for writing programs with, but to the user it won't make much difference.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

I agree by subtraho · 2000-05-18 21:46 · Score: 1

Nice point :) Form should follow function, not the reverse. I'm glad that other here people realize that doesn't mean a return to boring beige boxes of the past. ( I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn't support the iMacization of technology) Really, the one "new" design I actually like is that of those new Sony boxes with LCD screens and a smaller detachable "CPU" unit that only contains the HD and electronics, with disc drives elsewhere. Simple, clean, and elegant - a perfect design philosophy, in my book.

--
-subtraho

Re:I agree by Rand+Race · 2000-05-18 22:49 · Score: 1

While I am no fan of the iMac (although the convection cooling in the DVs is cool... heh), I consider the G3/G4 translucent cases to be one of the finest designed cases of all time. Yank the power cord out, lift the handle, and every thing is right there. No unscrewing, no sliding panels, and best of all no cutting your hands to ribbons on sharp metal edges. Kicks my Enlite case all to hell and back... and I like my enlite.
Didn't some IBM aptivas have the seperate drives? If I remember correctly the CD performance took a huge hit, but Firewire (Doesn't Sony call it iLink?) ought to fix that.

--
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.

MacOS vs. Linux vs. Windows by iso · 2000-05-19 14:23 · Score: 1

despite all the debate, this whole ordeal comes down to one simple decision:

when i'm drunk, which operating system can i use?

windows? i don't think so. linux? hah! you've GOT to be kidding. MacOS? bingo.

let's face it. everytime i'm shitfaced beyond belief, i chose the MacOS. i figure this is a fair estimate to what "normal" people would choose on a regular basis. for me, the simplest, most elegant interface when i'm drunk is the MacOS; hands down.

MacOS it is: they still have the most elegant, intuitive interface in the business. long live Apple!!

- j :)

Re: MacOS vs. Linux vs. Windows by James_Rolevink · 2000-05-19 17:53 · Score: 1

Genius! Sheer genius!

I have never thought about it like this before, but you are spot on.

I think I've just had an epiphany (or is it heart burn? No, it's an epiphany); this is how they should test all OS claims of superiority.

Just for this, I am going to pour me a glass of fine South Australian brandy and dry (and then play Heroes of Might and Magic III with the g/f)!

Re:Quartz is Adobe's baby (incorrect) by MacOSNeedsDeath · 2000-05-19 05:20 · Score: 2

Apple developed Quartz from the PDF specs, entirely in-house. There was no interaction with Adobe. Repeat: Adobe has no rights to the code. I was told, way back, that Quartz was developed for the express purpose of eliminating the licensing fees required for Display Postscript. I would conjecture an Apple/Adobe collaboration could never have developed a complex graphics technology within a decade, let alone the short time frame the Quartz guys managed. Too many (differently arrogant) cooks.

Why macs work.... by Ukab+the+Great · 2000-05-19 15:11 · Score: 1

Several reasons.

1. Superior driver support. How do you install hardware on the mac? The the extension for the hardare that the hardware vendor gives you and put it into the extensions folder. Then Reboot. That's it. No wading through half-assed autodetect procedures that usually lead you to installing the driver manually , no tinkering around with modules. Just pop the device driver in the extensions folder. So simple a concept that it's ridiculously effective.

2. Protected Configuration (kinda of like protected memory). Linux has this but windows doesn't. Basically, its the concept of each program/executable having it's own configuration file, as opposed to cramming all the configuration data for many programs into a single file (a la windows registry). One executable, one set of configuration data. Period. Under the system of protected configuation, if there's a bad write that corrupts the configuration data for one program, configuration data for another program isn't going to be blown to smithereens. Making the mac's configuration system even more effective, any time that a program's configuration file is deleted, when the program is launched again, it regenerates a new configuration file. Most all mac programs are engineered such in a way that the non-existance of a configuration file will not preclude that program from running. Do an experiment. Delete the preferences folder on a mac, go into your unix machine and type "rm -rf /etc" and under windows, drag system.dat into the nice recycle bin and delete it. Reboot all the systems. See which one does the best job of "operating within normal parameters".

3. Lack of shared code. Shared code has a wonderful capacity for screwing things up. When stuff is allowed to mess with other stuff, bad stuff usually happens. On the mac (at least pre OS-x) a lot of stuff is statically linked. Yes, that means more ram/hard disk spaced used, but that almost means almost zero chance of a program install killing another program or a previous program precluding use of a new program. And most regular (i.e. non-power) users, given the choice of either being able to painlessly install and deinstall as much software as they want or having the software use less resources, they will always choose the painless install/deinstall. "Those who think statically link. For user panic, link dynamic".

4. Desktop database/dual forked system. This insures that no matter how much you might move executables/other crap around in your mac's filesystem, they'll still work. It also means that you can give your damn file *any* name with any character (barring the colon) and it will eternally be recognized as a certain type of file belonging to a specific application. There's no "I must keep it in this path/folder or else" like there is with windows and linux. No filename extensions, no mime fiddling(of the street performing or e-mail variety). If this filesytem database is ever completely corrupted, it can be completely rebuilt from scratch. As with the "no shared code" bit, the dual forked, database file system carries with it a performance (notice all that clutter see when you copy a file from a mac onto a windows-formatted floppy, and then read it with windows/linux") but it is an engineering trade off that insures that stuff will work properly.

huh? by subtraho · 2000-05-18 21:49 · Score: 1

I see someone forgot to take their Ritalin this morning.

--
-subtraho

Same Old Mistakes by Tal+Cohen · 2000-05-18 21:49 · Score: 5

I'll start by saying that I'm not, and never was, a MacOS user. During the OS Wars, I was in the OS/2 camp. Nowadays, much like IBM, I'm OS-agnostic. I use NT, Linux, and Solaris.

I took a look at the screenshots. Wow, such eye candy! The screens are beautiful. The design looks fantastic.

But... don't people ever learn? Usability is more important than good-looks. In fact, one does not have to replace the other. But the designers of this OS made at lease one big mistake.

Recall Donald A. Norman's The Design of Everyday Things. He praised the Mac interface there -- back then, the prominent GUI in a world of Unix and DOS. But he also made (elsewhere in the book) an important distinction between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. The more a design relies on knowledge in the head, the less usable it is.

What turned the alarm lights for me where the four colored buttons on each window. One red, one yellow, one green and one grey. My guess is that one opens the system menu, one minimizes, onr maximizes, and one closes the application.

But which is which? You have no way to know except by experimenting; and you have to remember. Knowledge has to reside in the head. Bad.

Other OSes are not so great in this respect, mind you. In Windows (9x, NT 4 and 2000) the close button is obvious, the min/max buttons are fairly obvious, and the system menu button is obscure (the program's icon does not even look like a menu! Think about it -- most novice users would never consider clicking it.) OS/2 and Linux (KDE) are pretty much on the same level. In fact, the most intuitive buttons I've ever seen for these purposes are... the Windows 3.x buttons. Minimize is a down-arrow, maximize is an up-arrow, and the system menu looks (almost) like a button.

Just a point for thought. Looks should not damage usability. With those nifty-looking colored buttons, I'm afraid they do (for novices, in this case).

--
- Tal Cohen

Re:Same Old Mistakes by Ranger+Nik · 2000-05-19 05:42 · Score: 2

to sum up the previous post: it's beautiful - so it can't be any good.

don't people ever learn? usability and good looks are orthagonal - but i am going to like the good looking interface better.

think about cars. some are pretty. some are ugly. some are practical. some are not. one has nothing to do with the other. the best ones are BOTH pretty and practical.

all other things being equal, i still like the pretty ones better. some times, i even take a slight hit in usability just for the good looks. i appreciate good (and by that i mean pleasant to look at) design.

that looks adversely affect usability is an assumption that comes from way back when, when people thought that GUIs were just pretty faces and "serious work" could only be done with ugly, text-based CLIs. it's complete BS. the argument is so old, it's not even funny.

in all other consumer goods, design is a major factor. why should it be different for your OS??

