Scientists Switch to Mac OS X

Adam Q Salter writes "A Boston Globe article quotes many scientists and engineers who have switched to Apple workstations or have immediate plans to do so. Craig Hunter, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia, said 'OS X, I think, is the best Unix I've seen come along, ever.' Scott Sneddon, a senior scientific fellow at Genzyme, is quoted as saying 'OS X is a better Unix development environment than Linux or Silicon Graphics Irix.'"

Comments

They neglect to mention...

[Pumpernickel]

They neglected to mention the fact the Mac OS X is a lot easier to use than Linux. Unfortunately, most products can either go for easy to use or easy to personalize. There is no in between.

Re:They neglect to mention...

[zmalone]

I agree with you in some sense. Mac OS X is easier to deal with then Linux (on the desktop in particular), and Apple has a long history of being used in research (I've been to quite a few biotech related labs, and they usually seem to have Macs on the desktop). However, I wouldn't credit Mac OS X as being more powerful then Linux on x86 or other unices (as the articles seem to), it just happens to be more convenient for the scientific desktop.

Re:They neglect to mention...

[anarkhos]

I don't see how you can separate the two.

If something is more difficult to use it is inherently less useful.

Re:They neglect to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is for Mac OS X. If you say that, you have never used it and you don't have a clue about how it works and what can do.

teh m4x

[Vodak]

it's easier to sell businesses and education placces on MACS and WINTEL boxes instead of Linux etc. so if you want unix systems and the fic departments are bitchy about anything not the norm .. then go with osx =]

I almost hate to say this, but "duh"

[jht]

If you think about it, Macs running MacOS X are really pretty close to ideal scientific platforms for most users in the category. Despite all the (mostly justified) bashing Apple gets for a host of other reasons, a Mac rocks for scientific computing for the following reasons (among others, but these jump out first):

1: MacOS X is Unix. Yeah, so is Linux, but Apple has put the prettiest, easiest to use face on a desktop Unix to date, period. I know and use both KDE and GNOME, and as good as they are, they don't compare in the usability area at all to Aqua.

2: The G4, though it can't keep up on raw clock speed with Intel, is in it's element when we're talking about a lot of the operations needed by people doing scientific number crunching. Write your code to be Altivec-aware (like Apple did when they ported BLAST), and it'll haul butt.

3: Apple provides nice development tools, Cocoa is a blast once people make the adjustment, AppleScript Studio is a really nice way to do GUI programming, and you can still use all the classic development tools. You can build apps for good old standard Unix, MacOS Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, or Java, and they'll all pretty much just work. And all the tools you need are either included or a free download away.

4: The PowerBook G4. It's pricey, and it's "only" 800 MHz, but it's about as nice as you can get for a portable Unix workstation. I haven't seen a comparable Intel laptop with battery life even close to what I get on my TiBook 667.

Granted, Apple's not playing in the 64-bit space (yet), but in the 32-bit world I'd have to say they're the desktop Unix of choice for most users, especially technical/scientific users.

Re:I almost hate to say this, but "duh"

[jcr]

Apple has put the prettiest, easiest to use face on a desktop Unix to date, period.

Prettiest, I'll grant you, but easiest to use still goes to NeXTSTEP, IMNSHO. ;-)

-jcr

Re:I almost hate to say this, but "duh"

[anarkhos]

NeXTSTEP might be easier to develop for, but I find Cocoa apps a pain to use. The problem is NeXT programmers have been fooled into thinking they don't have to consider HI design when developing their apps, thinking instead that the app framework will take care of that for them.

Re:I almost hate to say this, but "duh"

[DavidRavenMoon]

Prettiest, I'll grant you, but easiest to use still goes to NeXTSTEP, IMNSHO. ;-)

NeXTSTEP was quite pretty too.

I always loved NeXTSTEP, almost bought a slab NeXT station once.

But OS X is NeXTSTEP, or as close as you can get without the real OS. ;)

About time.

