Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ars Technica OS X 10.1 Review

Posted by timothy on from the letters-with-numbers dept.

Joystickit writes: "John Siracusa over at Arstechnica has posted his review of OS X 10.1. He comes to the conclusion that 10.1 is much improved but still leaves much to be desired. It is an excellent read. He always seems to have the most in-depth reviews. Check it out." John's earlier OS X reviews are excellent as well; seeing what Apple does right and wrong is informative reading no matter what OS you prefer.

15 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. here's a real world example of why OSX is amazing. by heldlikesound · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On my 2001 iBook (with DVD drive) I am able to do the following (among other things of course):

    1. Capture DV footage, edit it, and output it right back out onto a camera (or play it to a tv).

    2. Run Apache, PHP4, and mySQL flawlessly together and then replicate my work onto my "real, live" server on the web.

    3. Watch DVD's with no stuttering or slowdowns while working in the shell, editing code in BBEdit, listening to iTunes, and stress-testing the above Apache setup.

    Make no mistake, OSX still has a way to go, but give it a year and it will be the propriatary OS to beat!!!!!

    --


    Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
  2. When will the real native apps start flowing? by DavidJA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering the MAC is primeraly used in the DTP/Graphics area, does anyone know when the real graphic apps (native mode) will start flowing.

    If I could get a OSX native copy of Quark, Photoshop & Illustrator we would switch all of our OS9 desktops to OSX immediatly.

  3. OSX Still needs work by Null_Packet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing to be wary of when inter-operating OS X 10.x with Windows machines is the Mac approach to links/shortcuts. When you make a shortcut in Windows, it's a bit like a soft link in Unix- it's only a pointer. When you copy a shortcut in Windows, you don't do anything with the target .exe or whatnot.

    When doing backups of OS 10.x laptops from an NT-based backup system, I found that OS 10.x was sending the remote client (the backup agent) into a filesystem loop. I had the user's home directory shared and the Agent backed up files similar to \\computer\share\Library\Documents\Library\Documen ts\.... Which made for a drawn-out backup of a 300 Meg set of folders.

    On a personal scale, this is easy to remember, but IIRC Apple has been preaching about how good of a network citizen OSX is. Quoting their site,

    "We've also added support to natively connect to Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Unix-based SAMBA file servers with the built-in SMB client. These servers appear right in the Finder like any other file server. This makes Mac OS X fluent in all of today's network languages."

    I'm not flaming Apple, but it seems that when it comes to interoperability between OS's, Apple could learn a lesson or two from the Unix side of the market.

    On a side not, was anyone else annoyed with the way Apple promised OS 10.1 is September, announced it on the 23rd, then waited until the last possible day of the month to actually ship it? I can't find the Register article stating it, but an Apple rep was quoted as saying something to the effect of "we promised September as a release date, and we are still technically on-target for that".

  4. Re:One problem... by jswitte · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Hard-coded applications for documents is the wrong way to go, and it is built into Creator/Type

    Who said anything about being built in? It's only "built in" to previous MacOS's because the Finder has no way to change them. Unless you have one of those hacks that puts type/creator edit boxes in the file info. True, you can't see it automatically like a file extension, but isn't that why the Mac uses icons?

    Type/creator codes DO perhaps overemphasize the importance of 'immutable metadata', but even with a file extension, the user who wants to open his html file with a text editor instead of a web browser still has to know how to change the extension. (And Apple's new texedit won't open HTML files as raw text, it will render them, even if you don't want it to). Why is changing a file extension any more or less difficult than using a contextual menu to get to an 'open with' menu (which should have a list of USER SELECTED choices, set in a central control panel for that file's extension/metadata/whatever. The advantage for me of type/creator (or specifically, of not having extensions) is that they don't clutter my desktop or column views (see next paragraph). OS 10.1 does have an option to 'hide file extension', but no way I see to set that automatically, or set my web broswer to 'always save with no file extension' or change the option quickly if I need to change it (maybe click on a little square on the icon to toggle perhaps? That's probably a bad idea, but that's the point)

    The main think I don't like about file extensions and OS 10.1 is the way the OS puts the ellipsis of a 'too-long' name in the middle ("ThisFileIs...ndFile.txt") This is just silly. Most people (home users) don't need to see the extension (they can see the icon), and those that do can change an option in the 'Finder' control panel. I also can't get the 'change default applicaton' item in the info window to work, and the 'open with' popup shouldn't include ALL the available applications ("do YOU want to open an html file with Apple System Profiler? No, me neither!")