Looks should not damage usability. With those nifty-looking colored buttons, I'm afraid they do (for novices, in this case).

i hate those lame-o "warning" voices! who said nifty-colored buttons are hard to use for novices? how many "novices" did you ask? the truth is, they are different from what you know, they are new, and therefore you have this inherent resistance. you are a design conservative, nothing else. that's fine and i don't mind it - but don't bring fake arguments. next thing, you will say it's bad for the children!
your so-called novices would probably not even notice that these buttons are "hard to use".

oh, and as for don norman and his excellent book: as excellent as it is, it is not, and was never meant to be, a bible. it is pretty old by now and has to be read keeping this fact in mind. the UI challenges back then were inherently different from today's. basic computer knowledge is prevalent nowadays, and no-one will have trouble closing a window any more. many standard GUI metaphors have become "knowledge in the world", just because people got used to them.
Re:Same Old Mistakes by Phroggy · 2000-05-19 06:22 · Score: 1

The biggest problem *I* see with the new layout is that the three buttons are close together, and the "single window" button is retarded. I wish they'd just drop that one, because it wastes prime real estate and is worthless to anyone who's used a computer for more than a few months.

The single window feature is a good idea for newbies, as a replacement for the System 7.5 Launcher, Mac OS 8/9's View as Buttons, and the "Hide other apps when switching applications" option in the General control panel that evolved from the retarded System 7.1P on the old Performas. However, the single window button is moronic - the option should be delegated to a Preferences panel so I can set it once and never have to look at it again.

Putting a system-wide preference option in every single window is a stupid waste of space and adds to the clutter of the UI.

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Same Old Mistakes by Phroggy · 2000-05-19 06:25 · Score: 1

Maybe Apple should include freecell and change the trash can to the recycle bin so that OSX is a little more intuative for everybody.

Maybe it's just me, but I find Freecell to be much less intuitive than the Jigsaw Puzzle. ;-)

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Same Old Mistakes by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-18 22:20 · Score: 1

One red, one yellow, one green and one grey. My guess is that one opens the system menu, one minimizes, onr maximizes, and one closes the application.
Close. The "system menu" guess is wrong -- the fourth is somethign Apple calls "Single window mode". This is the grey one and I'll leave this out of the argument, because I agree it is not intuitive. But which is which? You have no way to know except by experimenting; and you have to remember. Knowledge has to reside in the head. Bad. You didn't look closely enough. The buttons do a rollover as you approach them, revealing an X in the red button, a minus sign (-) in the yellow button, and a plus sign (+) in the green button. First, assmung you are not color blind and can understand the colors, let's make a guess at what the colors could mean? Red, Yellow, and Green together seem to suggest a traffic light metaphor. Thus, red means "Stop" -- "Stop showing me this window." - "Close window". The X symbol in the red button reminds you are closing the window. Compare this to the current MacOS, where the close button is a simple box. You say in Windows this is obvious, why, because it has an X? If so, then this is the same. Green has a + sign, and in the traffic light metaphor, means "Go" - "This window is where I wnat to go work". It maximizes. Yellow has a minus sign, and minimizes to the dock. This is more intutive than the current Mac OS. I'd keep the symbols on all the time and not rely on a rollover myself, but it's not as bad as you suggest.
Re:Same Old Mistakes by gig · 2000-05-22 00:13 · Score: 1

> Look at the widgets in Win3.1
> Close is a minus sign. Pretty obvious to
> any 6-y.o.

Actually, the close box on Win3.1 is a "spacebar" on parent windows, and a "dash" on child windows. It's a key shortcut: Alt+Spacebar shows the parent window's window menu, and Alt+dash shows the child window's menu.

> Look at the widgets in Win95/98

If you've seen NeXTSTEP, you know why Apple can't have the Windows 95 widgets BACK for use in OS X. The Windows 95 team borrowed heavily from NeXT.
Re:Same Old Mistakes by jezzball · 2000-05-18 22:56 · Score: 2

What turned the alarm lights for me where the four colored buttons on each window. One red, one yellow, one green and one grey. My guess is that one opens the system menu, one minimizes, onr maximizes, and one closes the application.

But which is which? You have no way to know except by experimenting; and you have to remember. Knowledge has to reside in the head. Bad.

Actually, the buttons overlay images when you mouseover them. Still not the best, but when you go over a button, it looks like the close button, etc.

Just my .02 - I'd still prefer the images there all the time.

ls: .sig: File not found.

--
ls: .sig: File not found.
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
Re:Same Old Mistakes by ChristTrekker · 2000-05-18 22:58 · Score: 3

The mouseover states mean that you have to mouse over them to get that info. A UI that requires interaction to get basic information isn't doing its job.

The "traffic light" metaphor is not the best. What does it mean to "go" a window, or "yield" it, or "stop" it? The metaphor does not directly relate to the object in question here (the window). A traffic light has three states and the window has three actions. That's about the extent of the similarity.

Look at the widgets in MacOS 8/9.
Close is a blank widget. No box, no window.
Max/min toggle is two different sized boxes nexted. Signifies the two sizes you toggle between by clicking it.
Windowshade (minimize) looks like a window with a title bar. Again it signifies the two states you toggle between.

Look at the widgets in Win3.1
Close is a minus sign. Pretty obvious to any 6-y.o.
Maximize is an up arrow. Makes the window bigger.
Minimize is a down arrow. Makes the window smaller.

Look at the widgets in Win95/98, even though their placement so close together is bad. I've misclicked too many times.
Close is an X, which is pretty intuitive, too!
Minimize looks like a button in the task bar, very small.
Full-screen/multi-window toggle button is the least intuitive until you try it, just as bad as the OS X color coded buttons.

Give users a picture, don't expect them to remember the associations of which color does what. Pictures are best. If you want to color code in addition to that, fine, but don't make it the primary distinguishing feature.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:Same Old Mistakes by doce · 2000-05-18 23:04 · Score: 1

What turned the alarm lights for me where the four colored buttons on each window. One red, one yellow, one green and one grey. My guess is that one opens the system menu, one minimizes, onr maximizes, and one closes the application.

and this is different from all current OS's in what manner? Currently, Mac OS has 3 buttons... one is a square, the next is a square with another square inside it, and the last is a square with 2 horizontal lines in it. But which is which? This has been the convention since System 1 (with the last, horizontal stripped button added in System 7.5). But how do I know which is which?

12 years ago, I experiemented, put the "knowledge in my head." Colored buttons? Buttons with crude markers in them? I see no difference. I'll learn that Red means "close" the same way I learned that the square with no markers means "close."

--
woof!
Re:Same Old Mistakes by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 00:04 · Score: 1

Color is far more important than glyphs for recognition. Given a document, for example, the first thing the human brain will recognize and emphasize is color, which is why it is important not to splatter lots of colors all over documents and webpages - its confusing.

Using your example of Windows buttons, they are the same shape (square), the same color (gray), and contain glyphs. However, because of their first two qualities, they do not stand out against an application window or really against anything at all. They blend in.

The buttons for OSX are candy colored and easily recognizable. What they do is not -immediately- known, but putting the mouse over them will present a glyph much like the Windows buttons you are used to. Assuming that can memorize the meanings of a traffic light, you can probably do just as well here - if not, do a mouseover.

The point is not that the buttons are not instantly learnable, but that they are instantly recognizable, and once you -do- know what they do (which will take all of five seconds to figure out), there is most likely a decrease in the amount of time it takes to effectively use the buttons in everyday work.
Re:Same Old Mistakes by doce · 2000-05-19 00:07 · Score: 1

I also STRONGLY wish they would give in to those people who have to use OTHER OS systems, and mirror image those buttons... putting the close in the upper RIGHT where it is in most other windowing systems. Or at least give you an option of flipping the controls to the other side (it wouldn't be so hard to do, would it?? And the added customization could be sold as a benefit for left-handed v.s. right-handed people!)

There are several GUI enhancements that allow you to do this in OS 9 and earlier, the best of which is <a href="http://www.kaleidoscope.net">Kaleidoscope.</ a> As an aside, my G3 runs OS 9.0.4 (the latest) but anyone who walks by my desk sees what looks like System 6.0.3... Kaleidoscope allows you to completely change the GUI, and is popular enough that I would be very surprised if it's not ported to OS X.

--
woof!

You just fall into the trap of bad ergonomics by Seraphin · 2000-05-19 05:32 · Score: 1

An interface that beginners are quicker to use to do some basic stuff is not necessery an interface where experienced users (like people working everyday with it) will be efficient using!

Basic things should be made implicit and the least intrusive as possible, just clearly recognizable. This is what makes it hard for beginners, but let experienced users concentrate on the task at hand.

More to the point, numerous studies have proven that the brain works quicker by reflex when it comes to simple, repetitive tasks, so flooding it with useless and repetitive information just forces it to revert to "conscious" mode, tiring it, decreasing its performances and wasting energy. A good test to that: try to walk down a staircase by consciously thinking every move of your legs. You'll notice it is very hard not to fall.