[brejc8]

I am a engineer and at my University I wrote a graphical debugger to control some ARM boards we made.
The problem came when we told other universities that we had this product if they wanted them then they can have them for free.
Only then did I realise that engineers have no clue about software.
They all use Windows because its too scary to step into unix.
Even though most of the important CAD tools are only available for Sun they stay clear of them.
Its about time engineers moved back to unix.

Re:About time.

[littlerubberfeet]

+1 insightfull

this isn't a troll. Unix has always worked better for heavy research. Wintel, and the architecture was developed by International BUISNESS Machines. Wintel is good for spreadsheets, etc.

Ask Detroit, or the Japanese auto makers, their aerodynamics and CAD programs all run on Unix Iron. The Nuclear weapons simulators all run on Unix. In the 1970's and 80's, a scientist had to know Unix and FORTRAN to do ANY computerized research. Unix remains the Big Iron of Operating Systems.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is too a troll! I won't stand for this windows bashing on slashdot!

Re:About time.

[shaping_innovation]

What about ProEngineerfor Windows and Linux ?

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

" ...engineers have no clue about software."

Yes, especially software engineers.

Re:About time.

[toddhisattva]

Only then did I realise that engineers have no clue about software.
They all use Windows because its too scary to step into unix.

I really do worry about this when I'm driving across bridges.

who are they to compare OS/X to linux?

[displague]

These 'scientists', if they are like those I've encountered in other places, are probably still running twm/3dwm with a few xterms and using Xlib/motif for their development... While some labs are Sparc/Solaris based (and antiquated), these fellows sound like they are SGI/Irix based (and antiquated)...

Some secretary probably wanted a new Mac. When it arrived the guys wanted to check under the hood. They found that it is 3 million years ahead of their SGI boxes and decided to start switching/porting.

I seriously doubt that they got into doing this with Linux... My guess is that they installed Redhat 5.0 a few years ago, and then maybe tried 6.2 on an underused partition, eventually scraping it when their uncompressed images needed more space... They probably never really investigated Linux as an alternative. And now that they can go out and buy a stylish OS/X system, they won't have to...

Do I have a point? No.. Hmmm, a sure sign that I'm just ranting...

Wait! I do have a point - I assume that they have not really given Linux a try, and should not compare it to OS/X for that reason....

Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux?

[Quinn]

Linux just isn't in the same league as OS X. I installed Debian/Woody on my Duron earlier this week, and thus got a glimpse of the latest KDE and GNOME desktops. While not awful by any means, they still don't feel like a solid desktop environment. (Whatever that means.) OS X /does/, and it's beautiful, and it's Unix underneath.

I use Linux with Windowmaker, Mozilla, XEmacs, and an xterm, because those are all I need and it works great. However, if I weren't a geek hacker, and didn't have an unnatural attachment to the IA32 line, I'd use MacOS X.

I've been bashing Apple for years, but it's always been about their operating system. They've not only "fixed" it, but I'd say they now have the best all-round OS out there.

Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

displague wrote:

> Some secretary probably wanted a new Mac. When
> it arrived the guys wanted to check under the
> hood. They found that it is 3 million years
> ahead of their SGI boxes and decided to start
> switching/porting.
>
> I seriously doubt that they got into doing this
> with Linux... My guess is that they installed
> Redhat 5.0 a few years ago, and then maybe tried
> 6.2 on an underused partition, eventually
> scraping it when their uncompressed images
> needed more space... They probably never really
> investigated Linux as an alternative.

Sorry, but your fantasy doesn't jive with the article.

Scott Sneddon said he had been using Mac for years. He was using Mac, Linux, and SGI at the same time for different tasks. Then along came OS X, and he said "good-bye" to his Linux and SGI boxes, and freed up much disk space. He also said that "OS X is a better Unix development environment than Linux or Silicon Graphics Irix". Having done development under all three platforms (though SGI was ten years ago), I must agree. Cocoa is really sweet.

Craig Hunter, from NASA, replaced his SGIs with Macs running OS X.

Gaurav Khanna also replaced his SGIs with Macs running OS X.

