Mac OS X Beta To Come Out Sept. 13

A reader writes "At his keynote at Seybold today, Steve Jobs announced that Mac OS X beta will ship on September 13th. More details at MacNN's site." This is the beta - but the Sept. 13th beta launch is the first day of Paris Mac Expo, meaning that it probably will happen. He also confirmed that they are on target for an "early 2001" release of OSX.

Comments

Wow...

[AntiPasto]

It must be nice to *not* be Microsoft and actually meet your deadlines.

I wonder tho if they'll find the guy in the beta program that leaks it to a pirate group...

----

Re:Wow...

[Markonen]

It will be a public beta, so "leaking" is redundant. Moreover, Mac OS X is by no means "on schedule" -- it has been slipping every quarter since the Rhapsody days (still remember that?)

The latest slip came at MacWorld NY in July, when Steve matter-of-factly mentioned that the OS is "on track for early 2001 delivery". Early 2001 obviously means April -- the deadline before that was January.

Re:Wow...

[MOMOCROME]

" ...I wonder tho if they'll find the guy in the beta program that leaks it to a pirate group..."

I'll bet that Apple just might be serializing each individual copy of the beta... all those millions of copies! (not just serial numbers on the packaging, mind you, but burying unique identifiers within the binaries themselves. That is a pretty huge task, you can't just burn a single image onto the disks, each image has to be unique.)

Apple has been acting aggressively paranoid over the last couple years. A step like this would allow them to spot & sue the offending pirate immediately. just download the pirated copy and look up who it was registered to. hmmm....

-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-

Re:Wow...

[frankie]

if they'll find the guy in the beta program that leaks it to a pirate group...

The September release will be a rather open beta, so that's not a big deal. If laptop hard drive prices drop below $15 per Gb, I'll expand my Wallstreet and give it a whirl. But it'll probably be full of bug catcher code and be too slow for serious use.

The Developer Preview releases that have been going out for a while now -- those are private, so of course they're all available on Hotline and various WareZ sites. One fun quirk: its Open Firmware thinks different than regular MacOS. So I've been having great fun with idiots who post to comp.sys.mac.misc that they can't uninstall OS X. Since the only people who should have it right now are serious Mac programmers, anyone asking that question is a pirate kiddie.

Re:Wow...

[update()]

One fun quirk: its Open Firmware thinks different than regular MacOS. So I've been having great fun with idiots who post to comp.sys.mac.misc that they can't uninstall OS X. Since the only people who should have it right now are serious Mac programmers, anyone asking that question is a pirate kiddie.

So, what's the answer? I may be a pirate kiddie but I'd really like to get that G3 working again before the sysadmins notice. Seriously..

Or do I have to go back on Hotline and get the beta release?

---------

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold down Command-Option-O-F at boot, and type reset-all at the prompt

How much functionality?

[voncheesebiscuit]

The question I have is, how much can we reasonably expect out of this "beta"? I have DP4 running on my Powerbook, and its fairly stable, but there are *lots* of features that would appear to be missing (at least I hope they're missing). I'll be curious exactly how close to the final product this "beta" is...

OSX an "early 2001" release

[Hairy_Potter]

in other news, leaked photos of the new OSX server reveal it to be large, black monolith.

Re:OSX an "early 2001" release

[benedict]

... with a little Paul Rand "NeXT" logo on it.

--

Re:OSX an "early 2001" release

[Anonymous Coward]

And the new OSX commercial

a large crowd of austrolepithecines gather around the server, one touches it to boot it, in one second.

The austrolopethicine then picks up the femur of an antelope and beats Bill Gates over the head with it.

"A computer for the rest of the genus"

Oops

[proxima]

Demonstrating some of the new capabilities found in the Public Beta of Mac OS X, Jobs explained that it takes a PowerBook anywhere from eight to 22 seconds to wake-up from sleep under Mac OS 9, depending on networking settings. Under Mac OS X Public Beta, the unit takes only one second to wake up from sleep.

"Oops it didn't work," said Jobs after the screen lit up but the PowerBook wasn't fully functional. Embarrassingly putting the PowerBook back to sleep, Jobs tried again.

"Something's going wrong here, [but] when it works, it actually wakes up in about one second," said Jobs.

Reminds me of the presentation that Microsoft did awhile back. Anyway, I don't know (provided I had a powermac) if I'd want to use this new Mac OS X public beta :-)

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the 'book didn't crash. They got it working after.

Re:Oops

[update()]

"Something's going wrong here, [but] when it works, it actually wakes up in about one second," said Jobs.

What amazed me most about DP3 was the shutdown time (also about one second on a beige G3). How does a Unix-based system do that?

---------

Re:Oops

[ethereal]

Maybe they flush writes to disk much more often (almost immediately?) and don't run as many daemons that have to be shut down? It's impressive, that's for sure. Hopefully the production systems will still be that quick.

Re:Oops

[nixon205]

except for that the pc show the blue screen

Re:Oops

[Stephen Samuel]

For me, the question was "Why do non-unix systems take so long to go to sleep/wake up?" My thought is that it's a result of a convoluted non-modular design that doesn't allow you to isolate what needs to occur during a sleep cycle (really, not much more than synching disks and taking care of some peripherals).

x86?

[Mista Brown]

Will this be also for the x86 version of OS X or is that due later?

Re:x86?

[benedict]

Methinks OS X/x86 will happen only when Apple has some reason to think it won't instigate the cancellation of MS Office for Macintosh.

--

Re:x86?

[ChristTrekker]

There is no x86 version of OS X, nor will there be. Apple makes its money on hardware. Jobs does like to keeps his options open, however. You never know what might happen if the PPC coalition falls apart.

Darwin, OTOH, can run on x86. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of.

Re:x86?

[maggard]

There is no announced x86 version of Mac OS X.

There is a freely downloadable Open Source OS from Apple known as "Darwin" that compiles under x86. This is the heart of Mac OS X but is by no means Mac OS X. It lacks the carbon libraries, the ability to run "Classic" applications, the Aqua GUI, etc. and those will not be released by Apple.

Apple has nothing to gain from moving to x86. Anyone familier with their financials will tell you they're a hardware company and any attempt to compete in the x86 market would be suicide. If anything look to see an Alpha-based OS X before an x86 version.

Re:x86?

[maggard]

Yeah - and I've a friend with a copy of WinNT that's reliable...

Sorry to burst your bubble but there's a lot of MacOS X that's still very PPC-centric. Much of it could be ported and it's even likely that much of it is being ported but doubt there's either a running version of it or that your buddy has it.

-- Michael

Why do I even bother to respond to the Anonymous Cowards bragging about their friends software?...

Re:x86?

[baka_boy]

Those options that Jobs likes to keep open are ones that could keep Apple going in the face of a complete collapse of their hardware business. Look at the server platform that Apple is slowly but surely building up around OS X: You've got the open source Darwin core OS, the Darwin Streaming Server for media content (also open source), Web Objects for app servers, and a custom JRE that provides access to the complete OpenStep API (NetInfo, GUI elements, etc.).

I know a lot of companies that would be happy to have their core products be even a portion of Apple's "spares"...

Re:x86?

[barracg8]

• Methinks OS X/x86 will happen only when Apple has some reason to think it won't instigate the cancellation of MS Office for Macintosh.

Should we be reading this as saying:

Methinks OS X/x86 will happen only when Microsoft get split.

:-)
G

Re:x86?

[maggard]

Check here for a recent evaluation of the PPC market for Apple & it's alternatives.

Re:x86?

[proxima]

Is there really much money in porting OS X to x86? There's so much competition for the high-end desktop/low end server in x86 platform. You've got Win NT/2000, Linux, BSD varieties, etc. Besides, porting an entire OS and all of its applications to another processor type is not easy, nor cheap (if I recall, there are a lot of people working on LinuxPPC, and the alpha linux platform). It's probably not worth the development time to them.

Apple makes loads of money by selling it's proprietary hardware. If people like Mac OS X, they have to buy Apple hardware, more money for Apple. If you can have Mac OS X for x86, why would someone want to spend a fair amount more for the PPC/G4 technology when processors and hardware for AMD/Intel is much cheaper? Even a few people posting about this article say they're now considering buying Mac hardware to try out this BSD based OS. If Apple markets Mac OS X well enough, they'll increase sales in their hardware significantly.

Re:x86?

[benedict]

Darwin runs on x86. So I can't see how porting MacOS X to x86 could require more than a recompile, since everything above Darwin presumably uses Darwin-exported abstractions rather than fiddling with hardware directly.

--

Re:x86?

[natpoor]

if you can find NeXTSTEP on CD you can pretty much run OSX on intel, since that's what it's based on and they had to port OSX from intel to PPC...

i think unix programmers might love the new huge user base that all G3+ macs give them, and hopefully being BSD underneath will help when porting apps... the NeXT used to be awesome to code for, too.

Re:x86?

[waterbug]

Don't confuse "x86 processor" with "generic PC hardware from Fry's for $299."

As every other poster will write, Apple makes it's profits off of hardware. If AIM/PPC flounders, Apple may switch processor families. But they're not going to port to the generic box. They'll switch procs and go with a new, proprietary design around the new chip, and you'll still have to buy your box from Apple in order to run the Mac OS (Roman numeraled or otherwise).

Apple needs to control the entire user experience, and you don't get that by allowing every piece of shit box from Joe's Computer Dumpster/Shop to run your OS on suspect components with no control over design, quality or distribution.

If Apple switches to x86, it'll be for price/performance/availability reasons, not for compatibility. Apple might pick up the side benefit of easier/faster/better ports from sw written for x86, but I'll bet you a dozen Krispy Krem doughnuts that that won't be Jobs' primary motivation.

Re:x86?

[Darchmare]

Not all sigs have to be related to technology. The whole point of a sig is to put something interesting as it relates to you - a quote or something. Maybe even a link to your web site. I don't recall seeing any guidelines on what you can and can't put in your sig on Slashdot. Perhaps you'd like to point them out for us?

Until then, he can keep his sig.

For the record, I think religion is pure BS. But that doesn't mean I should tell him what he can have on his sig.


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

Re:x86?

[Ryano]

"You never know what might happen if the PPC coalition falls apart."

By all accounts the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) coalition has more or less collapsed. IBM and Motorola haven't been getting along, Apple is pretty peeved at Motorola for the slow progress they been making and low yields they've been producing. More importantly, IBM and Motorola seem to have different roadmaps for where the PowerPC is going, and the two companies are reluctant to share their intellectual property with regard to manufacturing processes etc.

This is really a great shame - I think the companies would need to work closely together again to fulfil the potential of the PowerPC technology.

And Apple is definitely keeping its options open.

Re:x86?

[WiggyWack]

Wow... All that babble over a Bible verse in someone's tagline? Yeah, it's terrible that people in this country express their beliefs. Everything should be censored.

Re:x86?

[benedict]

Somewhere in their vaults they should also have a (possibly out of date) version for Solaris, I think.

--

Beta...

[11390036]

A beta microsoft product is a compileable piece of code.

Every other project/company I've known hasn't had the bug problems of microsoft.

I bet it will be about as stable as a final version +service packs copy of NT!
I'd bet my bottom dollar on it, any takers?

Re:Beta...

[EEEthan]

I agree--NT4 w/sp6a is stable. I have very few problems despite overclocking by nearly 200mhz. I've only had one unexplained BSOD in my entire experience with it.
I have, however, had a number of video-related and sound-related lockups. Probably no more than I've had with linux and Xfree4, but a few.
I have no problems at all with NT's stability--I do have some problems with the windows design philosophy. NT is supposedly a server OS-such an OS should not require reboots for driver changes. I hear win2k deals with that issue to some extent. Also, the "Command Shell" in NT is a little bit weak compared to bash. There's no way around that.
Win2k looks really exciting in some ways. I'm waiting for good drivers for my SBLive! to become available. I'll be sad to see NT go, though. It's the only MS OS which I currently consider stable enough for production. Win2k might be cool, but in my book, it's still beta.

Re:Beta...

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

Windows Chicago Build 112 (later renamed to Windows 95) _seemed_ more stable than the release version, Build 950. Microsoft can build stable products, they just don't make it to market until all the necessary bugs are added...

Re:Beta...