Aqua will seem tough for first time users. But as they get used to it, they'll find that they work better and quicker. And then, when they will work again on win95 or Xwindow, they have in impression of being slowed down by something they cannot easily describe.

That's precisly my user experience with NeXTSTEP, which I still use to browse the web, as it let me work much faster. Nevertheless, I clearly remember spending the first week bitching at my friend who had installed it on my computer.

Heck! You don't find a "prull down" sign written on all doorknobs in your house, isn't it?

Re:Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder by new500 · 2000-05-18 21:52 · Score: 2

as it happens you may be wrong regards "network oriented tasks and graphics". I used to use macs exclusively, for design / layout / everything. First the quality of the supporting media (e.g. Smackworld ecause of their obvious habit of getting high before atempting any review - and its competitor Crackuser likewise) sucked, then the sheer droning of designers in general justifying themselves with an identity linked to the presumed - an dfor a while confirmed - superiority of their machines, this last bit made me want to suffer Windoze more than stick around with crappy overpriced hardware.

This article which i linked to already is a indictment of Apple's complacency. It also suppports why you ar eright, about building an intel box may be better, but does not confirm your thought that IRIX on MIPS is equally worth eschewing. SGI is all about custom graphics hardware, backplanes bandwidth and the like. Much of their stuff will just cream a G4, no matter how pretty the latter might be.

What this screams to me is that Apple is yet again delusioned in thinking its core markets are designers and graphic pros. If RealWorld Tech is right in their analysis, it is precisely the same as APPLs desired target market WHO SHOULD IN FACT CONSIDRE ANOTHER COMPUTER. Can no one whip Color Sync and get good font handling. Will RealDesigners one day finally use DisplayTeX?

You are also right in finally saying that unless you are "image conscious" - i.e. want an iMac (stupid name for anything that) you may be out of the running for APPL these days. If the high end of their desired market will hit on Intel or another arch altogether and they ream ppl on price, they HAVE to offer something really exceptional in their hardware. Underlying tech aside, there is no OS I should rather use. (especially if they reverted to ver 6.1 :) Regards your comment about networking performance, I should only hope that BSD internal actually does show some performance. But I have no evidence to support any other thinking re that.

Do read that artic le its a sad and timely remider that maybe,just maybe APPL is still a difficult case we should be wary of.

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by Halo1 · 2000-05-18 21:58 · Score: 4

While I'm sure the author of the article has some points, keep in mind that none of the benchmarks (except maybe the memory bandwidth one) take AltiVec into acount. And before you shout "there are almost no apps that take advantage of it anyway!", think about it that Apple is integrating AltiVec optimizations in about every component of MacOS X: QuickTime, OpenGL, Quartz, sound manager, memory manager etc., which means that every app will benefit of it.

And if you are shocked that Apple's commercials are misleading, it's indeed time to wake up. You didn't really believe that if you drink Fanta(tm), everything suddely becomes fun, right? Apple's claims are no lies (it is quite possible to get 2GFlops of sustained performance), but they're not necessarily relevant to you either (how often do you have to do tons of single precision FPU calculations with an AltiVec optimized application?) As usual, the thruth lies somewhere in the middle...

And personnally, I think that when you buy a Mac, you not only buy it for the raw performance, but because of (and some of the following may or may not apply to you) the OS, the GUI, the casing, Steve Jobs' showmaker capabilities, the fact that most people have a PC, the fact that you want to run most "common/known" software titles without needing Windows (well, there's always WINE under Linux of course), ... Whatever.

--

--
Donate free food here

another gui with jolly, candy-like buttons... yawn by Sebastopol · 2000-05-19 05:42 · Score: 1

Ok, looks really artistic and professional: I really dig the translucent thing. But where is the value added? Every freakin' paradigm is still the same as Windows/MacOS/Motif/Fvwm/Solaris/Gnome, just fruitier!

1. How do you like your Icons? Big or Small?
2. ...List or details?
3. What color do you want your background?
4. ..Your hilighted selection?
5. What font should the icon text be?
6. What font should the window text be?
7. Do you fold or crumple your toilet paper?

Argh. Just once I'd like to see new GUI that demonstrates a FRACTION of the abstraction as measured by the delta between a CP/M command-line and the original Xerox desktop.

It's like pop music.

...but still... i can't resist those jolly candylike buttons...

URGE... TO... LICK... SCREEN... TOO... STRONG!!!

---

--
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested

general mailaise, specific malaise by new500 · 2000-05-18 22:00 · Score: 2

I used to use macs exclusively, for design / layout / everything. First the quality of the supporting media (e.g. Smackworld ecause of their obvious habit of getting high before attempting any review - and its competitor Crackuser likewise) sucked, then the sheer droning of designers in general justifying themselves with an identity linked to the presumed - and for a while confirmed - superiority of their machines, this last bit made me want to suffer Windoze more than stick around with crappy overpriced hardware.

This article which i linked to already is a indictment of Apple's complacency. It also suppports why you are right, that building an intel box may be better, but does not confirm your thought that IRIX on MIPS is equally worth eschewing. SGI is all about custom graphics hardware, backplanes bandwidth and the like. Most of their stuff, even from a few yrs ago, will just cream a G4, no matter how pretty the latter might be.

What this screams out to me is that Apple is yet again delusioned in thinking its core markets are designers and graphic pros. If RealWorld Tech is right in their analysis, it is precisely the same as APPLs desired target market WHO SHOULD IN FACT CONSIDER ANOTHER COMPUTER. Can no one whip Color Sync and get good font handling. Will RealDesigners one day finally use DisplayTeX?

You are also right in finally saying that unless you are "image conscious" - i.e. want an iMac (stupid name for anything that) you may be out of the running for APPL these days. If the high end of their desired market will hit on Intel or another arch altogether and they ream ppl on price, they HAVE to offer something really exceptional in their hardware. Underlying tech aside, there is no OS I should rather use. (especially if they reverted to ver 6.1 :) Regarding your comment about networking performance, I should only hope that BSD internal actually does show some performance. But I have no evidence to support any other thinking re that.

If APPL should do anything its what they should have done a long while ago - focus on making smart low form factor expadables (pizza boxen like the PowerMac 6100) for business users, and big ugly beasts for designers w/ like 12 PCI slots, preferable 64bit. I miss the build quality of the older tower Macs. They felt so good to have deskside. I want this feeling back - not shiny G4 shells - and I am prepared to pay for it

Do read that artic le its a sad and timely remider that maybe,just maybe APPL is still a difficult case we should be wary of.

sincere? by new500 · 2000-05-19 21:06 · Score: 1

There is some inherent conflict in my post. Reading from your other posts you are intelligently and strongly advocating the present circustances with Apple. I do not disagree, and tend to look fondly on the platform and company. But I have strong reservations. I dont want to slate Apple, and so critical view may not appear to fit with this.

How you can guess at my sincerity though I do not know. Can you please be specific about what concerns you enough to question my position?

I am quite open to the idea that the rosy tinted spectacles of my first experiences with computing on Macs does not equate with the perspective of a - now - somewhat more knowledgable user whose needs may be tantalisingly close to being met by the current Apple plans, but who is conscious of a need to run very large back end production apps an wants to do so on the same platform if possible.

In this way I am possibly acting "spoilt" and "want to have it all" But given that Apple so vehemently states that design, including design for print are its key markets (outside iMac, maybe), am I wrong in criticising points where Apple may be tardy on support for particular subsets of these user types? (users who would like to see the architecture scale to v. high end jobs to include e.g. RIPing and separations w/out needign dedicated separate hardware such as FIERY to gain throughput)

social responsibility? by new500 · 2000-05-19 21:17 · Score: 1

Fear not some draconian measure, at least not from me

But wouldnt you want to think that companies might *think* that way (i.e. consciously about their effect on everyone else) just occasionally?

Re:you said it! by Phroggy · 2000-05-19 06:01 · Score: 1

I use Kaleidoscope on my Mac, and use the Win3.1 scheme more than the Win95/98 schemes.

Are you saying you use Kaleidoscope to make your Mac look like Windows 3.1? WHY?!? There are some very pretty themes out there, many of which are at least as functional and almost all of which are prettier than the Windows 3.1 GUI.

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Flamebait? by superlame · 2000-05-18 22:01 · Score: 1

How the heck did that message warrent being labeled flame bait? Off topic maybe, but flame bait?