Rob Meyer's company used to produce software for the Mac, and now they are back. Rob Meyer himself is a long time Windows user, and thinking of buying himself a Mac.

> Wait! I do have a point - I assume that they
> have not really given Linux a try, and should
> not compare it to OS/X for that reason....

Nope, you are point free. Next time, try actually reading the article before you post a comment.

"Godzilla and Jaguar: Punch! Punch! Punch! Hit! Hit! Hit!
We die if they stop fighting for us."
Jet Jaguar Song, "Godzilla vs. Megalon"

Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux?

[babbage]

I assume that they have not really given Linux a try, and should not compare it to OS/X for that reason....

Actually, if you read that article, the consensus seems to be that they *have* all been using Linux, but only for the grunt work. For a lot of them, peripheral work was often getting done on old Macs anyway, using software like PowerPoint, while the high performance scientific software would be written on and for Linux or Irix. The big step forward -- and no, Gnome/KDE/etc does not negate this -- is that with OSX all these researchers can do all their work on a single platform.

I know it's a cliche, but you really should read the article before offering these kneejerk responses. These people have considered your points about Linux, and rejected them. I actually had a temp job in the bioinformatics department at one of these companies last year, and everyone was running brand new, high quality workstations, with brand new Sun Blades and moderately old Mac G3s [with OS9 or even OS8.6] in about equal proportion (and most people running two computers). If they were to switch to new G4s running OSX -- and from the sound of it, they may be doing so -- then everyone would be much more productive. Switching to 100% Linux wouldn't be nearly as helpful to these people.

Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux?

[macdaddy357]

OS/X is a real version of UNIX, LINUX is a free knock-off of it made by several thousand amateur tinkerers without a common goal. LINUX is chaos. OSX is order.

They Know Their Business

[feldsteins]

I assume that they have not really given Linux a try, and should not compare it to OS/X for that reason

I don't think you have a single reason to assume this. In fact, I suspect that research scientists, like other professionals, know their own business better than you or I. In other words, one can assume for the most part that they are familiar with the available tools of the trade and choose according to their needs.

Heck, I could "assume" that you are a Linux advocate simply because you've never given Mac OS X an adequate try. I mean why else would you have made a different choice than I did? I'm sure you'll agree that this conclusion would be unwarranted.

MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

How many of you here have actually used MacOSX?

Yes, its pretty much as stable as any other Unix. Yes, the OS never crashes.

But it still has problems.

OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.

That's one problem. The other problem is performance.

Just because somethings a Unix doesn't mean that it necessarily is slim and trim. OSX is not. It is enormously bloated. On the same hardware, it will run alot slower than previous Mac Operating Systems. Why? Because their GUI is unnecesarily fanciful, with useless animations and "glassy effects".

Run Debian on the same Mac you run OSX on and it will run alot faster, taking up less RAM.

Now, that said, if your willing to forgo the bloaty GUI of OSX, you can just run Darwin and install a minimal GUI like pwm; then, you won't have as much bloat.

OSX is a classic example of how companies add lots of useless features just to make a product more screen-shot worthy (i.e., animations, glassy effects, the whole Aqua appearance), despite the fact that those features don't really offer any advantages to the user.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't really offer any advantages to the user? Man, I'd hate to see what your place looks like cause you obviously have no appreciation of aesthetics. Yeah its bloated and has lots of needless animations and such, but the whole thing takes up only about 200 megs in memory. I'm fairly sure these guys will be putting much more ram than that in their machines. And the bloat only kicks in when you're interacting with the desktop. If you just let your simulation or whatever run, the bloat can get swapped out and everything runs just fine. The whole fucking point of all that bloat is to make using it enjoyable. If you're content looking at a cli and your cubicle wall then good for you. You're hardcore. You're leet. Don't try to rip on the OS cause of its attractive interface cause thats one of the two main goals of the OS and you're obviously not getting it.

if your willing to forgo the bloaty GUI of OSX...then, you won't have as much bloat.