[mangu]

Microsoft put together an excellent, stable operating system, and the Unix zealots refuse to accept it

Both NT4 and W2k *are* more stable than W95 or W98 - it would be really hard to be less stable than that...

The problems with all windozes, including NT4 and 2K, are the fucking stupid I/O and task schedulers. Have you ever noticed how the "HD" LED lights up and stays on for such long times on m$ machines, compared to Linux ones? The only programs that put any stress at all on the disks in my Linux machines are Oracle8i and Netscape Navigator.

On the other hand, have you ever tried running Oracle8i on an NT4 machine? You absolutely need a dual CPU system; I suppose one CPU is stuck with the I/O while the other does the database processing.

I spent six months last year trying to make a real time control software I developed run under NT. After *a lot* of debugging, I found that NT seems to disable all interrupts for as long as 150 milliseconds at a time when doing disk access. After I ported that software - initially written using MFC - to Linux, using the Qt class library, I found it used less than 2% CPU time. Really amazing, for a software that tried to use more than 100% of the same CPU under NT4. And porting from MFC to Qt took me less than two weeks, for a fully debugged software. I became a Linux zealot after that, no more m$-windoze for me.

Re:Beta...

[onion2k]

Hmm.. The classic 'HDD light' stress test.. not used that one myself.. doesn't seem very 'scientific'.
On another point, you admit to being a coder. And using the likes of Oracle8i. Most users won't every come close to that level of usage. Hell, most users never even use NT. If you're running Word and a couple of games then 95 is as stable as anything. Windows is a home user OS. Linux is a 'do anything' OS. I'd hope Linux is more stable. As for never developing under windows, think yourself fortunate. Where i work the management are microsoft groupies. Thats means IIS, SQLserver, VB and ASP all the way.

Which is why I write web applications in PERL. Onion

Interesting Choice of Topic Image

[Rude Turnip]

Hey, I noticed the BSD demon was used instead of that shiny, blue Apple logo. Since OS X is built upon BSD, does that mean Apple hardware stories will get the blue apple, while Apple software (specifically OS X) stories will from now on get the demon attached?

Re:Interesting Choice of Topic Image

[mangu]

No. I think they just fucked up.

Re:no more aqua

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is, why is there a BSD deamon as the story icon? This is Apple news.

Re:Finally!

[Golias]

Probably not unless you have upgraded the graphics card in it, Ms. Onymous... although I suppose you could start a rumor that requires a G5. :)

Development

[talonyx]

Of course, this has been in development since 1993 - the NeXT is the foundation for all of this.

That's why OS X is based on a Unix kernel - it's so much easier for integration with OpenSTEP.

The GnuSTEP team is also building OpenSTEP, but in a GNU fashiion, for integration with X.

That means apps for OS X can be recompiled, with no changes, and run on Linux and any other GnuSTEP enabled platform - that was the whole goal of OpenSTEP, to allow write once - compile anywhere type development, with a simple and elegant OO variant of C.

It is also a beautiful interface, now, from the eyecandy point of view. They've taken the Step interface (see Windowmaker and Afterstep) and combined it with the good ol' Mac menubar. That bar at the bottom... it's the Dock.

I think OS X still uses Display PostScript, which is just as cool as regular Postscript.

Idea: Web integration of DPS? Instead of HTML, perhaps? It would scale nicely to any size window... but thats another thread.

Enjoy. I'mna have to buy me a Mac :)

Re:Development

[benedict]

> I think OS X still uses Display PostScript, which is just as cool as regular Postscript.

I believe it actually uses something akin to PDF (in the same way that DPS is akin to PS).

--

Re:Development

[Lord Kenja]

A couple of points...

1) MOSX (the semi official short) is based on BSD as it is what the OS'es it's been build on was based on (all that NeXT stuff ;)

2) DPS is out. It's been replaced by a PDF based imaging model that's been build without using Adobe code. So it's free of that license fee Adobe used to charge NeXT.

Re:Development

[TheInternet]

That means apps for OS X can be recompiled, with no changes, and run on Linux and any other GnuSTEP enabled platform - that was the whole goal of OpenSTEP, to allow write once - compile anywhere type development, with a simple and elegant OO variant of C.

Are you sure this is still the case? From what I understand, there have been some considerable changes to the API since OpenStep.

- Scott

------
Scott Stevenson

Re:Development

[talonyx]

Ok, well "DPDF" still seems cool :), though PostScript seems a bit more "open".

As for BSD kernels, NeXTSTeP (is that how one captalizes it? Krezzy foo!) was based on Mach microkernel, IIRC.

Re:Development

[Millennium]

GNUstep, from what I can gather, seems to have been keeping up with the Cocoa API changes. Note that this is *only* Cocoa, not Carbon. So you have to use the Cocoa API to make an app that'll run on GNUstep. But if you're careful to do this, it just might be possible.
----------

Re:Development

[talonyx]

Well, sure, that's called "innovation".

But GnuStep, being GNU, can be updated to reflect these changes. With enough work, it could easily become the catalyst to enable many more Linux apps from large-name companies.

(Do i sound like a marketroid, or what)

Re:Development

[kwerle]

Actually, it is based on Mach with the 'BSD tools'. Where 'BSD tools' often means GNU tools.

Re:Development

[baka_boy]

OS X uses PDF (Portable Document Format) for its entire graphics subsystem. It's basically a simplified PostScript-derivative, but still offers many of the same benefits in term of screen-to-print consistency, graphics portability, etc. The file format has been open for a while, and there are open source libraries for read/write and display.

PDF files (better known as Adobe Acrobat documents) are already used online extensively, but present some problems for use as an HTML replacement. One, they're not designed to be loaded incrementally, so while small documents would download fairly quickly, larger ones would drag on and on for a long time. Two, their support for linking, bookmarking, etc. is basically just a hack Adobe added in later version.

Re:Development

[baka_boy]

The Carbon API is basically an emulation layer for "old world" Mac OS applications (i.e., OS 7/8/9). It would require a much more extensive development effort to support under Linux, and has nothing to do with OpenStep outside of Apple's integration of it into OS X.

OS X is actually looking like one of the more "platform-friendly" systems hitting the market these days. Its BSD roots should give it access to both the full arsenal of BSD-native code, and to some sort of Linux "port" system. The Carbon API gives it compatibility with traditional Macintosh applications, and Cocoa has the full OpenStep spec. Finally, the Java layer supports both the full Java 2 runtime environment, and a set of Java wrappers for the Objective-C OpenStep API and libraries.

Re:Development

[RevAaron]

While GNUstep has been more or less keeping up with the changes to the OpenStep API made in Cocoa, there are going to be issues, and a porting from Cocoa to GNUstep while be more than a re-compile. Not a major pain in the arse, methinks, but not a 10 minute just-run-make jobbie. For one, the GNUstep Distributed Object classes (NSConnection and friends) do not follow the same protocol (the methods) as the Cocoa version. I'm sure there are other differences, but as Cocoa is totally finalized, they might catch up.

Mac OS X uses Display PDF now, not Display PostScript. This actually also might effect the porting of applications between GNUstep, Cocoa, and OpenStep. With GNUstep and OpenStep, you can put straight-up PostScript code in your app- Cocoa wouldn't know what to do with this. This isn't a big problem, though.

It is also a beautiful interface, now, from the eyecandy point of view. They've taken the Step interface (see Windowmaker and Afterstep) and combined it with the good ol' Mac menubar. That bar at the bottom... it's the Dock.

What are you talking about on this one? While Mac OS X does resemble the OpenStep UI in some ways, in the ways that WindowMaker and others implements, it's almost nothing like it (title bar, general look of widgets). I would agree that Aqua is beatutiful, and more importantly, quite functional- but for those of you who want a more classic NeXT interface, check out MacThemes, which has begun to document the Mac OS X theme format.

Re:Development

[talonyx]

Well, i'm saying it follows the same sort of paradigm, with a toolbar that can be dragon-dropped with etc. It's also combined with the previous Mac OS style, to give a more holistic approach - seamless upgrading for an older version of Mac OS user, who likes the menubar, yet more power and a good extension to the UI.

Re:Development

[whiteprints]

So what about an intel version. Does anyone know?

Re:Development

[benedict]

You're missing quite a bit of the picture. Mach is a microkernel, it only provides a few simple services. Most Mach implementations use BSD code with some modifications to provide a POSIXish interface.

--

Re:Development

[baka_boy]

(Let me preface this by saying I am an operating system design enthusiast, not expert; please let me know if I've glossed over or just plain stated incorrectly important elements of the Mach/BSD interaction in OS-X.)

Both of you are, in a sense, correct; OS-X/Darwin will look very much like a standard BSD system to the userland application/programmer, but the low-level architecture is different, due to the Mach microkernel. Unlike a the Linux kernel, Mach doesn't include its device drivers in kernel memory space. Instead, they're run as processes, which can be started, killed, and swapped while the system is running.

It carries a performance penalty, obviously, since the kernel has to communicate with more processes to accomplish even basic I/O. However, it also gives the entire OS an added level of flexibility and (potential) stability, since well-written drivers won't take the system down even if their code crashes and dumps.

The 'BSD' side of OS-X's personality comes from the choice of that platform to fill out the needed higher-level services to make the system complete. Once you're up to finished applications, there should be only minor differences between OS-X and any of the other main BSD derivatives.

Re:Development

[Darby]

though PostScript seems a bit more "open". Actually pdf is open and ps is proprietary. That's why Apple went with it. In this case "open" meant "free beer" to Apple.
---CONFLICT!!---

Re:Development

[Aaron]

Actually it is based on Mach with the 'BSD tools', where 'BSD tools' often have nothing to do with GNU tools. BSD != GNU.

Further, Apple would not even think about including that damn virus in their software, especially when they can get software from the *BSD's that works just as well (if not better), and is truly free.
--
Though I use a Macintosh, I am not a mac-bigot. I just hate Windoze.

Re:Development

[blinko]

One missing detail for the younger slashdotters - NeXT started around 1986 not the 90's.

--

Re:Development

[blinko]

the Carbon API is not an emulation layer. You must have Carbon mistaken with Classic (a.k.a. Blue Box = a layer that boots its own copy of Mac OS 9 for legacy apps). Carbon is a fully reentrant and portable version of the Mac ToolBox (the name from before "API" was a household word). If Apple had developed the Carbon APIs before Jobs came back to Apple Copland might have worked.

If you recall the reason why Rhapsody was a flop with Adobe, Quark, Macromedia, and Microsoft was that they would have had to rewrite their big money-making apps in Cocoa (the OpenStep APIs). OSX was Apple's solution that introduced Carbon to the mix. Carbon is an updated (from 1984's design constraints) protected memory and preemptive multitasking friendly Mac Toolbox. (Mac API+ you could call it).

Why didn't Appe just introduce Carbon in the first place? Carbon was seen (by Apple at the time) as a threat to developer acceptance of the superior Openstep APIs.

Now we have both. The majority of developers are happy.

Why didn't Apple come up with Carbon on their own, without Steve Jobs as CEO. Apple as you may know had RealCrappy management in the early 90s.

--

Re:Development

[mlehrian]

Actually, NeXTstep, then OPENstep, has been in development since 1986. The OPENstep/MacOS marriage began in 97 (December 96, if I recall) when Jobs returned to Apple.

Also, with all the flack Apple is getting about release dates, let's not forget that they have release Darwin and Mac OS X Server. The Mac OS X that is pending is a far better creature than originally planned.

One more note about x86 - Darwin compiles on x86 now. Once you can boot into Darwin on Intel, theoretically, most of the work is done. As far as I can tell, the Mac OS X GUI should sit on top of Darwin - abstracted from the hardware. So, I would conclude that, once Darwin is running on x86, it should be possible to install the Mac OS X GUI on Darwin on Intel. Of course, I don't know if this will be an option, but it's a nice thought, eh?

Re:Development

[talonyx]

Really?
I have a NeXT Press Release (based off of a Byte magazine) what says 1993 on it, so I used that, but that's amazing.