--
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by KirkH · 2000-05-18 22:02 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what advertising you're bummed about. Apple's current line of G4's *still* outperform the top PCs in certain applications. And CISC is inherently inferior to RISC...but Intel and AMD were smart enough to borrow design ideas from RISC chips to continue improving their CISC/RISC frankenstein architecture. Sure, Apple will always paint themselves in the best light possible; what company wouldn't? But they're not as bad off as all that. Certainly they're hurting in the MHz war, perceived performance, and actual performance in some cases. Hell, they've been stuck at 450/500 MHz "forever" -- it's not secret. But the move to the G4+ chips are a smart one, IMO. They realize that they need to match Wintel in MHz. Look for the machines to (hopefully) debut in January alongside Mac OS X. I'll pick one up then, if they do. Of course, there's always the chance that the G4+ won't be able to keep up with the rapidly advancing Intel and AMD chips. But does anyone here not believe the rumors that Apple's porting Mac OS X to x86?

Re:you said it! by Phroggy · 2000-05-19 06:08 · Score: 1

oh yeah, also...

A file browser is OK I guess, but I'd prefer if the current browsing system was an option too.

Apparently they're working on it; this is one of the things that DP4 does that's been improved from DP3. You can set it so the Finder behaves roughly like the old Mac OS Finder we all know and love, though the default behavior will be more like Greg's Browser (an old shareware app by Greg Landweber, the guy who wrote Kaleidoscope).

The trash on the desktop, though, is a problem, IMHO. Not showing hard drives on the desktop is annoying too, although at least removable media (CD-ROMs, etc.) shows up on the desktop now (so I've heard). Hopefully we'll have some choice about this; I can see how some users would prefer the Trash in the Dock, so I guess you should be able to drag it back and forth.

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

spelling by new500 · 2000-05-19 21:22 · Score: 1

That's all right ppal,

Unfortunately my co- ordination is adversely affected by a recent nervous condition, which might explain also the somewhat shrill overtones of my posts

Mea Culpa - or is is Mea Carpel?

Re:from the but-only-one-mouse-button dept. by NTSwerver · 2000-05-18 22:03 · Score: 1

Oh, please! Enough with the "One Mouse Button" already!

--
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by x1r0k3wl · 2000-05-18 22:04 · Score: 1

I wouldn't put too much faith in that article. The author was quite obviously biased (he set out to prove how bad macs were, instead of doing an study on which machine was really more powerful). Not to mention the fact that it reads like a paper you could find in a 10th grade Computer Science class.

You can find plenty of benchmarks and statistics on the web that will tell you whatever you want to hear about the wintel/macintosh debate. The bottom line is: simply pick the system that's right for you. Don't buy a system just because some asshole releases some amazing new benchmark. Actually go to a computer store (I know, this may be a stretch... but hear me out, you can still order the blasted thing online if you want) and sit down with the systems that you're considering. Try out MacOS X. Launch Netscape/IE/whatever. Fire up Quake 3. Click around. Get a feel for it. Go over to the Windows section and find the PIII/Althon that you're considering. Do the same. Now forgetting all the benchmarks, hype, and marketing crap, which do you want?

Even if you somehow stumble across the fastest PC in the world, it will be outdated in a couple of months. Last summer I purchased a 550 mhz PIII. They're coming out with ones twice that speed now. I'm still blown away by the performance of this machine. Remember that computer speed is relative, not to other computers, but to what you need.

Cheers,

x1r0k3wl

dumb comment about yer sig by Potatoswatter · 2000-05-19 22:25 · Score: 1

sorry to be so anal, but I've seen your .sig a few times, and shouldn't that be Linux.SwitchTo(); ?

Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0

--

Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra

Nextstep by superlame · 2000-05-18 22:04 · Score: 1

Is it just me, or does it look like Apple is reverting the dock back to what it was like under nextstep (except on the bottom instead of top right corner)?

The UI changes look really promising. I can't wait to come into an unexpected $2k that that I can buy myself a Mac and get a copy of OS X.

--
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/

Watch them take this down. by yerricde · 2000-05-19 06:23 · Score: 2

They've had websites using the look taken down. They've had themes removed from themes.org

Played Vitamins lately? It's a clone of Nintendo's Dr. Mario(TM) with an Aqua-like theme. Works on DOS, Windows 9x, and X11; includes Windows binaries. And it comes with a default theme "Aqua" that looks like Mac OS 10's default theme by the same name.

"I'm a Barbie girl in a Barbie world."

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Yes and no. by Potatoswatter · 2000-05-19 22:32 · Score: 1

It displays an ad from whatever search engine returned the page that's selected in the upper part of the window. If the image hasn't loaded from that engine, or there's no selection, it displays an ad from Apple.

Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0

--

Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra

yer not stuck w/ Aqua by Potatoswatter · 2000-05-19 22:41 · Score: 1

A point missed in this discussion is that Aqua is essentially just a skin designed to show off the power of Quartz. You can remove it, even w/o tools like ResEdit, to get an interface like MacOS 8/9's Platinum, or, presumably, replace it with a skin of your own choosing.

Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0

--

Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra

Re:Quartz is Adobe's baby (incorrect) by maggard · 2000-05-20 00:02 · Score: 1

I don't beleive Adobe & Apple wouldn't collaborate on this. Specs are great things but until they're implelemented no-one knows just how complete they are (or not.) Apple the first company doing a GUI rendering layer based on PDF and I can't believe Adobe has all of the answers required all laid out, or even knows all of the answers internally yet.

Rather I expect there was a daily stream of email between the Quartz/Aqua folks at Apple and the PDF folks at Adobe. I'll even bet there were a few Adobe staffers stationed at Apple for quick response time.

Furthermore there's a hell of a lot of patented material in this area - I'd be amazed if Apple didn't have to sign not a few agreements to get to use Adobe's material (sure the spec say "do this then that with alpha-blended layer using a strangename-algorithm" but guess who has the rights to algorithm, or has the optimal code snippet, etc?

--
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.

Re:Aqua & X11 by be-fan · 2000-05-20 02:02 · Score: 2

No, compressed postscript is just that, compressed postscript. PDF is an entirely new open standard that is heavily based in PostScript. It doesn't, however, carray a lot of the full fleged language capabilities of postscript, it has a better color matching model, and most importantly YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ADOBE TO IMPLMENENT IT!

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

What the hell are you talking about? by Millennium · 2000-05-18 22:18 · Score: 5

However, with the availability of Photoshop, Lightwave/3D Studio (which do not run on Macs), etc. for the PC has rendered (no pun intended) the Mac inferior.

Strange. Very strange indeed. I know where I can get all of these for MacOS.

With the selection of PC 3D cards being far superior to that of Mac cards, I do not see the Mac regaining much market share in the professional graphics market.

You know nothing about graphics, apparently. 3D cards have absolutely nothing to do with professional 3D graphics. Professional 3D graphics use raytracing renderers, which deliver the best quality you can get but are very slow. 3D cards use scanline renderers, which are much faster but give lesser quality (however, the quality is still easily enough for games). But because that's not used in professional 3D graphics, the fastest 3D card in the world makes no difference at all for pro stuff.

By building an Intel/AMD machine out of used/new parts that I can buy on Ebay, I can build a dual PIII Xeon for a fraction of what the high end Macs are selling for.

And you'll get what you pay for: questionable hardware reliability and zero support. Building one's own computer is a very effective cost-cutting measure, but there are things that really are better left to the pros even if they are doable by amateurs.

The fact is that the performance of a comparably priced Intel/AMD machine will almost always be superior to that of the Mac.

Not true in the least. To get the performance of a high-end Mac, you need a high-end PC. Further, the things you'll require as add-ons, and let's not forget the added costs in time when it comes to setup, render them much more expensive in the end. You don't see the cost right away, of course, because the "sticker price" is lower.

It should also be noted that the average useful life of a Mac is four years (and personally, most of the Macs I've seen tend to last seven). The average useful life of a PC is only two. So in the time you use a single Mac, you'll have on average bought two, and often three, PC's. Macs may be more expensive, but they aren't that much more so.

That is the benefit of having an open system architecture.

Ah, but there are many disadvantages also. Hardware is very different from software; openness doesn't have the same benefits and drawbacks as it does with software. Point one: the multiplicity of useless drivers. If I want to use a video card in a Mac, I plug it in and it works. Ditto for projectors, input devices, et cetera, even when made by many different companies. You can't do that in any other OS I know. USB was a step in the right direction, but it's still not enough. This is the disadvantage from having a too-open platform, one where no standards were ever defined.