  5. Re:One problem... by J'raxis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Um, all programs I have ever used on Mac use the same typecode for JPEGs JPEG. The creator code varies (JPEGviewer, JVWR; PictureViewer, ogle; GraphicConverter, GKON; etc.). Granted it could be done and the four-char codes dont even have to be ASCII, they can be any of the Macintoshs 8-bit charset but I cannot think of a single program that doesnt use JPEG for JPEGs. Same goes for text files and most other common filetypes. The only one that sticks out that I can think of is Mp3 and MPG3 for MP3 files; but whatever Apple uses in QuickTime is probably the right typecode.

    Ive seen both .jpg and .jpe (and even .jpeg) for JPEGs on extension-using OSes. I have also seen both .txt and .asc used for the same kind of US-ASCII textfiles. And then theres .htm and .html files, and the myriad of extensions used for SSI-HTML files (.shtml, .sht, .stml, .ssi-html, ...).

    Maybe MIME is the right way to go; its a recognized cross-platform standard and codes are registered with some kind of central authority so we dont end up with audio/mp3 and audio/mpeg-level-3 or whatnot at the same time.

    --
    Liberty in your lifetime
  6. No problem... by Weasel+Boy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sorry, but I have to disagree with almost everything you said.

    His rants on metadata are way off. Although file extensions for typing violate the basic rule of metadata, they still work better than Type/Creator codes.

    No way. Type/Creator codes rock. They absolutely devastate file extensions in user-friendliness. Besides, there's nothing to stop you from using extensions. OS X supports either or both.

    • 2 sets of 4 alphanumeric characters is fine for developers, who only have to remember their own Creator and Type codes, but it is inappropriate for the user - the 4 character Type is worse than the the 3 character extension, because at least the extension is common across all applications (compare .jpg with the variety of jpeg Types used in MacOS).

      Let me get this straight: You prefer a system with only one axis for categorizing files, where the user can change the type of a file (leaving behind no trace of what it used to be) by accident; where one application on installation hijacks all documents sharing an extension type it recognizes, by default. You cite as an example a file type that Windows bastardized. It's not .JPG, dammit, it's .jpeg -- at least, it universally was, until Windows-based web servers started to gain popularity and screwed everything up. Sorry, I'm not nibbing on that hook. Using visible extensions to establish data types is one of the biggest PITAs about the Web. That information should be coded into the file.

    • Hard-coded applications for documents is the wrong way to go, and it is built into Creator/Type. The best way I've seen so far is a simple database of applications appropriate for each type, with the ability to modify that list on a file-by-file basis. This can be accomplished with file extensions and a filesystem supported metadata (yes as a hack), but it can't be done with explicitly coded Creator types.

      Other than the simple circumstance that I disagree with your unsupported opinion, MacOS does do pretty much exactly what you request (with some tasks facilitated by a simple freeware utility, which doesn't count as a hack in my book); no extension-based system that I've ever heard of does. Besides, there are plenty of ways around that. If you don't have the creator application on your system, you get a list of compatible alternative applications. There also are ways to open a document in an application other than the default (in most cases, the creator); anyone with enough expertise to wish to do so can probably list several of them.

    I am sick and tired of hearing the rants about the inherently wrong nature of file extensions, versus the 'good enough' nature of Creator/Types. No. Both violate important principles, but file extensions can work well, and Creator/Type can not. Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.

    I'm sick and tired of critiqes that don't even identify what they criticise. What are these heretofore-unnamed important principles that these data typing systems violate? Creator/Type can work, does work, and for 17 years has worked extremely well. It is less prone to user error than file extensions. Its default behavior supports what users want to do most of the time. It isn't less capable than extensions; it's more capable. It degenerates to extension-based functionality when better methods fail.