Except, this is coming to fruition, unlike the HURD :p

Re:Development

[Stefan MacGeek]

I think it's a safe bet that Apple has a x86 version somewhere, as a hedge against Motorolos apparent inability to come out with faster PPC processors, but I don't think they will ever release a MacOS that runs on a normal PC. Apple is basically a hardware manufacturer, its software sales make up only a small part of its revenue. For that reason they will always tie their OS to their proprietary hardware. That hardware may be built around an Intel processor some day, but it will still be their design, different from standard PC architecture.

Stefan

Re:Development

[Art Tatum]

Apple's changes to the OpenStep API are being actively tracked. Some of it hasn't been implemented yet because Apple hasn't released enough information (NSSound, for example). There's discussion on whether WebObjects will ever be compatible because of patent issues. There's hope, but who knows?

Re:Development

[kwerle]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Never

[Wesley Felter]

The x86 version of MacOS X is currently schduled to be released... never.

Re:no more aqua

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD kernel inside of OS X.

But there's a blue apple at the top of the page...

Re:C-64

[talonyx]

Imagine my surprise when a C64 that someone didn't want came with GEOS. I had no idea that something like a C64 could be better than Windows.

Geez. Windowing environment in 64 k of ram, better performance than my 450.

Quick question

[Kierthos]

Anyone got any good stats on how OS X will perform? Or at least credible rumours?

Kierthos

Re:Quick question

[WillAdams]

Well, its predecessor OpenStep 4.2 is okay on a 25MHz, 68040 w/ 40MB RAM (my NeXT Cube at home).

Apple engineers have posted ibformation on it running adequatly on old Power Mac 6400s, I think they were to comp.sys.next.advocacy, and OpenStep for Intel on modern hardware is by all accounts amazingly quick/responsive (``windows vanish'').

Statements by people running DP4 have been almost wholely positive---especially those with G4s (apparently a lot of the Quartz imaging takes advantage of Altivec in innovative and elegant/efficient ways).

William

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:Performance problems

[Anne Onymus]

Count on a lot of the performance hit being due to debugging code. Apple needs to build that extra stuff in to see where things crash.

Re:Performance problems

[Lord Kenja]

Argh. If you have any right to the Developer Previews that's out there. You would know that something like that would exactly be the case. Nobody (well.. Maybe M$) can spare the resources to toptrim a DP to get close to final poduct proformance.

It's been mentioned so many times. And everytime I am surpriced how it can come as a surprice to anyone that a DP version is neither stable or fast.

OSX Beta

[SirDrinksAlot]

Hopefully they will still have the unsupported support that OSX DP4 has in it. Interesting point: if its on the supported list of Darwin and not on the supported list of OSX then its in the unofficial unsupported list for OSX. I have DP4 installed on a PowerMacintosh 7300. I cant to see how fast it runs on the G4/MP's. It ran super fast on the Machine they used it on durring WWDC.

Re:OSX Beta

[Pope Slackman]

>I have DP4 installed on a PowerMacintosh 7300

Just out of curiosity, has that machine been upgraded to a G3/4?

--K
---

Re:OSX Beta

[SirDrinksAlot]

No it hasent, This 7300 is all stock. All that's bein added to it is 96mb ram (brings it to 128mb), Voodoo1 (not used in OSX), TV card (not used by osx again), and a USB Card (it might be, i dont have anything attached to it right now :) tho i will soon be adding a G4 upgrade to it.

Re:OSX Beta

[CoffeeNowDammit]

Awesome. My trusty rusty PowerCenterPro (upgraded to a G3/250) just might be able to run this puppy.

I've been debating whether or not to go with OS X, or to go the Linux/Intel route. The implicit assumption was that I would be buying a machine either way to do one or the other.

Until today, at least.

(Yes, I know about PowerPC Linux. LinuxPPC 2K runs on my machine alongside MacOS 9.0.4. My main gripe with non-Intel Linuces is that hardly anybody acknowledges their existence).
-----
"O Lord, grant me the courage to change the things I can,
the serenity to accept those I cannot, and a big pile of money."

Re:public beta?

[Slad]

It will be availalbe for $15-$20 for a CD. So much for *free*! On September 3, ten days before the release date, you can order it through the Apple store.

A blast from the past...

[deander2]

READ MY LIPS, no more missed release dates!

Wow, does anyone even remember Steve Jobs promising that when he took over 2+ years ago? Seems like it's been forever.

I seem to remember a promise of the next-generation of macOS scheduled in spring on 99, not 2001. Wasn't it Steve who said "The software industry has gotten a very bad reputation for being late, and Apple is going to change that around!" What happened to that? I remember mac freaks praising Jobs. Where's the critism now?

And it keeps happening. "Beta in the spring!" "Beta in the summer!" "September mabye?" And then there was "Final release for x-mas 2000!" "Final release January!" "Um, next spring possibly?" Yeah right. Maybe next fall.

I know people who think the world of Apple, and I'll admit I'm a fan, but anyone screaming their perfection and moral triumph aught to get with the picture or shut the heck up. Apple fell from the tree a long time ago. They are now a giant corporation, and like most, are filled with worms and rotting from the inside out.

Now let the flames roll in! :)

Re:A blast from the past...

[bugg]

People work better with a deadline.

Maybe the naming of an actual day is a bit unrealistic, but a quarter, month, or week are all realistic and should be used.

As for missing deadlines, let's talk about how long the linux 2.4 kernel has been promised.
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=linux+2.4

Informal deadlines started in the Fall of '99. That was one year ago. And I quote, from a CNET article:
Citing the need for smaller, more incremental upgrades to the open- source operating system, Torvalds says he is trying to roll out the next major Linux release, version 2.4, by this fall.

But when a big company does it, it's evil.

Re:A blast from the past...

[update()]

You know, for three years I've been reading how "This is the year that Linux is ready for the desktop.", "XXX is finally going to free users from the cryptic command-line and bring Unix to the desktop.", "I installed the new Red Hat with YYY and my grandmother finds it easier to use than Windows and Office."

Well, on September 13, Unix is coming to the consumer desktop. For real. Yeah, I think Apple deserves another round of abuse from the Slashdot readership.

Besides, it should be remembered that Apple has been shipping Mac OS X server for, what, two years? They're not hyping it but it's been on sale and in use.

---------

Re:A blast from the past...

[um... Lucas]

Well, what, would you rather them release a 1.0 product that crashes and sizzles all the time and destroys your files, or take the time to actually get it right? Writing a newish OS is an undertaking on it's own, not to mention the fact that they want to make the transition as easy as possible for developers and users alike...

Although i wish they'ed just give status reports rather than continually post poning the release dates... However, to call them a rotten apple filled with worms is a bit overkill... Apple really still is one of leaders of the personal computing world. Which is why they're being so cautious about when the OS will be ready. One major misstep could lead to a renewed round of "beleagured Apple Computer" reports in the news...

Re:A blast from the past...

[daniell]

Where's the critism now?

I bought a mac 5 years ago, and then 4 years before that. with my more recent purchase I was buying under the assumtion that a new OS would be out for it in a year. By the time 8 came out with its all PPC native code, it had been more than a year, and it wasn't the OS I was thinking of.

When the iMac was released, and then with the g3 powerbook, and the G4 desktop, I wrote apple some mail that I wish I could buy they're product, but I made a vow that I wouldn't buy anything until the next generation OS shipped with it (as now I couldn't even dream of running osX on an 8500/120). By next gen OS I mean something with premptive multitasking and decent memory management, the other features don't need to change, although its an effort to support everything a desktop style os must do these days.

I tend to get a response that it'll be out really soon, and sooner still we'll let you try it if you buy some of the nifty stuff. Oh well. What annoys me is that for the money I could have, and almost did buy, a BeBox... which would be at least a nice collectors item. Be doesn't really support the PPC anymore since all the good free apps compile with GCC and GNU tools, the former of which seems to be binarily incompatable with the codewarrior stuff. I'm not clear on the issues involved there, but Be really pollarized instead of being a cross platform thing. Although for any commercial intents it pretty damn cross platform.

hmm getting carried away with the point there

-Daniel

Re:A blast from the past...

[rpk]

Didn't NeXTStep get released as version 0.9 even after the hardware was selling ? It looked quite stable to me, but apparently it wasn't up the NeXT's idea of what a 1.0 release should have.

Re:A blast from the past...

[mikpos]

I don't see what your point is. "X sucks, but Y sucks, too, so you're dumb" isn't really much of an argument. And besides, every time I've ever heard Linus mention a deadline, he's quick to mention that the deadline will not be met. I think this is the difference. Steve Jobs says "it'll be out in the spring". Linus says "it'll be out in the spring, and I'm never wrong" (obviously tongue-in-cheek).

Anyway, how on earth did this get to be about Linux? Linus' sucking has *nothing* to do with Apple's sucking. Apple missed the deadline; therefore they suck. I don't care if everyone else in the world also missed a deadline; the point still standns.

Re:A blast from the past...

[DiskRipper]

I see a lot of people complaining that the poster of this thread is being 'too harsh' on Apple. But the way I see it, Apple made a big crappy mistake by deciding to take an otherwise almost cool OS and then add Aqua. The effect of that was to delay all of the application developers and such who now put in months of useless effort to make their buttons translucent blue. Apple should have done what any decent programming team does: get the essentials done first -- then make it look nice. I guess the Apple marketing dept. won out over the intelligence of Avie. I would have been perfectly happy with the existing OS 9 UI and a decent underlying OS. Instead Apple has delayed too long and our company is being forced to drop the crappy OS due to lack of Java 2 and threading support. (and please don't say just wait until OS X comes out -- it will be next summer before its ready for prime time -- trust me, I've used the beta's).

Re:A blast from the past...

[bugg]

Did Jobs swear on his mother's grave that they'd reach that deadline? No, he didn't. But everyone at Apple is trying like hell to get the public beta out at that date, and it wouldn't surprise me if they do it.

Jobs does the same thing Linus does, but he maintains a level of professionalism :)

Re:A blast from the past...

[blinko]

bitmapped fricking graphics.

Thats what Aqua is. Aqua catches the attention of a lot of people who thought Apple stagnated or left them for dead. Stupid reporters for example. Its been proven over and over again that the best technonogy is not assured of winning. Aqua is the sellable "sizzle" of the Mach/BSD/Openstep libs core.

Look at it this way, if Natalie Portman puts on a lime green 70s polyester pant suit ensemble that does not make her an ugly person. Similary with OS X and Aqua, you can "take the clothes off at home" so to speak. And load what ever bit-mapped gui elements you like, or can make.

--

Re:A blast from the past...

[be-fan]

Aqua isn't just pretty. Aqua/Quartz is a full-fledged DPDF engine with all it's attendant benifets. I'm guessing that Aqua didn't take very long (for a window manager.) The meat of the time was developing Darwin and Quartz. OS X should not have shipped without Quartz, and thankfully it didn't. Besides, as far as I can tell, the core stuff (Darwin, Quartz) were ready long before Aqua was put into place.

Re:A blast from the past...

[palndron]

welcome to the real world neo.

Re:A blast from the past...

[Robert S Gormley]

Or cowardice, right?

Re:A blast from the past...

[alleria]

... and from the world of PC gaming, we see ... Unreal. And Halflife. Two games that missed their release dates by a mile. And kicked ass. We also see the (in)famous Daikatana. Which missed its release date, and sucks more than a whore hopped up on a bag full of crack rocks.

Release dates have nothing to do with quality, and quality is all that we should care about.

Re:A blast from the past...

[waterbug]

bitmapped fricking graphics. Thats what Aqua is.

Is this true? I don't know any differently, but it seems odd to make everything bitmapped if the system rendering engine is supposed to be really cool for rendering vectors.

Re:A blast from the past...

[Malcontent]

closed minds, closed fist we are microsoft.

A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.

Re:A blast from the past...

[blinko]

Apple uses vector outlines and bitmapped textures for any Quartz GUI that is my understanding of it.

--

Re:A blast from the past...

[bugg]

Not sure if you're talking about Jobs or Linus.. clarify please?

Re:A blast from the past...

[ThesQuid]

The graphics engine uses several different methods to display things; bit-mapped graphic and vector elements are easily used in the same screen/window elements. If you want a full-blown explanation of how the imaging engine works (it's pretty cool) head on over to this article about the OSX display system at Arstechnica

Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[maggard]

From the linked story

Other features highlighted include a new Aqua Pro Mode option, which changes all the Aqua elements to Graphite, to help reduce the graphic distraction that some graphic artists expressed displeasure over in Aqua.