If you would stop being such an ass then you wouldn't be so much of an ass.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Spencerian]

Two quick answers:

One: Mac OS X is the only UNIX that has Microsoft Office available to it, period. If you want to be a hermit and be unable to send your scientific reports to PC users since you have inappropriate software, then Linux is for you.

Two: Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.

Nothing is useless in OS X. These scientists just believe that using your OS is more productive than having to play with the damn thing each time someone in the Linux dev group sneezes and makes Yet Another Attempt At a Stable Kernel.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dcstimm]

okay first off I agree and disagree. Macosx should be compaired to the fatest distro around **cough** mandrake. I have been working with a friend to install macosx on his g4 400mhz, its a very quick machine. he was running macos9.1. The reason he decided to upgrade was because we installed linux. He loved it, it ran faster than Macos9 but i couldnt get dri to work because he had a geforce 2 mx. No 3d drivers. So he loved the Linux but couldnt deal with not having any kind of 3d. So we headed to compusa. We saw 10.1 on the shelf and bought it and brought it home. (we also bought a new 40gb ide 7200 wd drive) so I helped him install it, and it looked beautiful, but the first thing we noticed was how slow it was. it was alot slower than linux and macos9. to test it we installed quake3, and did a timedemo with enable_fps on. the macosx machine was about 23% slower. So we tried to upgrade it to 10.1.4 and still had the same problem. Also there were little things that bugged me. Nothing was installed into its standard place, like apache for example, it was all over the place, and they renamed all the config files, so the only way to use apache was though the gui. (not cool) then it came to the shell the terminal.app was running, tcsh!!! I hate tcsh! I dont like bash much either but its alot better than tcsh! With tcsh you cant even mv blah /somewhere/blah because it doesnt understand what your trying to do. So I upgraded the terminal to zsh by installing fink. so once I got the terminal working correctly i ran "top" and I was amazed on how much aqua was taking up memory!! People, look at top!!! I have never seen a gui take up so much ram, and if you moved the mouse over a icon the cpu would shoot up to about 90%! So my friend and I decided to just use macos9 for the time being. and dual boot into macosx if he needed to. So I was searching online and I found a article on google about macosx 10.2 beta, so I headed to irc and downloaded the development version. and had him install it. IT is soooooo much better! things are installed in the correct places, aqua has changed from slow to quite fast. Memory is not being sucked away. And Macosx has done a u turn. Even Quake3 is almost as fast as OS9. He is a happy man.

So I would recommend upgrading to 10.2 before you go around bashing.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

One: Mac OS X is the only UNIX that has Microsoft Office available to it, period. If you want to be a hermit and be unable to send your scientific reports to PC users since you have inappropriate software, then Linux is for you.

Firstly, your WRONG. CrossOverOffice provides MS Office for Linux users. Also, Wine allows one to run MS products on Linux. Next time, do a little bit of research before making outlandish claims. Secondly, even if you were right, who cares? OpenOffice and StarOffice can save files as MS Word documents, thus Linux users can share their files with PC users, and vica versa. Again, do your research.

Two: Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.

Glassy effects optimized for speed? Maybe the updated version is faster than the old one, but its still a LOT of bloat, and one would be better off without it. The excellent, minimalist underpinnings of MacOSX are slowed down by its bloated filled-with-useless-features GUI.

Nothing is useless in OS X.

Yea, whatever. Exactly what purpose do the animations serve? What about the Aqua glassy effects? Or the icon zooming? Transparency? All useless, or of very minimal use. All designed for the sole purpose of having good looking screen-shots.

These scientists just believe that using your OS is more productive than having to play with the damn thing each time someone in the Linux dev group sneezes and makes Yet Another Attempt At a Stable Kernel.

When exactly has an unstable Kernel came out under the stable branch of the kernel? I don't recall it happening.

Ever heard of Debian? Makes updating to the latest stable release of packages rather easy. As for updating the kernel, that can also be done rather nicely in Debian, without even having down-time.

Your "quick answers" still do not deal with the fact that MacOSX is bloat-ware. The new finder in it is crap, for example.