    Let's embark on a little thought experiment. When you create a document in a given application, in which application are you most likely going to want to open the document thereafter? If your answer is anything other than the creator, well, I don't believe you.

    Even if you can't be persuaded that extensions are an inferior way to classify files, the Creator/Type system can be made into a pure extension-based system if that's what you want it to do. Is the reverse true?

    Creator/Type is not merely "good enough"; it is excellent. The 3-character file extension is a horrible kludge that even Microsoft has been trying for the last 6 years to get the world to forget.

    1. Re:No problem... by Weasel+Boy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just to be clear, as I've said before, I'm not arguing file extensions as the Right Way - just better than Creator/Type.

      I still don't buy it. I can accept your argument that a better method than Creator/Type exists, but just extensions coded into the file name ain't it.

      I prefer a system where immutable metadata is separated from mutable metadata.

      Okay, and extensions are mutable metadata that do not separate file type from favored application (your mutable metametadata). I fail to see how this statement supports your argument.

      how do I tell MacOS that Explorer.app, Omniweb.app and TextEdit.app are all appropriate applications for all HTML files?

      You don't need to; they tell MacOS what they can do. If you care which of them opens the file on double-click, use a utility to set the creator code (you don't need to know the code, just pick the app). Use drag-and-drop to override that choice. (*.app, ugh! Damn Apple for screwing up a previously excellent system!)

      How do I tell MacOS that, universally, Explorer.app is no longer appropriate for any HTML file, except this one over here?

      Remove Explorer from your system. :-) Or use a drag-and-drop utility to change the creator of selected HTML files to something other than Explorer, or write a 5-line AppleScript to do it across whatever subset of your filesystem you wish. How do you do it in Windows or Unix? Bonus question: Can you cleanly remove an app from OS/2, Windows, or Unix by dragging its folder into the trash?

      OS/2. OS/2 also supported storing this information in a metadata field (the file extension overrode this, so if you used metadata fields you didn't use extensions), and let you assign multiple applications (with one default, the rest available through a context menu) to each type (as well as set exceptions for an individual file).

      It looks to me like OS/2 lets the user muck with immutable metadata (by changing the extension). I thought this was supposed to be bad. The only thing that I see OS/2 do that MacOS doesn't is give the user a menu of apps to open a document. It's a perfectly valid human interface decision to conclude that most users don't want that. If you do, you can whip up a 15-line AppleScript to do it -- or, just wipe the Creator field of your documents; then MacOS will offer you a menu every time.

      Extension overrides metadata (OS/2). Metadata overrides extension (MacOS). Extension is the only metadata (Windows/Unix). I fail to see how you can maintain that extension-only is better; it looks to me like the Mac way and the OS/2 way you prefer are nearly identical; only the Windows/Unix way is clearly deficient.

      Creator/Type violates the principle that immutable metadata and mutable metametadata be stored separately (the metametadata is "the kind of application(s) appropriate for this metadata type");

      They are stored separately. One is the Creator code, and the other is Type; both are quasi-mutable. You apparently want to separate Creator from "Favored viewer". Show me a system that records both. Extensions don't separate these metadata at all, which sounds clearly inferior to me.

      that multiple applications should be able to operate on the same file easily;

      Drag-to-open is extremely easy. If you insist on a menu, use the methods described above.

      that any sort of data intended to be immutable be sufficiently robust that the user doesn't need to try to change it.

      As opposed to file extensions, which the user can change by accident. You are doing an excellent job supporting my case that Creator/Type is the better of these two alternatives.

      But it fails to support the entire range of what users want to do.

      You are being unreasonable. It is impossible to support the entire range of what users want to do. I want my OS to represent the file system as a Venn diagram of metadata types. I want to add my own metadata types. (I note that MacOS does allow me one use-defined mutable metadata field.)

      It is not the job of the OS designers to present all users with a bewildering array of choices by default; that is the result of lack of design, not good design. It is the job of the OS designers to make the common case as easy as possible, while still providing flexibility for special cases. Creator/Type does this quite well, and in my judgment provides more alternatives than does any purely extension-based system. That is why I don't accept your proposition that extensions-only is superior.