This is new as Apple has to date refused to support alternate interfaces under prior Mac OS's. There was an Apple project for supported themes that even got shipped with a few demos included but Jobs scrapped it as soon as he returned to power. To date the official word on Aqua was that it's "lickable" interface would be the only option and there was fear Apple would do something to actively block alternatives (Aqua themes appear to be trivially edited text and graphics files.)

What's even more interesting is that the alternate theme is not Apple's previous "Platinum" theme but a new one. As Platinum is already supported under Aqua in "Classic" applications this means that there will now be three different UI's shipping - Platinum under Classic, the default "lickable" under Aqua and it's alternate "Graphite".

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[gwernol]

What's even more interesting is that the alternate theme is not Apple's previous "Platinum" theme but a new one. As Platinum is already supported under Aqua in "Classic" applications this means that there will now be three different UI's shipping - Platinum under Classic, the default "lickable" under Aqua and it's alternate "Graphite".

I think you're reading more into this than is really there. Choosing the graphite look just changes the Aqua widgets to monochrome. For example, the three standard window title bar widgets (close window, minimize window and zoom window) are now all the same graphite gray color, rather then being red, yellow and green.

This is simply Aqua with a more muted color scheme. It is not a separate UI at all.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[WillAdams]

The new ``Pro Mode'' was the best bit of news for me---I've been complaining of the blue color since Aqua was unveiled.

Rather a shame they didn't take it all the way and offer color schemes to match all the different iMac Flavors/colors.

On the bright side, www.macthemes.org has a couple of notes in their Developer info which indicates Themes for Mac OS X should be feasible, so even if Apple doesn't do it, someone else will.

One other topic which hasn't been touched on is how many third-party utilities get nuked by Mac OS X:

Adobe Type Reunion - don't need it (save for in Classic), got a decent font panel now

Adobe Type Manager Deluxe/Suitcase/FontReserve - got memory to burn to keep all fonts loaded always, and a font panel which makes them manageable.

- nope, got a real OS, real Virtual Memory, and sophisticated file systems

Norton Disk Doctor/Tech Tools Pro - OpenStep hasn't crashed on me in years (and very few times in the six years I've been using it). Plus, for UFS there's fsck.

William

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[WillAdams]

The third entry in that list should've been:

insert Connectix utility here - nope, got a real OS, real Virtual Memory, and sophisticated file systems

Sorry 'bout that.

William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[Cycon]

This isn't a flame, I'm actually curious:

Choosing the graphite look just changes the Aqua widgets to monochrome. For example, the three standard window title bar widgets (close window, minimize window and zoom window) are now all the same graphite gray color, rather then being red, yellow and green.

So wait a second here. Doesn't that mean that the three unmarked buttons at the upper-right of every window will now be even more indistinguishable as to their function? It was a bad enough design decision (this is only my opinion) that you can't tell which color performs which function, but now they're going to removed the color distinction as well?

Isn't this basically the equivalent of taking a keyboard and painting a different color over each key's label, and then deciding that wasn't obscure enough and just paiting them all grey?

The next step of course is that each time you click on one of the buttons, their functions are all randomly shuffled about...

--Cycon

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[doce]

The buttons aren't indistinguishable at all. When the mouse is near the buttons, they have glyphs in them that tell their function.

given that small glyphs are the current method of discerning function, this is pretty much a null change.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[WillAdams]

The buttons are pretty much indistinguishable, save for the positional cues _until_ the mouse is near them. Then and only then do the symbols which indicate function appear.

It's to be hoped that there'll be a significant enough change in the value _if_ the color has been removed from the buttons on the key w/focus window ---Steve's statement, ``That's graphite, in and out, you can see. Just removes all the color from all the user interface.'' would seem to indicate that, but one can hope not....

I really wish that they'd add a ``color-blind'' option to the UI, which would leave (subdued) versions of the symbols in the buttons at all times.

It's trivial to come up with a situation where the positional cue for one or more buttons is lacking.

William

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[Cycon]

The buttons aren't indistinguishable at all. When the mouse is near the buttons, they have glyphs in them that tell their function.

Fair enough, but here's my counter-arguement:

Why should I have to move my mouse all over the screen (as a brand-new user) in to discover symbols which represent functions I've never encountered before?

This still just seems horribly counter-intuitive and user-unfriendly to me. What If I had placed a small stick in the middle of the road, but when you drove close to it, it turned into a brick wall?

--Cycon

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[skerner]

Um... Go to the Apearance control panel. You can change the way windows colapse, the location of the scrole buttons, and several other things like color schemes. Apple created some wild schemes ( one of which was called "gismo" ), but didn't ship them with the OS. This didn't stop anyone from useing them, since you can download them and a million other themes that people create. The format of a theme file is well documented and it is not hard to make one.

The general pattern of apple's software is that a user who knows nothing can only do things that are not going to supprize them too much. I whould bet that the wilder themes were axed because a user who wandered into the control panel and clicked on gizmo whould probably freak out when all of the borders on every window became bright orange with yellow stripes and the menus made a loud clacking sound.

But as someone who knows what he is doing, I can make my mac look and behave any way I want. In the Ars Technica report on dp4, it was mentioned that Aqua is dependant on a bundle, and removing that bundle changes the UI to something closer to OS 9. If you were working on OS X, and had made the OS read a bunch of files to know what the UI should look like, whould you ever consider going back and hardcoding all of the data in those files into the apropreate parts of the OS? Of course not. Even if Steve insisted, the fact that they want a beta out the door in ~20 days whoud make it fairly unlikely that it will happen at least with the beta. And if everyone who runs the beta changes the interface, I doubt Steve whould risk pissing off all of his users by locking out interface changes in the final reliece.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[be-fan]

Or why not just memorize which button does what? I haven't looked at the button's shapes since, oh, 5 minutes after installing Windows 3.1

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[gig]

When you mouseover ANY window control, whether it's the foreground window or a background window, glyphs appear in all three widgets. They are (in my opinion) easier-to-understand glyphs than the ones in Mac OS 9 (where all the widgets are gray as well, but only two have glyphs).

If these were buttons on a button bar, or some kind of control that the user only occassionally sees, then this might be a problem. As it is, people will learn the widgets in their first minute with the OS. The fact that they mouseover also shows that they are buttons ... action items ... not just a cute decoration.

A background window in Mac OS 9 loses its scrollbars and other visual clutter. This is just an extension of that.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[maggard]

Er - actually you're kinda dead wrong about a few things.

• The Appearance control panel was originally intended to make a lot more substantial changes to how the Finder behaves. What you've got now is a stripped down 1/2-finished control.
• The Apple-themes that you can find out on the net ("Platinum", "Gizmo", & the Apple-Japan developed "Drawing Board") are ones that 'escaped' the company and were never officially released.
• The format of a theme file is not "well documented" and it is hard to make one. Apple never released the specs and it was over a year before all of the intricacies were widely understood.
• The themes were axed because Jobs saw them as a frivolous waste of resources and a complicating factor for developers, trainers, and support persons.
• The developers won't have had "~20 days" to lock in the Aqua appearance - DP4 shipped quite awhile ago and beta isn't due for 20 days.
• It wouldn't be out of character at all for Jobs to "lock in " the default Aqua appearence, for precisely the same reasons as he axed this functioniality the first time. Jobs would absolutely "risk pissing off all of his users" 'cause 90% of his users didn't even know these things could be changed, 95% don't care, and for most of the support folks & developers this is anamatha anyway.

The reality is that the ability to play with ones UI is something only a small percentage of folks care about, fewer feel strongly about, and most people who have to deal with the variables this results in rue.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[Captain Pillbug]

It depends on what you mean by "officially released". With the alpha and beta versions of macos8.5 that folk like me got from apple's developer seeding program, those themes were included until around beta4 IIRC. So my own copies of those files were legitimately obtained from apple with their full knowledge and consent. Others who've since downloaded them from non-apple sites can't say the same.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[gig]

They may still have flavors, but the Seybold crowd is a pro crowd, and this was something for them. At the Paris show where they release the beta they may show off other colors.

Then again, there are about 15 different colors that Apple has used over the past couple of years, including a few different reds that were all called Strawberry. Maybe they gave this a shot and it was a mess. They stopped coloring the keyboards and mouses recently (they're all gray and clear now) so maybe that sort of goes together.

Re:Interesting other note from the Jobs demo

[WillAdams]

I'm hoping that there'll be a significant enough change in the hue/value between controls to allow identification.

Unfortunately, one can all-too easily loose the positional context with lots of windows over-lapping.

William

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

::sigh::

[fishfooddelux]

So, lets recap. Aqua is unveiled. 3/4ths of the Mac using complain about how girly it is. Apple does something about it. 99% of the Mac using population complains about what an eventless day it has been. Did I miss something?

Re:::sigh::

[daviddennis]

Whenever a Steve Jobs keynote comes up, the Mac faithful start feeling breathless anticipation because most of the times he speaks, he has a spectacular, world-beating announcement to make.

And with his July announcement of the multi-processor G4s and the Cube, the collective WOW! pasted a smile on the face of every Mac enthusiast.

Now, it would be only natural to think that there wasn't really any time for anything of significance, with less than a month between this one and the last. After all, I only saw my first Cube last night(*).

But the public has great expectations for Steve, because, after all, Steve is the Godlike figure who saved Apple from irrelevence, disaster, and tiresomeness. Steve the Great can do anything, they say!

So everyone expects something exciting when he speaks, however much Apple tries to diminish expectations.

Hope that helps explain the curious phenomenon.

D

(*) The CUBE: Yes, it's as stunning a looker as you've heard -- but the store ruined the effect by paring it with an off-brand Beige monitor. For shame, guys! No more Beige! [laugh]
----

Re:Performance problems

[TheInternet]

But so far running OSX on high end hardware only produces medicore performance. It takes a lot of horsepower to this baby march. I'm eager to see if this "beta" version is an improvement.

This is something I noticed as well, but apparently these are more due to high-level issues rather than the OS/kernel itself. For example, I believe the Cocoa and Java libaries are still being optimized, which explains why the little applets take so long to launch. At least at some point, some of those sample applications (TextEdit, I think?) were actually Java apps, so the JVM loads first, then the application. I would not be suprised if this was still the case with DP4, and possibly even in the final public release.

The OS itself is obviously a quite capable system performance-wise. It does an admirable job serving pages via Apache from what I've seen. It just seems that some of the higher level user-level stuff needs tweaking, which is probably what most of the debug code is attached to, anyway. I don't imagine the BSD layer, etc are changing nearly as much.

- Scott


------
Scott Stevenson

Re:Turing test

[Vladimator]

Hi Eliza!

Fawking Trolls!

Interesting release date

[Dell Brandstone]

One day before the release of Windows ME. Coincidence? -DB

DPS/Quartz (was Re:Development)

[WillAdams]

Adobe renegged on their promise to provide, first a free, then a low-cost license for Display PostScript (DPS), hence Apple's creation of a display toolket based on the open .pdf specification.

Look up posts in comp.sys.next.advocacy for the details on this.

William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Well...

[TheInternet]

Question is, will it run on my SuperMac clone with Newer Tech G3 upgrade?

Can you ride a bike across a tightrope?

You could probably figure out a way to do it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I don't think it'll be all that hard to port to "unsupported" (aka merely untested) Macs and clones. I have a Powerbook 2400c that I'll be trying it on, for instance (though I suspect the display size and depth will be an impediment - even Mac OS 9 doesn't like displays less than 32 bits as much as it used to). The issue will be device drivers, but all the low-level stuff is part of Darwin, and thus open-sourced, and the clones in particular tend to be built of off-the-shelf PC hardware so the specs are generally available (same for the C&T65550 display chipset in my beast). This is the beauty of Unix - hack the lower layers and the upper ones come along for a free ride. ;)

Re:Performance problems

[baka_boy]

I think there's a reason that Apple funded MkLinux for several years, then dropped it: they wanted the experience with a Mach microkernel-based, *NIX OS on the PowerPC platform. They got it, and now have been able to roll that into Darwin. Hence, the decent core OS performance and stability.