Yes, having an open hardware platform has its advantages. But there are some very severe disadvantages also, ones which I don't believe the advantages outweigh, as they do for software. Just think, for a moment, at the Linux Kernel. The source download not tops twelve megabytes, most of it drivers. With only a little standards support, the driver set could have been streamlined, probably cutting the sive of the download by at least a third if not by half, with all the variety of devices we see today.

And let's not even go into IRQ's and such. That was simply an idea gone wrong, which Apple fixed in their PCI implementation.

You know, you're right. Macs' sticker prices are higher than those of PC's. But the fact is, they're better hardware, and they're worth more. I'd be willing to bet that well over 95% of the people who gripe over the Macs' price point have never even owned one, and it's probably closer to 99%. Once you've owned one, you understand. It really is worth the money.

Macs are great but.... by ice.bomb · 2000-05-20 03:08 · Score: 1

I'll prolly get flamed fer this but whatever...my take on macs is as follows: They're awesome "technically". They outperform equivalent PC machines all the time and they look great along with having one of the best OS's I've ever used. My biggest problem is that I'm an online game junky and that means you usually have to wait about a year before you get the same title that came out for a PC ported to a mac and I'm impatient. period. thats all that sucks about em, most companies bust out graphics and sound and design packages for macs easily, but the (most of) game industry is back in the shallow end of the pool afraid to take the plunge. It sucks, I run 3 boxes at home because of those sort of issues. I guess i just wish that there would be a unified standard for systems and OS's so that yer not stuck with various different architectures and whatnot. Maybe thats what we all need to do now...create standards for hardware and software which destroys the whole "my system is better than yours" crap that goes on. One type of computer based on the best traits of all the different types and then one OS based on the best traits of all the different OSs...some startrek shit here really, they don't have different computer systems in the future :)..Open source everything, hardware, software, everything that comprises the core of the system....companies still make money off of add on software (games, graphics, music, word processing, you name it)...but the box and the shell are all the same. If anyone knows of any sort of farsighted plans on action I'd like ta hear more about it, but honestly I'm pretty sure theres nothing of the sort....companies, and even the open source movement are too short sighted to pull something like this off. Everyone wants to own the market instead of the altruistic method of doing "the best for all involved"....anyway..thats my piece and if I can get my ass outta debt in time I'll be hoppin on the MP G4 bandwagon..alright...bye

--
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's

Re:Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder by Senjaz · 2000-05-18 22:26 · Score: 2

"The one area that Macs have always been appreciated is graphics work. However, with the availability of Photoshop, Lightwave/3D Studio (which do not run on Macs), etc. for the PC has rendered (no pun intended) the Mac inferior."

Erm, all of these applications are available on Apple Macintosh. Photoshop was 1st developed on the Mac plaform and due to the wider array of plug-ins for the platform the Mac remains the best platform to run Photoshop on.

"SGI machines reign at the high-end and Intel/AMD machines control the low end. With the selection of PC 3D cards being far superior to that of Mac cards, I do not see the Mac regaining much market share in the professional graphics market."

The new G4 Power Macs are so powerful that they provide enough power to rival far more expensive SGI boxes. Photoshop is optimised for Altivec and Lightwave is being optimised.

As for 3D graphics cards a large number of PC manufacturers have OEM deals with ATI and use the same cards that are used in Power Macs. Other 3D cards common in PCs such as voodoo based cards are designed for games and not serious 3D work, they have no baring on machines being used in the professional graphics market.

The only major graphics app missing on the Mac is Maya - however the MacOS X port was announced at WWDC 2000.

As for regaining market share in the professional graphics market - they never lost it! a very small number of users switched, most likely due to other company presures and not merits base on computing platforms.

"Unless you are targeting the style-conscious consumer (iMac), image and design will almost be less important than price/performance. C'mon Apple--build a better (and CHEAPER) mouse trap and we will come knocking at your door."

Apple macines have had a reputation for being expensive. Though this was once true it is no longer the case. True you can get cheaper PCs, than Macs but for price/performance you can't beat a PowerMac.

--
Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.

Re:you said it! by ChristTrekker · 2000-05-21 20:18 · Score: 1

I grabbed all the OS schemes from kaleidoscope.net just for giggles. I didn't say I particularly liked the look of Win3.1, just that it was more usable because of more intuitive widgets (compared to MacOS X).

All the Kal schemes are going to be functional. (They're all the same MacOS after all.) That's not the point though. Usability and functionality are different beasts. I think everyone would agree that *n*x is more functional (can do more) than MacOS, but MacOS is more usable.

--

Constitutionally Correct

Wrong! Thanks for playing... by toupsie · 2000-05-18 22:35 · Score: 2

You might want to head over to Apple and check out the 200+ developers that are already porting apps to MacOS X. But even if these guys did not exist, MacOS X will be able to run 99% of all previous MacOS applications in what is called the "Classic" environment. So stating that Be has more apps than an Alpha Version of MacOS X is just plain wrong. BeOS is no where close to the number of apps that MacOS X can run even though MacOS X has not been released to the general public.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Nice, but... by gig · 2000-05-22 00:25 · Score: 1

> And the speed things -- WinNT/2K does
> full window drag really fast, even with
> movies playing. At least on my box :-)

FYI ... there's no hardware graphics acceleration in Mac OS X, yet.

you said it! by ChristTrekker · 2000-05-18 22:39 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree with you more. If you have to remember how things work, that means you can forget how things work. The UI itself should tell you how it works. I think that Apple has taken a big step backward in the UI department. The first priority should have been just making the move to *n*x and leaving UI "refinements" until later. If they'd done that, maybe we'd have OS X already.

You're also right about the Win3.1 buttons. I use Kaleidoscope on my Mac, and use the Win3.1 scheme more than the Win95/98 schemes. The MacOS and Win95/98 widgets are probably about even, except the Mac has better placement. (Keep the close widget away from the others!)

AFAIC there's very little that needs to change from the way MacOS 8/9 worked. A real Trash can on the desktop, separate Apple/Application/Control menus instead of a Dock, spring-loaded icons, tabbed windows...these were all great features. A file browser is OK I guess, but I'd prefer if the current browsing system was an option too.

The one thing I'd add to the MacOS core UI would be virtual desktops. Multiple workspaces is something most Mac users could benefit from.

--

Constitutionally Correct

Re:you said it! by Phroggy · 2000-05-24 04:13 · Score: 1

Point taken.

--

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by new500 · 2000-05-18 22:40 · Score: 1

I suppose I didnt quite convey just the right amount of sarcasm in my post. I worked my life with ads, including selling and buying them and im acutely aware of the fact I should not feel hard done by if I am a little mislead. I may be an unusual case. I work with a medium I actually dislike in many discrete aspects. I emphasise the word *discrete* becaus eI dont want anyone thinking I'm just whinging here.

there is a widening cynicysm concerning consumer issues in much of the western world as far as I can see (US, Europe certainly. When you say that I should certianly wake up if I am shocked that APPls ads are misleading, you'd be right. It is a personal failing that I prolly give clients work much more scrutiny than I do ads I am reading in relation to possible personal purchases. Running my own business, there are fewer opportunities for ppl to sell me something I dont need or am not quite knowledgable about. so my edge remains.

But equally schocking was how I read implied in what you said the idea that WE SHOULDNOT BE OUTRAGED AT MISLEADING ADS. Im not saying you said exactly that. But it read as close. And I for one should feel indignant if anyone were to say a person should just get smart for being suckered by a misleading ad FOR A HIGHLY COMPLEX PIECE OF EQUIPMENT

This is simply because I believe that all companies should have a clera social responsibility towards the public in the presentation of such products. Given the vastly increasing proportion of the economy consumed in computing and telecoms, two o fth emost sophisticated businesses anywhere, I think there should eb a whole new level of thinking about these issues. Sorry, no solutions actually spring to mind. Only the thought that ppl should start to think about these things

$268bln of so each yr is spenton ads around the world, giving advertisers an immense influence. most every media you will ever read is influenced by the presence or absense of advertising. Whether a company acn make a misstatement or not in such a powerful way IS A SOCIAL ISSUE. Even if it is not - in my mind strangely - a criminal one because of th edamage which such action can do to the consumer and the economy

I am not so sure your truth is in fact "in the middle". You seem to have contracdicted yourself by asking "how often do you have to do tons of single precision FPU calculations with an AltiVec optimized application?" just as you earlier pointed out that a large part of the MacOS is going to be optimised for "Altivec". I should like to know further whether there is in fact scope to efficiently optimise such a wide range of procedures with SIMD issues. I do not think for a moment that efficiency is equiv to just issuing 2 instructions with each cycle.