One would be better off running a WM in Darwin if one uses Mac hardware, or installing Debian.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

All damned good points. Glad to see that OS X 10.2 is more regularized than 10.1, too.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

We are using 10.2.

It may be faster than previous releases, but its still bloatware, filled with features which need to be eliminated like transparency, aqua-effects, animations, and icon-zooming.

Btw, you say "almost as fast as OS9," which means its crap compared to Linux, which runs faster than OS9 on Mac hardware. OSX is based off of BSD and Mach, which means it should be very efficient, more so than OS9. But, in fact, the opposite is true. That means that alot of extra superflous stuff is (like unnecessary eye-candy in the GUI) is slowing it down. I don't know what's up with your driver problems, because Nvidia provides Linux drivers for all its GeForce cards.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Spencerian]

Emulation and virtual machines: Bah. CrossOver Office is NOT Microsoft Office, but an environment to support a MS Office installation. That's like me installing Office XP in Virtual PC for Mac OS X and calling it a supported Office installation. Nope.

I would talk about the efficiency of X Window--if only there were a STANDARD that went with it. Forget about the window managers, for they inherently are their own standards. KDE and GNOME, for their goodness, complicate the efficiency that a GUI is supposed to accomplish. GUIs simplify a user's experience, not complicate it by duplicating every major UNIX command. There aren't many features in Aqua that don't have a function. Remember that UNIX and PC users were still puttering around on CLIs when the Macintosh popularized the idea that a GUI could actually do something worthwhile. Almost 20 years have gone by and the UNIX world has a GUI engine, but no consistency in the interfaces. X Window is no match against Aqua for consistency, and that's an impressive achievement considering that Aqua is very young. A more equal pairing would be a Display PostScript engine, which I hear is being worked on somewhere.

If your opinion is that Mac OS X is bloatware, OK. But this article proves that a lot of other users, especially those whose jobs rely on its speed and performance, disagree with you heartily.

And, if you really need X, you do realize that OS X supports X Window through the XDarwin project?

I agree with your criticisms, but not the spirit of them. OS X is a very strong OS for such a newcomer. Neither it or its hardware are as efficient as some Linux die-hards may want it to be, but it does the job very well, right now.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX is a classic example of how companies add lots of useless features just to make a product more screen-shot worthy (i.e., animations, glassy effects, the whole Aqua appearance), despite the fact that those features don't really offer any advantages to the user.

I dual boot between os x and linux and was wonderning how can OS X be considered bloat ware? It is very simple interface if you compare it to KDE and its flashy cursors and clunky XP-looking icons.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[daviddennis]

Quartz Extreme should solve most of the performance problems by making the eye candy run in the graphics card and freeing up the CPU. True, it only works on modern Macs, but most scientists are not going to find new and fast hardware difficult to cost-justify.

I think the impact of a beautiful computing experience is greatly underestimated. Many of us spend the bulk of our lives in front of a screen, which is normally gray and hopelessly dull visually. Making that environment beautiful - which is virtually exclusive to MacOS X - makes our lives more beautiful.

I think doing that is worth a few extra processor cycles.

D

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

On the same hardware, it will run alot slower than previous Mac Operating Systems. Why? Because their GUI is unnecesarily fanciful, with useless animations and "glassy effects".

This canard is getting a bit long in the tooth. The UI doesn't use nearly as much CPU time as people assume, and with Quartz Extreme the CPU involvement in compositing is negligible.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

Exactly what purpose do the animations serve?

They show the user where the window went.

What about the Aqua glassy effects? Or the icon zooming?

The icon zooming makes it a lot easier to hit the right icon when you've got a LOT of things in the dock, as I do.

Transparency?

Maybe you don't ever need to see through a terminal window, but I sure do. Sometimes there's something behind there that you need to see.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[toddhisattva]

OSX is a classic example of how companies add lots of useless features just to make a product more screen-shot worthy (i.e., animations, glassy effects, the whole Aqua appearance), despite the fact that those features don't really offer any advantages to the user.