Re:Probably the same type of omissions in Win2K

[AFCArchvile]

I remember when I had the Windows 2000 beta 3 Release Candidate 1 installed in December, I couldn't use Adaptec ECDC (I hate spelling it out; it makes the speaker sound like he's speaking Spanish!). Ok for me, since I was still dual-booting to 95. I even had the beta running at 11:59 December 31, 1999. It kept running until I shut it down. When I got the released version from the RoadShow (it says on the disk, "NOT FOR RETAIL OR OEM DISTRIBUTION", hehe), I installed it with glee. Then I installed ECDC again, and it worked! Even better, sometimes I see the progress meter freeze, (sorta like a Win98 GDI freeze), but the drive is still recording, the hard drive is still seeking. Now that's setting the resource priorities straight! Then again, it is NT, so it's designed on a proactive mindframe.

Personally, I think that Windows Millennium Edition's proper designation should be: "Windows PE" (Proletariat's edition). You get what you pay for, and Linux is free! hehe.

This is pointless

[2nd Post!]

And the comment about the 'filled with worms and rotting from the inside out' is just uncalled for.

So they slipped; should they have shipped anyway, knowing they weren't finished? I dunno, I think it's 'morally' better to slip than to cheat someone with an inferior product.

Apple slips. Linux slips. Windows slips. What's the big deal? Life is not revolving around OS releases, are they?

The nick is a joke! Really!

Re:Performance problems

[bugg]

It's a shame if Darwin and then Mac OS/X don't upgrade to more of a FreeBSD 4.x core, because the improved VM subsystem would result in a noticably faster machine.

Of course, that'd also require a lot of time merging code. Apple has the resources, don't they? :)

Re:Oops My Powerbook...

[mcwop]

My Lombard 333mhx OS 9 refuses to wake up as well. There may be a patch, but i just disabled the auto sleep function.

Re:Finally!

[mcwop]

The real question is will Apple ship the beta on 9/13 or will it be distributed at the expo or is that when Apple will start taking orders. I cannot wait for any kind of OS X, but as a project manager I am cynical when it comes to delivery dates.

Be ready for glitches...

[The Queen]

...the 13th is the full moon. ;-)

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Re:Be ready for glitches...

[Geoff]

At least it's not Friday!

Re:Finally!

[pegiron]

well, it won't ship, it'll be a public beta... it may well be d/l only for a bit, or they may not package the beta at all...

X-Centricity

[rpk]

I think it's safe to say that the "blue box", perhaps some elements of Carbon, and the AltiVec code in certain libraries are PPC-specific. (Even then the AltiVec functionality is accessible as things that look like C function calls, so it could always be faked for other processors.)

But the Core Foundation (which also runs on MacOS 9), Darwin, and the Cocoa framework remain extremely portable. For example, Apple just released patches for WebObjects that run on NT, Solaris, and HP-UX.

OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[nehril]

All the distro makers are trying very hard to make a luser friendly yet powerful unix system, but that exactly describes OS X. Except for the hardware constraints, anybody interested in linux from a user standpoint is better served using MacOS X. Why give Grandma Redhat when you can give her OSX?

RedHat/GNOME/KDE & crew have a loooong way to go before they match the user experience of OS X. It will be hard to even try to match level that since Apple controls the hardware too.

Throw in all the standard OSS tools (gcc/gmake/perl/apache/etc..) and what is there for a geek not to like too?

Mac OS X seems really cool, unfortunately Apple needed this about 4 years ago. Still, OS X makes me seriously consider picking up a mac (ibook perhaps) just to play around with it.

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[knarf]

RedHat/GNOME/KDE & crew have a loooong way to go before they match the user experience of OS X. It will be hard to even try to match level that since Apple controls the hardware too. Throw in all the standard OSS tools (gcc/gmake/perl/apache/etc..) and what is there for a geek not to like too?

Freedom? The core may be free, but the layers on top of that are closed/proprietary, and controlled by a company which might not agree with your goals. Or which might not give enough attention to that nagging bug which is causing you such trouble, since you are only a small company. Or...

Free software has brought us where we are now. Why not let it take us where we want to go tomorrow? Or even today?

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[znu]

Most of Apple's hardware is quite competitively priced these days. It's still not quite as cheap, but it's close (except the Cube, but that has an excuse).

--

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[semios]

Well they did have to pay for all that R&D in the innovative cube design, right?

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[innerFire]

Why give Grandma Redhat when you can give her OSX?

Because Red Hat gives her freedom, and Red Hat runs well on a $200 computer. OS X is niether free nor efficient.

what is there for a geek not to like too?

You answered your own question, dood:

Apple controls the hardware too.

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[gig]

> Why give grandma a OS X when you have to pay
> $400-$600 more than the equivalently priced
> Intel/AMD box with linux?

Because a Linux box will make your grandmother feel like an ignorant twit. She will stop using it after the third help-me call she makes to you.

$400-$600 is a ridiculous stretch, too, considering the cheapest iMac is $799 and comes with a $99 office suite and an optical mouse.

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[Pope Slackman]

Because Red Hat gives her freedom, and Red Hat runs well on a $200 computer. OS X is niether free nor efficient.

It might not be free, but I really don't think I'd consider GNOME, Netrape or KDE any more efficient than OSX. Apache is efficient. GCC is efficient. X11 is not. X11 also doesn't have all the cool, modern things like display PDF.


You answered your own question, dood:
Apple controls the hardware too.

I dunno, I like workstation hardware. You know, Suns, SGIs, that sort of thing. I'm a 'geek'.
It really don't bother me that it comes from a certain vendor, and only a certain vendor.

Besides, the new Macs don't really seem all that
proprietary. I mean, ATI video, Motorola processor/chipset, ATA drives, PC100 RAM...
Apple just provides the firmware/OS.

I know when OSX comes out, I'm goning to seriously consider switching
to it. I have heard nothing but good about NeXT/OpenSTEP, and OSX seems to have inherited most of the NeXT traits.

It seems like Apple may be the one to 'Make UNIX Not Suck'.

Just my opinion, tho.
--K


---

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[nconway]

RedHat/GNOME/KDE & crew have a loooong way to go before they match the user experience of OS X

Steve Jobs and crew have a 'loooong way to go' before they even release MacOSX. When it's released, then it will be fair to compaire with a GNU/Linux distro. Considering the pace at which Linux is improving, it's very difficult to predict the future.

All the distro makers are trying very hard to make a luser friendly yet powerful unix system, but that exactly describes OS X. Except for the hardware constraints, anybody interested in linux from a user standpoint is better served using MacOS X. Why give Grandma Redhat when you can give her OSX?

I think MacOSX will be cool as hell, but it's nowhere near a 'better Linux than Linux' (not necessarily worse or better, just different). OSX will only run on Apple hardware. That means tossing out all that cheap, plentiful x86 hardware and starting over. It also means that old SparcStation in the corner isn't going to be running MacOS X any time soon. OSX is closed source (Darwin not withstanding - I'd say the majority of MacOSX will be closed source), and only runs on a closed hardware platform. If you use GNU/Linux for philosophical reasons, you won't want to have much to do with OSX. Once MacOS X is finally released, it will be brand new, 'fresh' code (stuff taken from BSD notwithstanding). Which is great from an 'innovation' standpoint; but I know I'll definately be hesitant to run MacOS X on any important servers anytime soon.

Then again, I don't really know much about OSX, so go ahead and correct me. One quick question - is the GUI integrated into the OS? If you're running X on it, will you need to load Apple's GUI (for lack of a better term), as well as X? Can you forego a GUI entirely? Throw in all the standard OSS tools

Have they actually been ported to OSX? How stable are they? OS X makes me seriously consider picking up a mac

Me too!

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[Buskaatt]

One quick question - is the GUI integrated into the OS? If you're running X on it, will you need to load Apple's GUI (for lack of a better term), as well as X? Can you forego a GUI entirely?

In DP4 you can install X. Damn I wish I could find the link. Once you install it you have to log in as user console with password console. That disables Aqua. Then you log in for real, and startx.

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[ahg]

Then again, I don't really know much about OSX, so go ahead and correct me. One quick question - is the GUI integrated into the OS? If you're running X on it, will you need to load Apple's GUI (for lack of a better term), as well as X? Can you forego a GUI entirely?

Well, Yes, and No.

Darwin, Apple's open source edition of their new operating system is CLI only and is FreeBSD 4.0 "compatable". IIRC, Carmack has ported XFree86 to Darwin, providing your X interface. This is a totally open source option but I see no compelling reason to chose this path over x86 based BSD.

MacOSX is the union of the BSD/mach foundation, Apple's closed source Display PDF GUI, and their Carbon* and Cocoa (Nextstep) APIs. The OSX install CDs will probably not have a CLI only install option.

So... from a kernel/process standpoint the OSX GUI will be separate. From a delivery standpoint, you're probably going to get them both, like it or not, if you install from an OSX CD. Additionally, the option to open an interactive shell is rumored to be an "advanced" install option; the average Mac user never see the CLI.

As for X over Apple's GUI - AFAIK, only Tenon systems has annnounced a commercial X server that fully integrates with Quartz/Aqua (the Apple GUI). It's only a matter of time before someone builds off of Carmack's work and has an OSS X server that runs on top of Quartz/Aqua.

I think it will be a compelling hybrid of classic *nix and GUI. It's not perfect for everyone but for Apple's core markets, Graphical Design and Publishing, this is as good as it gets. Tight integration between display and print, along with Apple's advanced color managment software, makes for a system that fills their niches really, really well.

* Note for those not yet familiar with Apple's OSX: Carbon is the API set all current Mac apps are being written to, and is part of today's MacOS9 as well. Future apps will be written to the "more native" Cocoa. -- Carbon can be thought of doing for OSX what Winelib does for Linux. There will be a Classic Interface as well which will run apps that haven't been "Cabonized". This is basically a VM running OS9 and any apps that have not been updated over the new interface. The Apps and the old OS appear as single process to the underlying system.

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[Clith]

is the GUI integrated into the OS? If you're running X on it, will you need to load Apple's GUI (for lack of a better term), as well as X? Can you forego a GUI entirely?

The OSX install CDs will probably not have a CLI only install option.

Note that [currently in DP4 at least] you can log in to Mac OS X as "console", with no passwd to kill the Aqua window manager and get a text console with a "login:" prompt. I do this when I want to run X Windows [Hm, "X Windows" and "OS X" can get a bit confusing]. It would be nice if there was some way to run xdm instead of Apple's login window. For now, after I log in, Si simply type "startx".

Re:OSX: perfect "linux" distro?

[Harv]

don't appologize for the pangs of growth , Grasshopper. This glimmer of awareness is but the first step to healing..... Ommmmm

Keynote transcript available here:

[WillAdams]

http://www.key3media.com/seyboldseminars/sf2000/pr esentations/keynotes/apple/jobs.html

Should help clear up some of the confusion about, e.g. ``Pro Mode''/Graphite Aqua.

William

PS - mentioned this before, but www.macthemes.org says in their Developer notes that themes for Mac OS X are quite feasible.

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:Keynote transcript available here:

[gig]

Not only are they feasible, but they are not that much different from Mac OS 9. The widgets are all the same size, the formatting of the resources is very similar. It shouldn't be too hard to port over all the Mac OS 9 themes (there are thousands and thousands). I read somewhere about somebody already using a Mac OS 9 theme file with Mac OS X and it worked, although it was buggy and looked like shit.

Once the dust settles, you'll see themes for sure.

Apple should have gone with Be

[Lord Kano]

Be's engineers kept on trucking, they released a version of their or for x86 and would still be kicking ass on the Mac is Apple hadn't started withholding specs from them.

Instead of buying next(fuck you Steve Jobs, I'm not playing the little "e" game). Apple should have bought Be. If they had, they'd have the "modern" OS that everyone keeps bitching about 3 years ago.

I use current Apple equipment, I have 3 Macs and one clone, but screw apple from now on.

LK

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[WillAdams]

I see.

Would you care to explain how it is that the PPC Linux developers (www.yellowdoglinux.com, www.linuxppc.com, www.penguinppc.org) are able to develop an OS for these machines for which specs are not available?

Or, let's review the imaging model? How long did it take Be to get _printing_ as a capability of the OS? Similarly, color management, and other high-end publishing features are absent from BeOS.