I never thought fo ra moment to "shout "there are almost no apps that take advantage of it anyway!"", and appreciate that Adobe et.al. will recompile and optimise their code. (this time round, they will have to do this properly otherwise be left with apps running unprotected w/ no multitasking in the "BlueBox" compat mode, unlike the PPC changeover that left some co's dragging their heels to write PPC native code) In that article I suppose the point is that benchmarking Altivec optimisations is likely to be extremely hard. And will this kind of improvement swing the data hard up to the non - altivec deviation? If so it will have to be a large %ge improvement to succeed.Finally, I think the whole point is that - prolly Jobs "salesmanship" and ad agenency gloss aside - I TOO SHOULD LIKE a cleanly packaged balanced computer w/ nice casing. But notmaybe this one, not just yet anyway. No I take that last bit back. I still want one, but if APPLE just relies on an ephemeral mix of qqualities to pursue a business strategy aimed at a moving target of demnding perfoemance users and continues to fudge the definitions of what it is as a company, then it will have some painful times ahead once again.

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by cybercuzco · 2000-05-18 22:44 · Score: 3

Ive read the article you link to, and It says nothing about multiprocessing. The future of computers is not necesarily faster individual chips, but more of them. How many supercomputers run on a single chip? Apple is in a perfect position to exploit the MP market. At WWDC they did a demo with a prototype two processor job, and got something like 95 % increase in speed over a single processor, the best intel can do is a 75% inclrease, and how optimised is windows for MP anyways? OS X is practically designed for MP, as well as for altivec enhancement (mmmmmm 128 bit wide data paths ) Ultimately in the speed wars, Apple can throw more processors at it, and get a bigger improvement than intel can throwing the same amount of processors at a task. Not to mention that PPC chips are incredible power efficient compared to intel, hell the imac doesnt even need a fan for cooling! Try doing that with your PIII behemoth.

--

The IMPORTANT Mac Feature... by Gorbie · 2000-05-18 22:48 · Score: 1

The MacOS may have been behind the curve technologically for a while, but they are catching up quickly. Regardless of what has been in BeOS for 10 years, the MacOS has one feature that Be will never have...market share.

You're the one who's wrong... by adamk · 2000-05-18 22:50 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with the number of apps, but, rather the number of useful apps. And seeing how Mac OS X won't be out till next year, none of the apps that can run on it are useful to *anyone* except the developers at the moment.

Adam

Re:You're the one who's wrong... by toupsie · 2000-05-18 22:59 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with the number of apps, but, rather the number of useful apps.

You mean Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Quark, Flash 4, BBEdit, Netscape Communicator, Internet Explorer 5.0, QuickTime Player, etc.,etc. are not useful applications? Be wishes it had just a sprinkling of those applications to boast upon.

And seeing how Mac OS X won't be out till next year, none of the apps that can run on it are useful to *anyone* except the developers at the moment.

True, but you could use the current MacOS 9.04. to run all those and STILL have more useful apps than BeOS.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:You're the one who's wrong... by adamk · 2000-05-18 23:01 · Score: 1

But the article is about Mac OS X :-)

Adam

PS. Please understand that I'm not trying to be very serious here... Just having some fun.
Re:You're the one who's wrong... by toupsie · 2000-05-18 23:05 · Score: 1

Do I have MacOS Zealot egg on my face now? :)

I remember the time when I was pumped up about Be when it was running on PPC hardware and it looked like Apple was going to purchase them. But I am now glad that Apple bought Steve Jobs and as a bonus in the deal, Apple picked a rock solid OS, NeXT.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:You're the one who's wrong... by um...+Lucas · 2000-05-18 23:56 · Score: 1

But all those apps should run under OS X with no difficulties... And if the developers want to (Adobe's already done it, AFAIK) they can Carbonize their apps to take advantage of all that OS X has to offer. But, basically any app that runs under OS 9 will run under OS X... That gives apple a HUGE leg up on application availability in comparison to BeOS and even Win2000...

Thanks to Apple for having so much experience with huge achitectural shifts (68k to PowerPC, Nubus to PCI - that wasn't so drastic, but it was still seemless, and now OS 7-->9 to X) they know exactly what it takes to make the transitions work, and as a result have raised the bar as to what's expected of them when they make these transitions.

Apple building advertisements into the OS? by Zico · 2000-05-18 23:19 · Score: 3

Checking out the Sherlock picture, I was surprised to see the advertisement built into it. So, if there's someone out there who can field these questions, please do:

Is the ad really part of Sherlock, or did someone just add it to the screenshot?
If so, have ads always been a part of Sherlock, or is a new development?
Is Sherlock the standard search/find utility for it, or is there just a simple local search, with Sherlock being like the advanced option?

If you have to go through Sherlock to perform any system searches, I'd find the presence of ads to be fairly troubling, but if it's not the OS's standard search utility, I don't think that it's too big a deal.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Re:Apple building advertisements into the OS? by cricklewood · 2000-05-18 23:31 · Score: 2

The ads have always been in there -- but Apple doesn't get the revenue.
The ads are placed by the search engines that make Sherlock plug-ins. In return for granting a short-cut to their data (and skipping past their own banner ads), Apple made space for them to put in a little banner.

--

I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they make as they fly by
Re:Apple building advertisements into the OS? by WeeMadArthur · 2000-05-18 23:35 · Score: 1

In macos 9, the ads only show up when you do an internet search. I assume its the same in OSX.

It's intuitive, man! by Paladeen · 2000-05-18 23:21 · Score: 1

The Apple UI and Human Interface dudes found this to be the most intuitive, or so I read somewhere. It's like the traffic lights, green, yellow red, that sort of stuff.

Re:Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder by cpt+kangarooski · 2000-05-18 23:21 · Score: 1

he one area that Macs have always been appreciated is graphics work. However, with the availability of Photoshop, Lightwave/3D Studio (which do not run on Macs), etc. for the PC has rendered (no pun intended) the Mac inferior. SGI machines reign at the high-end and Intel/AMD machines control the low end. With the selection of PC 3D cards being far superior to that of Mac cards, I do not see the Mac regaining much market share in the professional graphics market.

Gah? Macs are still exceptionally strong in DTP. It's not just Photoshop. Firstly, there are a whole bunch of programs that I *need* to do real dtp work. There are a number of Mac-only (including system level) programs and OS extensions that help me out in countless ways. Like ColorSync. And lastly, there's no way in hell that I'm dumping all of that stuff and rebuying it for Windows. The fonts alone would bankrupt me.

This is all in addition to the fact that I don't like Windows, software I want isn't available on other platforms, and the Mac feels extremely comfortable. I know the ins and outs of it, and there are all kinds of subtle UI elements that I like. Like the mouse tracking.

So as a professional graphic designer who's been doing dtp for 10 years or so, I can tell you that you're thoroughly wrong.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Mac OS X =! Threat to Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-18 22:54 · Score: 3

So just chill. OK? Nobody is going to take away your silly command line OS, so just turn down the hostility level towards someone who is doing something *different* than what you're used to. I guess innovation isn't something the linux camp can wrap their heads around. Grok this: The Mac is the choice of designers because Photoshop screams on it vs Intel, they don't have to constantly reinstall the OS, and service bureaus don't have problems outputting Mac Quark files. Duh? If any of you actually did any print design you would immediately see that windows is a pain for this particular task. It may be good for certain other things -- that's OK. Linux may even be a better choice. That's great. But don't slam the Mac because Apple is innovating again. Monoculture is bad, diversity is good. Isn't that what the Linux camp has been saying all along?

Price/performance isn't the issue by Andy_R · 2000-05-18 23:28 · Score: 2

The one area that Macs have always been appreciated is graphics work. However, with the availability of Photoshop, Lightwave/3D Studio (which do not run on Macs), etc. for the PC has rendered (no pun intended) the Mac inferior. SGI machines reign at the high-end and Intel/AMD machines control the low end. With the selection of PC 3D cards being far superior to that of Mac cards, I do not see the Mac regaining much market share in the professional graphics market.