      Amazingly, PERL tries to follow a principle relevant to this: "easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."

      Now you're speaking my language. Of course, Perl also has this characteristic: One typo, and you're screwed. Not only do you want the default case to be easy, you want it to be safe too. The default file extension system is not safe. At least, over the years, it has begun to approach easy.

      This discussion was never about whether an augmented extension-plus-metadata system (like MacOS X or OS/2) is best; it seems we both agree that it's better than extensions-only. The question is whether an extensions-only system (Windows or Unix) is superior to a system with, effectively, two hidden-but-changeable extensions (MacOS Classic). I don't think you have come close to showing that it is.

  7. Chinese Support by Giant+Robot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It listed localization packs for Japanese, and other Euro langs..

    Although there's no localization pack for the 'other' east asian language, does anyone know the status of chinese support under OS/X (ie, displaying, rendering fonts, input methods, unicode conversion etc...)?

    Windows 2000 and Linux supports se asia l10n pretty well now, though w2k is really good! Everything is stored 'internally' as unicode, and the input/output can be converted to other (popular) encodings such as big5. Even the input methods are fairly complete.

    I want to convert to mac for DTP stuff (but requires chinese typesetting for many clients). I tried searching for Chinese support (like truetype fonts, input methods) and the only thing I can find is old 3rd party software for Mac 7.x or something...

  8. Re:Ease of use? by jchristopher · · Score: 2, Interesting
    - it turns out that she was clicking on the "close" gadget to close the browser, but instead of closing the application it just closed the application window.. the browser was still running!

    Which, I would argue, is actually the 'correct' or ideal behavior! If I want to close the APPLICATION, I'll do so, by choosing "file: quit". I hate the kludgy Windows way of doing it, where windows run inside other windows... it's too easy to overshoot the menu bar, landing yourself in another application.

    With MacOS, it's impossible to miss, since you can't roll the mouse past the top/left of the screen. If I've got 4 browser windows open inside Internet Explorer, I can access each using the 'window' menu. On Windows and Linux, I get 4 IE icons on the taskbar, hogging space, eventually to the point where I can't read them anymore.

    I'm not even an Apple 'fan', per se, (I use W2k primarily) but the way MacOS handles windows, menus, and switching between apps is superior.

  9. New Apple topic icon(s) by John+Siracusa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man, it never fails...I always have moderator access to stories involving me. Anyway, now that I've forfeitted it, but while I still have a chance of being scored up, I'd like to pimp the Apple topic icons I emailed to Malda (where procmail no-doubt sent them to /dev/null :-P) The current one is just plain ugly, IMO. How about this instead? (Two versions of the same thing)

    http://siracusa.home.mindspring.com/images/topic ap ple-1.gif

    http://siracusa.home.mindspring.com/images/topic ap ple-2.gif

    (Without the space...grrr)

  10. Re:pay for bug fixes by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Unfortunately, you could not condense the update down to 217 MB because it has to be run off of a bootable CD (or another disk or partition, but I think it's going a little far to ask Apple to make a version just for people with more than one HD), so it has to have all the code for a single-use OS X system, which is most of what inflates the file size; ditching the language packs would still leave a massive file, and hurt Apple's attemps to make one version of their software that runs anywhere, which could be a huge boon to a company that already has good market share in many overseas markets, where the users are tired of waiting a few extra weeks to get their version.

    However, I do agree that Apple should have made attempts to make it downloadable, but it is obvious that Apple had enough trouble just getting this out the door in September, let alone setting up a distibution net that could handle tens of terrabytes. As for Windows Update, it offers small updates usually not in excess of 15MB, just like Apple's Software Update, and I seem to recall that MS charges users for updates of the magnitude of 10.1, even if they are just bug fixes (which 10.1 is not).