And then there're the developer tools. Compare and contrast the number of apps which are available for BeOS with those for NeXT/OPENstep---rather sobering, no?

William


--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[update()]

Be's engineers kept on trucking, they released a version of their or for x86 and would still be kicking ass on the Mac is Apple hadn't started withholding specs from them.

Oh, not this again! Look, whatever, happened between Apple and Be (my impression is that Be understandably was looking to ditch the PPC and used the G3 specs as an excuse) Apple is absolutely not opposed to other OS's on their hardware. They funded the development of MkLinux, offer information on PowerPC Linuces on an apple.com page -- and the Disk Setup tool now includes options for Unix partitions and "recommended LinuxPPC" setup.

---------

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[UnknownSoldier]

> Would you care to explain how it is that the PPC Linux developers are able to develop an OS for these machines for which specs are not available?

If you read Be OS Bible, Be explains that they didn't think it would be nice to support hardware that Apple has refused to give them help with.

Is it an excuse? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares, Intel hardware is cheaper anyways ;-)

--
BeOS is a better Windows/MacOS then Windows/MacOS.

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[conio]

Instead of buying next(fuck you Steve Jobs, I'm not playing the little "e" game). Apple should have bought Be...

Hmm. NeXT, BeOS -- what am I missing?

--

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[Darchmare]

No. Basically Be just got pissed because Apple wasn't subsidizing them. It's no coincidence that Intel made their big investment around then.

Once again - explain:

LinuxPPC
Yellow Dog Linux
Darwin
MkLinux
*BSD (a few variaties I believe)
Debian
SUSE

...all having, or announcing, PowerMac distributions.


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

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[Darchmare]

Oh, and another thing:

Why would Apple mind if Be made their OS for Mac hardware?

Think about it:

1. A MacOS user buys a Macintosh so they can run their OS of choice. Apple gets $XXX.XX for the computer and a copy of the MacOS.

2. A BeOS user buys a Macintosh so they can run their OS of choice. Apple gets $XXX.XX for the computer and a copy of the MacOS. User buys BeOS as well.

See those X's up there? They'd be equal. Apple loses no money in the deal, and it's quite likely BeOS users would gravitate to the more powerful (read: more profitable for Apple) hardware anyhow.

The only thing Apple might lose is a little 3rd party support. Big deal. It's not likely they'd have lost, and probably would have gained more in additional profits if it came to that to deal with it.

Face it - Be did what it did because they wanted to do it anyhow. They were lured by the siren cry of Wintel's market penetration, but have basically lost themselves in a sea of mediocracy in trying to keep up with drivers. Bad mistake, but don't blame it on Apple. Instead of coding millions of drivers Be could have been making the BeOS even cooler.

(and yes, the BeOS was/is really really cool, but that's not what this is about...)


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

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[UnknownSoldier]

> Instead of coding millions of drivers Be could have been making the BeOS even cooler.

Maybe I missed something, but isn't that what they _are_ doing right now?

(Tracker keeps getting better and better. 3D support is in. Security is next.)

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[Lord Kano]

Be, couldn't have incorporated open source developments into their OS and remained proprietary.

LK

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[Lord Kano]

Disk Setup tool now includes options for Unix partitions and "recommended LinuxPPC" setup.

It has for years. A/UX anyone? Big deal.

LK

Re:Apple should have gone with Be

[Darchmare]

---
Maybe I missed something, but isn't that what they _are_ doing right now?

(Tracker keeps getting better and better. 3D support is in. Security is next.)
---

Having used the BeOS since DR8 and every major release since, I can say that while BeOS may be getting cooler, it's not getting cooler at any rate like it used to.

And much of its coolness is being pushed into the whole IA thing. I'm not sure how 'cool' that is though - most of the BeOS' main benefits are wasted on an internet appliance.

And really, if we haven't learned from Larry Ellison, this whole internet appliance thing isn't quite what it's cracked up to be...


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

Re:Apple should have gone with Be NOT

[gagganator]

a modern _proprietary_ beta os with a much poorer development environment and no market or mind share NeXT ran on x86 too. not running x86 was a business decision and be wouldnt have changed that if linuxppc and yellowdog and suse and others can write for apple hardware why not be? current apple equipment... wait, you bought apple hardware when it was lagging x86 and with archaic os 9 but wont by the upcoming g4e with os x?!

The beta to end all betas...

[Mike the Mac Geek]

September 13th.... a week before my birthday.... Kinda makes me think.
Jobs keeps pushing back the time for a good reason. After we do all his beta work for him, and submit ideas, and whatnot, then he can fix them in the final version. Simple, no? But we have to give Apple time to incorporate the changes into the OS. Flame me if you must, it makes sense.

Re:Apple should have gone with Be NOT

[gagganator]

i swear one day i will learn to put periods at the ends of sentences that end paragraphs. really

Yippee

[Mikeytsi]

Does this mean all them nifty "multi-processor" G4's will become something other than vaporware then? It must be nice to have a high-end, dual-processor Mac, and an OS that only supports one processor,....

Re:Yippee

[be-fan]

Actually, stuff like Photoshop can use the second proc. MacOS isn't single processor, it just doesn't use them very well.

Re:Yippee

[syntax]

Currently the version of MacOS that ships with MP G4's is a slightly modifed version that will put the full load of different processes on each processor. Yes, this isn't nearly the best way to do things, but its better than nothing. There is also a MP SDK out on Apple's site that any software writer can snag and make their program much more MP friendly

MacOS X not a microkernel

[Wesley Felter]

You are right about how microkernels work, but MacOS X does not use a microkernel. Drivers, filesystems, the network stack, etc. all run in kernel space (although many parts are loadable modules).

Don't let mentions of Mach confuse you; Darwin/MacOS X is based on Mach, which appears to mean "we hacked it until it didn't look like Mach anymore". :-)

Mac OS X and kuro5hin

[mkarcher]

Has anyone else noticed that both Mac OS X is supposed to come out, and that kuro5hin is supposed to come back, on Sept. 13?

Coincidence? Maybe...

These opinions are my own and not necessarily

Would xemacs run under it?

[daviddennis]

That's something I'm curious about - Apple got rid of X and replaced it with Display PostScript, right?

I can't live without my xemacs, and yet with it, MacOX X would be my dream OS - enough applications to use in the real world, but stable enough for me to use for Unix/Linux web site development.

Many thanks for any thoughts? Incidentally, the reason I'm saying xemacs instead of regular emacs is that I like the proportional font support built into XE.

D

----

Re:Would xemacs run under it?

[BinxBolling]

That's something I'm curious about - Apple got rid of X and replaced it with Display PostScript, right?

I can't live without my xemacs, and yet with it, MacOX X would be my dream OS - enough applications to use in the real world, but stable enough for me to use for Unix/Linux web site development.

MacOS X won't run X apps out of the box. However, I've read that at least one third-party company has announced an X server that will allow one to run X apps under Aqua. Presumably, this would work rather like eXceed and other X servers for Windows. Note that this software will probably be fairly expensive.

But even if you don't want to spend money on the third-party X server, there's a fair chance of a decent emacs port to MacOS X. The port of emacs I use on Windows is just as good as the version I use under Linux. I'm not so sure about xemacs, though.

Re:Would xemacs run under it?

[Chris Johnson]

Um, since both xemacs and GNU emacs (and vim) are ported to regular old MacOS, if all else failed and nobody ever lifted a finger to port them to OSX you'd still be able to run them in the Classic environment, as in 'right away' :)

I'm having a hard time getting to http://my.ispchannel.com/~pjarvis/xemacs.html (the site for the Mac port of xemacs) but that's where it's supposed to be :)

(OT)Getting around NT cmd.exe weakness

[yerricde]

Also, the "Command Shell" in NT is a little bit weak compared to bash. There's no way around that.

Guess you've never tried Cygwin. It's essentially a GNU environment inside a Windows NT/9x system. And it includes bash and gcc.

<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

yes it does

[feck]

a) reasonably easy port b) it covers apple's ass. they shifted processors in the past, they have to recognize the possibility of it happening again

MacOS X boot manager?

[daviddennis]

Will the beta come with a boot manager like Lilo, and if not, how do you select which OS to use if you have two?

Is there going to be some kind of partition manager, or do I need to buy a separate hard drive for OS X?

I'm going to be buying one of the dual/500 Macs and would just love to try the beta on it.

D

----

Re:MacOS X boot manager?

[WillAdams]

Take a look at publicsource.apple.com and how Darwin is installed/switched to, in particular the ``System Disk'' utility.

The latter can also be useful in setting up yaboot/openfirmware for versions of Linux for PPC.

William

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:MacOS X boot manager?

[gig]

DP4 could be installed on the same partition with Mac OS 9, but I never tried that. Don't know if there are issues or what.

If you do want to use a separate drive or partition, for older machines, you can use BootX to switch between Mac OS 9 and X, but if you have one of the following machines:

iBook
iMac (with slot-load drive)
PowerMac G4
PowerBook (FireWire)

you just hold down the Option key while you boot the machine, and you'll get a special screen with an icon for each bootable drive the system can find. Just click on the drive you want to boot from and then click on the right-facing arrow. The icons for the drives will even have the icon of the OS.

If you don't have space for another internal drive and you have a FireWire port (any of the above machines except the iBook or the lowest-end iMac), you can get an IDE to FireWire case for about $80 and use almost any IDE drive in it and put Mac OS X on that. Or spring a little more cash for an already-assembled FireWire drive. I'm not sure if you can boot from USB yet, though.

Re:MacOS X boot manager?

[daviddennis]

Many thanks for the detailed response - I'm going to be getting a dual G4/500 system, so the easy boot sounds like it will work just fine. All I need to do is buy another IDE drive and slot it in.

D

----

That's not fair...

[2nd Post!]

or accurate at *all*.

You don't have to move the mouse *all* over the screen; just towards the buttons. I'm hoping that as the mouse approaches the buttons that *all* of them would flicker into glyph mode, and not just the one you select. That way as you go towards the upper right hand corner, you can actually see what you're doing.

The better analogy is that the sign in the distance is dark green, and as you approach it you can see that there are directions on it (left, right, forward). It's a focus kind of activity, I would think. A horrible implementation, on Apple's part, would have us go down each direction *a little* bit to find out what is there... Though I can see that might actually happen in Aqua...



The nick is a joke! Really!

Re:Performance problems

[daviddennis]

How do you define high-end hardware - what machines are you running it on?

D

----

Nice points

[2nd Post!]

But why did Apple need this about 4 years ago? Windows 95 was barely out 4 years ago, and Apple didn't have a unified or comprehensive hardware platform either, what with over 20 different models available for sale.

What they needed 4 years ago was Steve Jobs, or someone similar.

The nick is a joke! Really!

not a chance!

[hawk]

It would take a fool to cover that bet.

I used the *alpha* release of 7.0 on my main machine ten-eleven years ago. It was more stable than what I've come to expect from microsoft.

[note--I really haven't used anything later than 7.1 (except to find that 7.5 wouldn't cut it on a IIci), so I have no position on the stability of 7.5-9.x :) ]

hawk

Re:BSD Daemon

[blinko]

Does /. have a Mach icon? Maybe now is the time.

--

Other modes

[iphayd]

Of course with the advent of pro mode, Mr. Jobs failed to mention that there are several other modes as well....

Nerd mode - Thick (10 pixel) black window outline, and the dock becomes a pocket protector.

Loser mode - the close box moves to the right side, and the dock moves to the left, and the finder icon changes to a "Start" button.

Dislexic mode - dias ffun'

Psychadelic mode - (Steve's favorite) the buttons constantly change color, and the dock flows around the screen as if it were made of paint.

Pimp mode - The windows move real slow, are bright yellow, and the buttons are gold. When you are not moving the windows, they hop in place.

Steve mode - it would be a stylish black, but would only let you see your new files on your HD twice a year. Oh, and one other thing, it would tell you about a new feature in OS X every time you shut down.

Retro theme - It would revert back to the Mac OS (pre platinum) look.

Invisible mode - for those that don't want anything to get in the way of their desktop picture.

Grandma mode - warm & fuzzy interface, always places fresh cookies in your web browser

Linux mode - Command line, but it keeps typing that software wants to be free as in both speech and beer.