I have to take issue with most of that paragraph. The Mac has plenty of high end rendering software (including many packages that don't run on wintel)

However, that's a bit of a red herring. It's a common misconception that graphics work mostly involves heavy 3D rendering. Sadly, most of us graphic designers don't get to do the 'pretty stuff', we plug away at logos, websites, corporate graphics and publishing. If I could render 3D 10 times faster, I'd have saved about an hour over the last 3 months.

Mac Photoshop and (equally importantly) Quark Xpress are the 'definitive' versions, they started off as Mac only, and the fonts, plug-ins and output drivers have had many years to settle down on the Mac platform.

Going back to another of your points, with 3D graphics cards, lack of 'selection' means standardised drivers, which means reliability and fewer conflicts, but again, this whole discussion is pretty much irrelevant to real world graphic design work. I've had a 3D card in my G3 for over a year, and I've made no use of the 3D abilities since I deleted Tomb Raider.

As for 'regaining share in the high end graphics market', who says Apple ever lost share? Graphic designers are by and large Mac zealots of many years standing (myself included, as if you hadn't guessed) who won't touch wintel with a bargepole. PCs still haven't got over the dodgy fonts legacy, for example M$'s Arial font (just enough of a botch of Helevetica and Univers to avoid copyrigth infringement) is regarded in this office and elsewhere as one of the sure fire signs of a document 'designed by a secretary'.

I'd need a very big incentive to switch platforms, because I'd have to source all my software and fonts again (with no guarantee they even have equivalents out there) as well as learn to cope with a different OS, which would cost a large multiple of the money I'd save by switching to wintel. Even if sticking with Macs would cost my company a few extra thousand pounds (dollars, whatever) it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of re-training or losing zealot staff because of switching. Price/performance isn't the main issue in our choice of machine; reliability, ease of use, our software investment and most importantly familiarity are.

- Andy R.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

Re:Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder by Buskaatt · 2000-05-18 23:28 · Score: 1

>C'mon Apple--build a better (and CHEAPER) mouse trap and we will >come knocking at your door. Heh, I'd settle for a better MOUSE. That said, Irix is hell to use. I've seen people try to install modems on Irix boxes. Even their $150.00/hr consultants said, "Um... you don't want to do THAT." Buid yourself a new AMD box every three years. I spend $200-$600 on an upgrade card for my (fugly) PowerMac 7500 bought in '95 and have a new computer every couple years.

Re:Mac coding by ArsSineArtificio · 2000-05-18 22:57 · Score: 1

You are aware they're replacing the entire operating system, right? There's a web page full of OS X information at http://www.apple.com/macosx which contains the full developers' documentation for the new OS.

ASA
------------------------------------------- ------------------------

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.

Sherlock Ads by toupsie · 2000-05-18 23:33 · Score: 1

Ever since Sherlock has been added to the MacOS (I think in 8.5), ads have always been a part of the program. This only occurs when you search internet sites and not your hard drive. I think they did this to smove out ruffled feathers of search engine companies that would complain that Apple was stealing their advertising revenue by allowing the user to bypass their WWW search page and banner ads. When you set up a sherlock search plug-in, you can set up the ad banner as well. However, if you hack the plug-in, you can remove the ad tags.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Yes and no. by A+moron · 2000-05-18 23:35 · Score: 1

first the fact that you pay for an os and have ads built in is crappy.

The ads do NOT show up when you are searching for files.

When you are using Sherlock to search the internet, the ads do show up.
The search engine people would be quite upset if you could use their search engine without seeing their ad, so Apple made them happy.

Re:Yes and no. by Zico · 2000-05-19 01:28 · Score: 2

Cool, I hadn't really thought much about it, I just figured that Apple was the one in charge of the ads, since the one in the screenshot just happened to be an iMac ad.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Aqua & X11 by gcondon · 2000-05-18 23:38 · Score: 5

Several people have (rightly) pointed out that DP4 != Aqua. Nevertheless, as the screenshots indicatre, Aqua is coming along nicely. The use of transparency and global antialiasing is delightful - even if some of the widgets are excessively gaudy.

Now that Darwin has been ported to Intel with support for X11, there has been much talk about if/when any of Aqua's tasty goodness will be available in that context. It has been suggested that this will never happen b/c Apple is unlikely to give away as important a crown jewel as its much ballyhooed GUI.

It is important to remember that Aqua is essentially just a widget set - the real power behind the interface is Quartz, the new PDF based rendering engine. If you refer to Wilfredo Sanchez's diary he indicates the possibility of a port of X11 to Quartz! The addition of Quartz's advanced features to X11 could be quite a treat. Although this is mentioned as a means of supporting X11 apps on MacOS X, it is possible that some support of this type might pave the way to supporting graphical Cocoa apps on Intel (it is unlikely that Classic or even Carbon apps will ever be supported on Intel but Cocoa is a whole 'nother kettle of fish).

Given the well known limitations of X11, esp. wrt to antialiasing, opening Quartz would be a much greater gift to the community than Aqua which is just another, albeit pretty, set of interface elements. I suspect that the real roadblock in opening Quartz is not Apple but, rather, Adobe which maintains a pretty tight leash on PostScript (for good reason).

I implore everyone who's been crying out for more open source code from Apple to focus their efforts on Quartz and to extend their cajoling to Adobe. Out of all of MacOS X's new goodies, I think Quartz is the pick of the litter - not Aqua.

Re:Aqua & X11 by jovlinger · 2000-05-19 01:31 · Score: 1

Yes, 'cause having a turing complete language to make pages isn't smart. Or rather, it's too smart.

I'm actually a bit suprised that no-one's gone and written a postscript (font!) based virus or backdoor. Should be possible, no?

Or is postscript evaluated in a really tight sandbox?
Re:Aqua & X11 by jovlinger · 2000-05-19 01:32 · Score: 1

Erm, posted to soon.

Would anyone care to comment on the ability to write a denial of (printer/cpu) service attack with postscript?
Re:Aqua & X11 by Bill+Daras · 2000-05-19 00:07 · Score: 1

Given the well known limitations of X11, esp. wrt to antialiasing, opening Quartz would be a much greater gift to the community than Aqua which is just another, albeit pretty, set of interface elements. I suspect that the real roadblock in opening Quartz is not Apple but, rather, Adobe which maintains a pretty tight leash on PostScript (for good reason).

First of all, what would Apple gain by open sourcing Quartz? Absolutely nothing. What would they stand to lose?

A lot.

Secondly, Quartz does not use PostScript. Its display system is based on PDF.

Re:what? by toupsie · 2000-05-18 23:01 · Score: 1

Who are you arguing against?

My bad. I must have hit the wrong reply link. I was talking/typing to adamk.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Mac coding by Steven+Woston · 2000-05-18 23:01 · Score: 1

Believe me, I knew about it LONG before you did. I know about the generation ot two after that, to varying dgrees. I can't say much more than that, due to a nondisclosure statement I had to sign when I vistited Apple's campus, but I will say this much: Thin. Very very thin. And there won't be just one box on your desk, either. :>

--
Steven Woston Lead Programmer J-J-J-Julius Games http://www.jjjjulius.com

Re:Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder by Paladeen · 2000-05-18 23:06 · Score: 1

"With the selection of PC 3D cards being far superior to that of Mac cards, I do not see the Mac regaining much market share in the professional graphics market."

Uhm, what are Mac video cards? Current Macs ship with an ATI Rage 128 Pro, which sucks, I agree. However, I quite like the Voodoo 3 3500 I have in my B&W G3 Tower. The ports of 3D games are what sucks. Quake and Quake 2 run slower than hell, even with a 3D card. Quake 3 is of course developed natively for Mac and gets good performance.

Offtopic: Slashdot's Clock? by toupsie · 2000-05-18 23:07 · Score: 1

Is it me or are the postings in Slashdot an hour behind when labeled? I am in EST and I have noticed that Slashdot reports my postings as an hour behind my time even though they are tagged with EST.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

How UNIX is OS X? by KillRaven · 2000-05-18 23:10 · Score: 1

Has anybody had a chance to play with the guts of one of these yet? I'm thinking primarily from a sys admin point of view. The place where I work will probably be getting rid of our NT boxes and replacing them with OS X as soon as Maya is out. Now pretty interfaces and flashing icons may make our designers happy, but I want to know about the core UNIX setup.
Can I admin them by telneting in and treating them like any other BSD box? Can all the changes I would need to make be made with vim? Basically will this be a Unix box or a Mac box from my point of view as a sysadmin?

Re:How UNIX is OS X? by clearcache · 2000-05-19 01:42 · Score: 1

The place where I work will probably be getting rid of our NT boxes and replacing them with OS X as soon as Maya is out.