    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  11. Re:Screw Apple! Linux users rejoice! by JFTaylor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All I can say is, whatever. I just bought a G4 733 a few months ago (got in on the "the new macs are coming" sale) and have been MORE than pleased with it. At first I had OS 9.1 only (the upgrade coupon took about 3 weeks), and I was a tad confused. Coming from a Windows environment, Macs take a little getting used to.

    I played a little Diablo 2 on it, learned some of the quirks, and basically got to liking how MacOS did things (there were various minor complaints, but mostly they were my preconceived "windows-esque" notion of how things work.) then my 10.0.3 CD came in the mail. I did the repartition thing, put OS X on and gave it a whirl. I liked it. It was a tad slow, but I liked it. I still found myself booting into OS9 to play D2 (which I still do with 10.1), but for the most part, I was an OSX user. :)

    I got my 10.1 upgrade last weekend (figured I'd avoid the "rush"), and all the little annoyances in 10.0.4 were gone. I was astounded. This is no small feat, considering what a Died-in-the-Wool x86 person I was. Not anymore. OSX and my PowerMac have converted me.

    I still use Linux (Gnome desktop) and that will never change. But I love MacOS just as much now. *grin* I don't have to 'abandon' MacOS to love Gnome and vice versa.

    Of course the last line of your comment is quite funny. I doubt there are too many Mac users alive who'd even admit to giving up MacOS for WinXP.

    Not to detract from the 50 or so people that will upgrade from Windows98:SE/Windows ME to XP, but I think Microsoft is aiming squarely for their foot with this release. Let's hope Ballmer & Co. are lousy shots.

    JFT

    --
    ---- James
  12. Re:Heads up, Linux by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wouldn't expect CLI revolutions from the Unix folks, frankly.

    I think that Unix has some good ideas behind it:
    *I am attracted to the idea of mountpoints, though not confident in them entirely. They mesh well, however, with the Win95 notion of a 'Computer' icon, and I'm fond of that.

    *Many small tools working together is a great idea, but insufficiently easy to use at present.

    *Configuration files that are universally humanly readable are a good idea, although ASCII is not.

    *The power in CLIs is desirable, having it locked up in an emulator of a 60's era teletype is not.

    *Multiuser systems are desirable, global filesystem structures are not (my unproven hypothesis) and at any rate, suspending and resuming a user environment a la 'screen,' probably with heavy use of features borrowed from hibernation is really necessary to beef it all up.(some of the MS stuff seen recently re: fungible computing resources is _excellent_ though the security and business issues need to be hashed out -- i'd like being able to log in to two machines side by side, and use the 2nd as an additional monitor, and extra computational power all for the same session)

    *ACL security has got to go. Reimplement it on top of something better, like (I'm told) capabilities, if you need it, but totally redo the fundementals.

    *Flat filesystems have to go, but this is already being worked on, I hear.

    *Links are cool -- now make 'em work across disks. Combine them with forked filesystems.

    *etc, etc, etc.

    But you'll never hear this coming out of the Unix crowd.... Imitation has its place, and Unix is fundementally an imitation of Multics, but for God's sake, take some initative!

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  13. Re:Screw Apple! Linux users rejoice! by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a few things I want to mention...

    TrollTech has a beta of Qt for Mac OS X.

    GTK+ has been ported and GIMP runs on it.

    I've compiled and run WindowMaker myself.

    More software doesn't mean better software. What good are hundreds of text editors and graphics apps compared to BB Edit, GraphicConverter, the Gimp, and a dozen other tools?

    Most Mac apps run just as well in Classic on Mac OS X as they do on Mac OS 9. See http://guide.apple.com/ if you'd like to search for something.

    What does WinXP have that could possibly be attractive to a Mac user? I really haven't seen anything particularly promising; did I miss something?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  14. Why macs don't come with much memory by drunkenbatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is actually a reason for this... Apple sells quite a bit through its online store now, but many (if not most) of its systems are sold through 3rd party vendors such as clubmac, powermac, outpost, etc.

    They have in the past specifically requested of apple that they keep the ram amounts fairly low, as it gives them incentives and packaging deals to try to move units. Ie, "oooh clubmac will give you 256megs free with every imac for $30 install fee!" If you check out you'll see what i mean.