A Mac expo in gay Paris.

[AFCArchvile]

How incredibly appropriate.

Re:A Mac expo in gay Paris.

[AFCArchvile]

If you have to ask, you must be either very deprived or just out of touch with the world.

South Park Episode 217: The Underpants Gnomes

Laptop hard drives are below $15/gigabyte

[Zoyd]

frankie wrote:
If laptop hard drive prices drop below $15 per Gb, I'll expand my Wallstreet...

IBM 30GT 30 gigabyte 12.5mm laptop drives are only $437 shipped, at onvia.com:

Check the current best prices.

Re:BSD?

[ikekrull]

Slashdot is probably worried that Apple will sue them for publishing trade secrets and using their copyrighted material (Apple Logo).

Since fair use is going out the window with the DMCA, and a website surely comes under the auspice of 'digital media', allowing the unauthorised copying of Apples logo to millions of client machines around the world is surely a felony computer crime.

Re:no more aqua

[znu]

Mach microkernel. Lots of the other low-level code is BSD.

--

other stuff obsoleted by OSX

[SethJohnson]

Don't forget all the internet-related apps like better telnet (replaced by >telnet), Netprezens (replaced by Apache, ftp, etc), fetch (replaced by >ftp),and probably Vicom Internet Gateway (don't know what the BSD equivalent to ipchains is, but I'm sure it's in there somewhere).

I'd bet Norton's Disk Doctor will still find demand. Although people's disks might not crash as often under the new OS, they're still gonna need the restoration capabilities for deleted files.

Seth

Re:Finally!

[znu]

It'll probably put a significant dent in Linux's use on the Mac platform. Most Mac users use Linux just because it's a modern OS that runs on their hardware and doesn't cost $500 like Mac OS X Server does. I've already moved my CGI development to the Mac OS X developer preview.

--

Re:You mean IE would work with linux?

[gig]

IE for Macintosh is a Carbon application, so it will run on Mac OS 8, 9, and X only. Maybe you're confusing it with Office 2001, which will come in Classic versions for Mac OS 8 and 9, and a Cocoa version for Mac OS X.

MS really shocked a few folks with the Cocoa announcement, given Bill Gate's famous "develop for it? I'll piss on it" quote about NeXTSTEP, and the fact that Cocoa apps are decidedly cross-platform, and decidedly Unix. Apple has the tech to run Cocoa apps on NT if they want, but it's been end-of-lifed to keep MS happy.

Re:Finally!

[znu]

You'll probably need to boot from the CD to install. Apple could get around this of course, but that's unlikely, since the download will be far too large for most users anyway.

Of course, I'm sure ISO images will show up everywhere within the week, whether the license allows it or not....

--

Linux will save Apple

[elNada]

When Motorola and IBM admit they can't and don't want to mass produce ppc chips at speeds all users consider current(500 was top of the line 2 years ago) - Apple will be forced to start using Linux-mozilla for a new class of computers. These laptops and tablets will sell like hot cakes because of Apple's ability to make great machines - not only in looks. Os X might also be ported to intel standard by then(2 years).

Re:Linux will save Apple

[omission9]

wtf? you are obviously a moron. no real geek speaks of "standard" anything. Intel standard? bah. Here's a standard for you: "the right architecture for the job". For real world tasks that means RISC and it means UNIX. Intel produces cheap consumer stuff for kidz.

Re:Linux will save Apple

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

My guess is LinuxPPC doesn't have the units to "save" apple. I'd like to see the numbers here.

The problem right now with chips is that Apple went with the G4 Altivecs in order to get a qualitative edge on the competition. The Altivecs run rings out of anything Intel has when it comes to graphics processing. But folks buy numbers. . Problem is it doesn't push out at high clockrates (I think pipeline is too short, I may be wrong, probably actually).

Since IBM will be the main supplier of G5 chips, and Has licensed the Altivec technology for G4's, I don't think you need Linux to save Apple just yet.

"makes me seriously consider picking up a mac"

[Crag]

Go ahead, 'cause if you don't like it you can install Linux on it when you're done.

YAY!

Re:public beta?

[Visigothe]

It will be availalbe for $15-$20 for a CD. So much for *free*! On September 3, ten days before the release date, you can order it through the Apple store.

"free" is a relative term. if it is available on CD, that costs $$ to produce. This cost has to be recoup'd somehow.

That being said, I am sure they will have a downloadable disk image of the CD *for free*.

This is the same situation as everyone else... you want physical media, you pay. If you have lotz o' bandwidth, DL the sucker for free.

Whats the problem?

actually, it's not for sale any more

[Captain Pillbug]

Go to the apple store and look around. MacOS X Server isn't being sold anymore. Lots of us already have copies, but if you don't, then you're screwed.

I vaguely remember something on MOSR about this in July. Ah, yes, here it is:

Q: Whither Mac OS X Server?!
I just tried to buy a Mac OS X Server and found out that the software does not run on the new machines. Any idea when these will become available?

Not wanting the press -- or users -- to latch on any further to the fact that Apple does not currently have any shipping operating system capable of Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP), it has pulled the OS X Server product and is not currently offering any G4 Server products.

Until Mac OS X Public Beta is completed with its built-in SMP support and ships, there is little chance of Apple releasing a SMP-enabled version of OS X Server; the duplication of effort would be excessive. Rather, Apple sources report that a version of Server based on the Public Beta release's codebase will likely be announced at the event where Public Beta is released (presently projected to be Seybold San Francisco in September, although this is not confirmed) and shipped within 8 weeks of the event.

Although the temporary unavailability of OS X Server is a problem for many who are working to adopt OS X's superior server-end capabilities early, the advent of a dramatically improved Server based on the Public Beta code base will be an advantageous one for the platform. Public Beta is faster, stabler, much more user-friendly and feature-rich, and supports Java 1.2 (aka Java2) in addition to its Symmetric Multiprocessing capabilities. This will go a long way toward giving early adopters -- and the industry press -- a truly mature product upon which to base their expectations of the final product

Re:actually, it's not for sale any more

[scorpioX]

Go to the apple store and look around. MacOS X Server isn't being sold anymore. Lots of us already have copies, but if you don't, then you're screwed.

I don't know if you can buy just Mac OS X server, but you can get it if you buy a server. See http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppl eStore.woa/93/wo/R7NRd027FLzFCXYeu3/2.3.0.3.28.8.1 .23.3.1.1.0?44,5. Or if that link is broken by now (I don't know if WO generates permanant links or not). Go to the Apple Store and then browse to the G4 section, and in the upper right corner there should be a graphic mentioning G4 Servers, click on that, and you should see the X server option.

3 BSD?

[lythari]

Here's something from the transcript of the keynote. Thought it was quite funny.

Now, Darwin is our core OS kernel. It is the mock microkernel surrounded by 3 BSD Unix

I think he means FreeBSD

Re:3 BSD?

[WillAdams]

The transcript was a bit rough. Steve Jobs certainly meant (and said) FreeBSD, the person doing the transcribing simply wasn't that technically apt (also wasn't very knowledgeable of the publishing industry as a whole, hard to believe a Seybold employee wouldn't know the advertising firm Chiat-Day).

William


--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams

Re:3 BSD?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

It is the mock microkernel

Typo? Or Fruedian slip? I think they meant Mach here.
Never translate something important into a language not your native one. Nevre have a non-geek transcribe a geek talk without a geek checking it.

Re:3 BSD?

[_vSyncBomb]

I think that is obviously an error by the transcriptionist; even sjobs@apple.com is not that dumb.

Re:3 BSD?

[cheshire_cqx]

Should also be Mach microkernel, a CMU research project. There was lots of discussion re. this in this 1999 /. story.

For a real nerdly analysis (what more could a true hacker want :) try Inside Mac OS X: Kernel Environment, a PDF document at Apple's web site which reveals some of the details. (This stolen from a nice article on the O'Reilly Network.

A "mock" microkernel would be an alpha release indeed!

---

---
In a hundred-mile march,

Re:Performance problems

[cpeterso]

Please note that BSD is just a Mach subsystem. The VM is still controlled by the Mach kernel.

What I want from OS X

[borg05]

Ok, as Mac OS X time rolls around. I am reminded of the current pains of Mac OS and how they need to be changed. My main concern is security, having Macs / Windows Machines / and one Linux server on your network proves to be an administration nightmare. Logon security is never the same, and that just sucks. Linux -> Windows works excellent through Samba. But currently Mac Manager (the Mac secuirty suite) lacks linking to ANYTHING. Hopefully Apple gets the 'Big Picture' and descides to standarize their security suite.

Re:What I want from OS X

[ben-fu]

a build of samba for OS X is shipped with DP4. therefore, I'd assume that apple will end up providing a nice UI for samba in the final product - and if they don't, at least it'll be there and you'll have another system using a product you know about. in addition, kerberos is there for authentication.

Re: MacOS stability.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

As I recall, 7.1.2 (or was it 7.1.1) was a P.O.S rushed to get PowerPC support in. It also was one of the first OS with shudder a system enabler. The enablers was an idea to put the system specific stuff into a special extension, called an enabler. In theory it would make the core kernel cleaner and shove specific stuff out, in practice it made it real hard to make a boot disk.
7.1.3 stabled things out a bit.

7.5 was better, basically a cleanup with soem new shareware bundled into the OS. Also killed the enablers (wooHoo!) 7.5.1 was the model for stability for a while, though there were 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 releases. I was out of macs (had to get a real job) when later releases came out.

Who cares?

[Animats]

This is a preannoucement of a beta for a product that's years late. Apple has been about six months to a year from the new, protected-mode OS since about 1992. When new Macs come from the factory preloaded with the thing, then it might be worth looking at.

Remember how Apple spent $400 million buying NeXT so they wouldn't have to wait for the BeOS to be finished?

Re:Who cares?

[TheInternet]

This is a preannoucement of a beta for a product that's years late. Apple has been about six months to a year from the new, protected-mode OS since about 1992. Remember how Apple spent $400 million buying NeXT so they wouldn't have to wait for the BeOS to be finished?

Let's be completely clear.

When Apple bought NeXT in 1997, it was with the intention of shipping something called "Rhapsody." This concept (which the CEO at the time, Gil Amelio, supported) revolved around the idea of forcing all of Apple's developers to rewrite their apps from the ground up in Objective-C.

Thankfully, Jobs realized this was suicidal. Instead, he took what was planned for Rhapsody, shipped it as Mac OS X Server, and got Apple started on work on Carbon.

I'm not going to start a flamewar, but there are clearly a lot of differences between OpenStep and BeOS -- more than just one is "done" and the other isn't.

- Scott

------
Scott Stevenson

Corporations and "abuse".

[Wakko Warner]

A corporation is not a human being. No matter how many times I make fun of Microsoft, I will not damage its self-esteem. No matter how many times I say "APPLE SUCKS!" at the top of my lungs on the streets of Boston, Apple Computer will not cry or flail about. Why do some people think corporations should be above reproach and criticism? I guess it's the Libertarian crowd on slashdot.

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:Corporations and "abuse".

[JoeyJoJo]

Why would a libertarian say anything about this? We like the constitution, especially that part about free speech. Say whatever you want about the big corporations. The only thing we're against is when the government tries to shut them down for no good reason (and I can't come up with *any* good reasons for the government to interfere)

Joe

Re:Because

[Nidak]

A beginner gets really confused with *nix computer compare to Mac OS X. For example most of people want to use internet. When MacOS boots up at the first time, it will open an internet setup wizard and all you need is answer wizard's question and done. I don't think any user who has none experience with PC or Mac can use *nix machiene at the first place.
I have more than 3 years experience with both PC and Mac but I need some documentations to install linux to my machine and to learn how to use it (Although I never need any kind of documentation to understand how to use Mac or Win).

*nix lacks of user friendly interface.

It's not a stretch at all.

[jcr]

Take NetBSD, and replace the scheduler and VM with Mach, and you get Darwin. Not just at the kernal level: the shells are there, the filesystems are there, everything you'd expect to find in /usr/bin is there.

The only thing that's missing (from what I've heard) is BASH, since it's under GPL, and Apple doesn't need the hassle. No big deal, you can always d/l and build it.