Why??? If we know next to nothing about the OS's functionality in a network, why would someone make that decision now, pre-release? Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because we all know the networking superiority that *BSD has over NT in many areas...but it seems to be a bit early to make that decision.

If it were my decision, I'd wait until a few people make mistakes doing what you're thinking about and learning from their mistakes, rather than making the mistakes myself...

Site Removed by Ironix · 2000-05-18 23:44 · Score: 2

The site has been taken down...

Access has been forbidden. Perhaps Apple didn't like having their fancy new os displayed in such a fashion.

--
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek

Basic components don't need to be intuitive by Gorimek · 2000-05-18 23:48 · Score: 1

Yes it will take some time to learn. The point is that you only learn them once, and they consistently work the same way after that.

These buttons will be on every window you ever see on your OS X computer. There is no chance you will forget about them, since they're in your face all the time.

g4 case by sudama · 2000-05-18 23:49 · Score: 1

no need to yank the power cord.. you can open that thing while it's running. or start it up while it's open to see if your new hardware is recognized etc. pretty wonderful.

--
-- Adam

Looks like the link has been disabled... by BAM0027 · 2000-05-19 01:27 · Score: 1

...for one reason or another. I get an error 403: [I] am not authorized..."

I suspect a "cease-and-desist" action on the part of Apple, though I have no evidence; just past experience.

Too bad, my juices were flowing.

Features, yes. Software, no. by Skip666Kent · 2000-05-19 01:28 · Score: 2

I'd love to see BeOS skyrocket into common public use, but there's no software out yet to make it worthwhile. It's a cruel catch-22 (which comes first) but Mac is already there with all the apps people want. BeOS has some great design elements and features, but to what end?

That's what I never understood about BeOS, charging $100 for an OS that you can't really use for anything 'cept browsing the web to see if anything *really* useful has come out yet!

--
**>>BELCH

Re:Does Pretty Matter? As much as clock speed mayb by JohnZed · 2000-05-18 23:53 · Score: 3

Hmm... sorry, you need to double-check a few of those facts.

1) "OS X" is practically designed for MP..
Well, it's true that OS X is designed "to support MP", but that support is largely untested and untuned. SMP is a relatively low priority for Apple when they have things to worry about, like, say, making sure the OS is ready to ship by its new deadline. SMP takes many, many years to develop, both in terms of hardware and software support. Applications need to be written to take advantage of multithreading, and new chipsets need to mature.

2) "How optimised is windows for MP anyways?"
Well, 95/95 has no support for SMP at all. But Win NT/2000's support is very strong, much stronger, in fact, than Linux's support (much as I love Linux, we do have to admit this). With 8-way systems, they do extremely well on real, intense benchmarks like TPC. Windows 2000 Datacenter will theoretically support 32-processor systems, although its performance beyond 8-processors remains to be seen.

Basically, though, out of all the major OS families you can think of (Mac, Windows, Linux, commercial Unix), the Mac platform has the LEAST support for multiple processors (out of the *BSD family, you'll have to go to FreeBSD or BSDi if you want SMP). Anyone can throw together an artificial demo with dual-proc-tuned applications that will get a performance boost. The question is how well the system performs in the real world.

Re:Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder by sudama · 2000-05-18 23:57 · Score: 1

that's an absurd estimte... the difference can't be more than $800 or so.

--
-- Adam

Re:DisplayTeX by new500 · 2000-05-18 23:58 · Score: 1

No, not really, just a pipe dream play idea.

Apparently Adobe Indesign uses a few of Knuth's algorithms for layout, hyphenation and spacing in unusual gutter, margin and shaped text boxes.

Donald Knuth who wrote TeX to try to recreate the hand setting control of the Linotype machines which set hist frist books is a ace at algorithms and apparently Adobe could just not match or improve on his work.

Read Digital Typography if you get the chance, its a facinating and beautiful look at type in language. But nevertheless he was into mathematical descriptions of type, as opposed to the relatively simple vector format of Adobe postscript fonts. Because TeX is basically a Turing complete language to write text to bitmaps, and e.g. renders a complete document looking at the whole structure for assessing every element, I doubt you could easily use TeX as a base for a display language because it is not geared towards display primatives, widgets et.c. which would need their own interface within TeX exposed to the OS. Sun Micro rewrote a Postscript interpretor and extended PS into a windowing system - NeWS (which I think is how Jobs got the capitalisation for NeXT Computer!?) so i guess these things are possible. If you ever look at Art of Computing the type is to drool over, never mind the math and CS !

Since there is a move towards making some computers more like books in readability (M$ Reader) and IBM now have 200dpi LCDs, surely its worth occasionally *thinking* about how the most attractive printed books are reproduced. That's why I put that in there. Extreme wishful thinking.

Quartz is Adobe's baby by maggard · 2000-05-19 01:41 · Score: 5

Whaddya mean Adobe has nothing to do with Quartz? Who do you think designed it?

Long ago Apple came out with these neat machines called the "Lisa" and it's little cousin "Macintosh". To go with them Apple licensed this new lisp-derived language called "Postscript" from these guys called "Adobe". It was a hit and the one-two punch of a bitmapped display and a cheap high(ish) quality laserprinter running "Postscript" made Macs a hit in the graphics community. (Interestingly the most powerful computer Apple sold for a while was the CPU in it's Laserwriter.)

Later on Steve Jobs founded NeXT and having seen the popularity of Postscript and also the problems of having two rendering-models decided to equip his boxes with Postscript all of the way through. So he paid Adobe a pretty penny to develop "Display Postscript" for him which he then licensed. Jobs went on to use this single-rendering-model and to also ship a cheap printer who's brains were actually your system's CPU running D-PS. Adobe took the skills it had developed in the project and rolled them back into faster and more sophisticated Postscript engines such as commonly found in Postscript level II products.

In the meantime the world went on and Adobe started to realize that there were some inherent limitations on having an entirely stream-based file-format (eg it's pretty difficult to pull a single part out of it for seperate manipulation) and that there was a coming need for a cross-platform device-independant rich-content documuments. So Adobe developed Postscript level III which is a fairly object-oriented architecture and then went all out and turned it into Portable Document File (PDF) technology.

In the meantime Apple buys Next and looks to renogiate the Postscript license. Adobe isn't interested in this but decides to go back to the well and convinces Apple to underwrite the development of a Display PDF (hmm - sounds like we've been here before..) Apple agrees and thus begins the process that produces "Quartz" - a joint Adobe/Apple rendering layer implementing Adobe's PDF technologies on Apple's shiny rebuilt OS.

So who "owns" Quartz? Well, they both did the work on it and although Adobe owns the basic file-formats and technologies it's Apple's implementations of them.

There'll probably be some small (smaller then for Display Postscript at least) licensing fee going from Apple to Adobe for every copy of MacOS X sold but Adobe of course also now has a bunch of paid-for engineering, retained a critical position with one of it's most influential customers and assured adoption of it's next-gen product. They've also killed any chance of Apple's own GX technologies ever surfacing or any futher development of the Apple/Microsoft TrueType threat. Finally Apple of course now has the most advanced rendering technology out there, one that can assure cross-platform fidelity and complete integration into every serious graphics application in the forseeable future.

So how to get Display PDF onto some other platform? Well you can try and do a Ghostscript-type re-engineering but as folks have learnt this is some very sophisticated, very patented, very specialized material. The existing code is a good starting point but it's going to be a lot of work to re-apply and who knows what obstacles there are.

Adobe themselves might come out with it for other platforms in the future depending on their contracts and licensing with Apple (Apple might get a two year lead on anything for instance.) This will likely be closed-source and probably fairly expensive. I could see graphics-folks wanting it on NT for instance but MS is gung-ho about their own technologies and this would be both competition and an additionial layer of abstraction for applications to deal with.

Adobe could concievably be convinced that it's in their best interest to release it for a next-gen X-type product. Unfortunatly I doubt they'd let out anything like a complete implementation but rather something that couldn't be used to compete with their own products.

So - Quartz on abother platform? Not unless Apple and Adobe see a profit in this. Display PDF on another platform? Not unless Adobe (and possibly Apple) see a profit in this. Unauthorized ports? Possible but unlikely due to the sophisitication required.

-- Michael

*I couldn't be bothered to keep all of the biCapitalizations straight - deal.

--
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.

Slashdot Mirror

Aqua DP4 Review And Screenshots

272 comments