-jcr

Re: Plus, for UFS there's fsck

[TheHornedOne]

Actually, fsck under MacOS X works with HFS+, too.

Apple's not witholding any info from Be.

[jcr]

If six different Linux distros are able to support the Mac, what's Be's problem?

FYI, if Apple had gone with Be, they'd be doomed. It's not multi-user, its APIs are all based on C++, it doesn't have a unified display/hardcopy graphics engine, it doesn't have anything like ColorSync, etc, etc.

BeOS is a fine effort, but it's not what Apple needed to recover from the Copland debacle.

-jcr

Re:Apple's not witholding any info from Be.

[Lord Kano]

In the three in a half years since they bought next, and all of the work that they did on that OS, they could have added many of these features to Be's OS.

If six different Linux distros are able to support the Mac, what's Be's problem?

Six different distros, one kernel. It's the kernel that does all of the work, the distro is just clothes for the laborman.

Be couldn't have incorporated any of the open source code from the linux kernel without opening their entire OS.

LK

Re:public beta?

[digithead]

I'll gladly pay $20 to get my hands on this thing! One question, where did you find the details on the price and the 9/3 date?

If you've got inside info, I hope you don't work for Apple ;-)

Re: MacOS stability.

[hawk]

I think I had 7.1.0.1, or maybe 7.1.1, on my powerbook 180. That's as far as I went. I found lyx, and how well it did on equations, and that was the end of the line for macs and I; I've been all-unix since.

My big fear

[Art Tatum]

My only fear about MOSX is Carbon. I'd like to see Apple's considerable developer base switch to Cocoa (making Objective C, OpenStep, and thus GNUstep more popular). I fear that Carbon may give too many developers reason to simply "coast".

You forgot one more thing...

[Art Tatum]

BeOS doesn't have IB, PB, WebObjects, etc. That, in and of itself, is enough to recommend MOSX over BeOS.

Running DR4

[UniDyne]

I'm running OS X DR 4 and so far, I think it rocks! I'm pleased to hear that the beta will be out so soon... DR 4 appears to be beta quality anyway!

right to speak, right to listen (or not)

[ChristTrekker]

I'm surprised you bother to reply to these AC's, Jeff. Personally, I don't think they're worth my time. If they didn't post as AC, maybe I'd consider it.

I support anonymous posting. Anonymity is necessary sometimes, when you need to say something that could get you in trouble and you fear reprisal. But I also believe you should stand behind your opinions, and that's hard to do when you're hiding your face.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Of course, no one has the right to force others to listen to him either, and to the AC's I'd say, "If you don't like my sig, turn off sig display in your preferences." Oh wait, AC's don't have display preferences, do they? Guess they have to live with it. Or log in. Or just ignore sigs.

Wait a second

[gravis777]

I saw Mac OS X Server for sale 2 weeks ago at Fry's electronics in Arlington, TX. Why would they be selling it BEFORE the beta even comes out? Something is not right here.

Re:Wait a second

[TheInternet]

I saw Mac OS X Server for sale 2 weeks ago at Fry's electronics in Arlington, TX. Why would they be selling it BEFORE the beta even comes out? Something is not right here

You're confusing Mac OS X Server with Mac OS X. Mac OS X Server was introduced 1.5 years ago (contrary to the claim that Apple has never shipped a modern operating system). MOSXS is based on somewhat a somewhat similar technology foundation (BSD, Mach), but Mac OS X is considerably more advanced in every significant way, and upon final release, will be aimed at consumers, as well as power uses, developers and server admins.

Also, the original concept for "Rhapsody" is what exists today in Mac OS X Server.

- Scott

------
Scott Stevenson

Re: MacOS stability.

[kallisti]

The entire 7.5 to 7.6 debacle almost convinced me to switch to PCs. 7.5 was Apple adding all the 3rd party add-ons to the base OS. And, at the same time, trying to get the PCI systems (x500) working, switching the networking to Open Transport and trying to slam OpenDoc, and other now dead systems into the machine. A friend of mine had a stock 7500 and Internet connections were nearly impossible with that crappy OT 1.0.3.

I think the existence of Update 7.5.3 Revision 2.1 (this time for sure!) speaks for itself. This was roughly the same time period as the "exploding powerbook" and the 6300, the worst Mac ever.

Apple didn't get their act together until 7.6, and nearly killed the company in the meantime. I stuck with them even so, and have really liked 8.0+, but 7.5.1, yeccch.

Re:Sig comment

[Strog]

Makes me want to change my sig to a Bible verse too. You must really be confident with your position if you are set off by an innocent sig. I believe that sigs are great and I enjoy the variety we have here.

Apple should have . . - no but they should have s

[new500]

they should have kept Be around on PPC

It's no coincidence that Intel made their big investment around then.

That may be precisely it.

Intel *at a guess* invested in Be to prevent platform drift away from their processors / chipsets and mo'bo's

Not that I expect Intel care for Be, just that they do realise that purchasers of all kinds, private to mega - corporate actually like the idea that hardware can be repurposed - it lends an inestimable air of confidence, having bought e.g. a ThinkPad to say "Oh sod it, if I don't like this Win2k crap for work, I'll put Slack on dual boot . . ." or equally to know your accounting machines running Excel + whatever make nice NAT boxen or whatever . . . I digress

I'ts not that Linux won't run on PPC, but MKLinux is under Apple's wing, and Jobs' thumb, and I don't hear much word about LinuxPPC / Yellowdog when I walk into accounts or design [design at least has heard of BeOS here, but of course because of the history and personalities and i 'fess up, accounts haven't heard of Be, but they *are aware* of other major OSs' running on Intel boxen (Novell e.g.) /idle thought/ maybe that was the real reason behind Be being ditched, no - one must challenge Jobs, see block quote below)]

So if you agree (and I do) with Darchmare in post 232, that Apple the hardware co' make out okay for whatever reason you buy their kit, what's missing is a feeling that you can buy in (an investment whichever way you look at it) and choose if you wish to use what you buy independantly from the manufacturer's explicit (very explicit) wishes

I need to give it some more though maybe, but my impression is that the hardware vendor Apple only went to (some) lengths to support diverse OSs' when they felt very marginal indeed. Stability (financial)returns with a sense of Apple taking it's marbles home.

Does anything grow under the shadow of Jobs' Apple which he doesn't want? Before I gett modded (-1) Flaimbait, I add, with haste, IF you could make a whole bunch of people feel better about that question (please don't infer from this post I have answered it myself yet) we all might find a renewed confidence and broad adoption of Apple, whether as a hardware or software company.

Finally, if as is suggested Be got the Hump over not being supported financially by Apple then the fragile excuse quoted by poster 209 "...Apple has refused to give them help with" fits just fine.

>In saying that does anyone remember how JL Gasse said once that BeOS was his apology for what he did keeping Mac hardware high priced with the Snow White (no, not new iMac, that was the old FrogDesign philoshopy that gave those wonderful Mac II's and IIsi's). . maybe JLG felt he was owed something by his old protege, this could be understood given the ego's in the Apple boardroom and the obvious amount of emotion JLG and others invested in the old Apple [note for readers, is this so today?])

IS TOO! Re:Apple's not witholding .

[firewort]

Apple is TOO witholding info from Be.

Linux folks reverse engineer drivers, and all kinds of hardware support.

Be cooperates with the hardware OEM's, has official developer contacts and such. When I boot Be (the free download, of course) it lets me know that the USB support came from cooperation with Intel.

Why does Be have so few video and sound drivers ( a perpetual complaint of lusers trying Be out) and the answer is simple-- where linux will reverse engineer and hack out a kludge driver, Be will only release a stable solution based on the manufacturer's docs, tech staff, and full permission.

And that is why there is no G3 support from Be, because Apple has withheld the necessary information about the architecture changes.

Personally, I think it's half out of spite... Jean Louis Gassee` was one of Apple's early employees, and when he left and formed Be as a competitor to NeXT and Apple, it sorta hacked Steve off. Don't offend Steve.



A host is a host from coast to coast
but no one uses a host that's close

IBM can and DOES was RE: Linux will save apple

[firewort]

When Motorola and IBM admit they can't and don't want to mass produce ppc chips at speeds all users consider current

The first line of this post is a falsehood.
IBM hasn't been used by Apple as a PPC source since they went with the PPC750 also known as G3.

Moto has been stuck producing the same speed chips, and when it can't figure out how to speed increase, they add multimedia chips to the stew.

IBM shuns multimedia chips on the processor and produces blazingly fast RS/6000 PowerPC machines, running G3 chips at 750mhz (slowest) and in labs up to 1.5ghz.

So really, the blame doesn't lie with IBM. It lies with Apple for not buying IBM, and Moto for not mending the rift between they and IBM and asking IBM to show them how to fix the bug in their chip design that prevents them from going any faster.

IBM can afford to wait until Moto can put the ego aside to ask how REAL men make processors.


A host is a host from coast to coast
but no one uses a host that's close

Re:Apple should have . . - no but they should have

[Darchmare]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have no illusions that Apple was jumping toward Be offering any and all help they could give. I imagine Apple didn't really give a damn, or at best were mildly interested. Apple is a bit of a niche player, but Be was (and is) a niche player. I mean that in the nicest way possible. Cool things tend to come from niches.

But I just don't see Apple going out of their way to hurt Be. For the before mentioned reasons (they would profit at least a little bit), and because they had bigger fish to fry at the time.

That's probably what happened. Pre-Jobs Apple was spilling money all over the place. Random R&D with little market application potential, dead end projects, far too many product lines with little focus, shitty tech support, dampened product quality, and a whole lot of bad morale and press. It's quite likely that Be got a little extra help and special treatment early on, but in the end they had to be ignored due to budget constraints. Apple was losing far too much money to waste engineer times on only limited returns.

What would this have meant to Be? Apple wouldn't go out of their way to do anything, but they weren't going to bother documenting things as much or answering phone calls from frustrated Be employees. Be would have had to reverse-engineer the specs themselves. Apple wouldn't actively try to derail them, but they'd still be on their own.

Would that have killed Be? I don't think so. Others have been doing the reverse engineering thing and Apple has more or less ignored them. Be would have also benefitted from the more open nature of recent Apple hardware (believe it or not - a lot of proprietary crap has been thrown out from the B&W G3s onward).

It's also possible that they would have had a hell of a time reverse engineering Apple's hardware designs, and gotten their ass kicked by riding that platform. That may have been reason enough to switch to X86, but they shouldn't be saying Apple held out on them.

In the end, I think it's pretty apparent that X86 didn't do what they wanted it to do. Maybe switching over just delayed the inevitable, but whenever a company has so many 'focus shifts' it is usually a bad sign (Apple is a perfect example of this). With luck they may get lucky, but right now it just looks like they're getting desperate.


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

Re:Learn what your rights really mean!

[Darchmare]

Be careful what you ask for, is all I say.

If simply making your beliefs known in a public forum is not tolerated, that can go both ways. If we don't allow those with Christian beliefs to have their opinions, we could very well be the next to be censored.

Yes, Christianity has a long history of suppressing those with dissenting views. That's precisely the reason why I don't care for people trying to suppress others like this. If you wish to undermine someone's beliefs, the best way is to provide a clear difference.

And no, Slashdot doesn't specifically say 'religious drivel here'. But it also doesn't say 'GPL proponent here' or 'pro-Mac sentiment here' - but that's all accepted. If you're going to censor someone for having religious views, you're opening up all sorts of other opinions.

In the end, only CmdrTaco and others can make that decision. Until they come up and state what can and can not be put in a sig, you should just ignore it.


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

Re:Thanks for coming out JEFF

[Darchmare]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. All the guy had was a quote from a book. I hardly find that to be offensive.

If you have a problem with the religion itself, join the club. But if we censor fairly benign quotes, are we any better than the Catholic Church or any other historical oppressors?

Either way, a lot of crap goes into Slashdot that doesn't pertain to technology. Sigs in particular aren't really even meant to be 'on-topic' (otherwise, they wouldn't be universal to all topics).

---
just because its a public forum doesen't mean I can say whatever i want
---

Sure you can, as long as it's not illegal or against the rules of the place you're posting it. If you can point us to a guideline for the content of signatures on Slashdot, I'll be more than willing to concede this argument.


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