Oh, horseshit. The drop shadows are great, and they replace pixel-wasting window frames. Once they're drawn, they just sit there. They don't use CPU. The animations do, but only when they're animating. I run on 300MHz G3s, so I'm very (but not too painfully) aware of exactly when the UI uses the CPU, I can see it.

You only have one mouse, how many windows can you resize, apps do you set a-hoppin' in your dock at a time?

Now, I hate the "lined" appearance. Looks awful, and I've heard it causes headaches. Toolbars get the same dumb lines as title bars, yuck. But the drop shadows are wonderful, and animations only hog when they're alive. I'll just live with the lines.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be faster than previous releases, but its still bloatware, filled with features which need to be eliminated like transparency, aqua-effects, animations, and icon-zooming.

Oh, quit yer whining and go use a CLI if you dislike "bloatware" like a sleek, sexy GUI.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be faster than previous releases, but its still bloatware, filled with features which need to be eliminated like transparency, aqua-effects, animations, and icon-zooming.

Not everyone is as boring as you. Apple tries to make computers fun and easy, remeber? Stop being such a dork. Most people in the market for a computer want a fun, neat computer with which they can get things done, not a boring, stripped-down speed machine. If you want your shit to be so fast then don't use OSX and shut your hole. "Features that need to be eliminated." Christ. And you're even trying to inflict your monotony on others. Stop posting already.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Your posts suffers from several areas where you fail to distinguish between two separate things.

1. The GUI is not the OS. They are separate entities.

2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.

I did not say that Mac hardware is terrible (though it is no match for Sun or SGI hardware). I also did not say that the operating system underneath OSX's GUI is bad/bloaty. I said the GUI is. Microsoft wants you to think that the GUI = OS = file-browser (IE). Mac apparently takes it one step further, GUI = OS = file-browser = hardware = kernel.

Regarding your criticism of Linux' GUI's, I disagree. Choice is a good thing, and different people will want different WM's and desktop environments (I prefer WindowMaker and pwm for the WM, and Xfce for the desktop). I don't know about other WM's and desktop environments, but the one's I've mentioned are very consistent in their user interface.

There may not be many features that Aqua has which are useless, but those which are there are very annoying and waste alot of your computing power. The worst one is Sherlock, which takes forever. Then there's the transparency, the Aqua effects (shiny buttons), the animation, the icon-zooming, the window zooming for maximization and minimization. Apple is using a very efficient core for its OS, so it should be running FASTER than previous versions of Mac's OS, not slower. But, the bloaty GUI obliterates any advantage that the more streamlized insides offer. Though one could say the more streamlined internal workings are what make the bloated GUI useable and somewhat responsive.

The people who like OSX don't like it because of the GUI. They like it because of the power its BSD/Mach-core provide. As for Darwin, I'm aware that you can forgo the Aqua GUI and just boot into Darwin, loading an X-windows manager. I did mention that somewhere (perhaps not in this post).

Personally, however, I'd prefer to load Debian if I had a Mac, because more *nix packages are available for it than for Darwin. Also, most benchmarks have shown that Linux performs superiorly to the BSD's (though we should not confuse performance with security and stability, both of which are categories which the BSD's have the advantage over Linux in).

I don't see why your calling OSX a "new OS". It is not a new OS. It is essentially the Aqua GUI strapped on top of a BSD/Mach core. What is NEW is the GUI, though I'd hesitate to even say that. MacOSX's GUI is a combination of the classic Mac GUI and some nice features of NeXT. What I dislike about it is that it is bloaty. There are, however, nice things about it, such as the dock. But Apple has really taken alot of steps backwards in the Aqua GUI. Firstly, there's no applications Apple menu. Secondly, they've abandoned hte hold click (corresponds to right click) in favor of control click. Thirdly, they've collapsed application switching and window switching within and application down t o just switching between all of the windows on the screen. In previous versions, APPLE-TAB switched between applications, while APPLE-~ switched between instances within an application. Now, APPLE-TAB still switches between applications, but APPLE-~ switches between all windows.

Also, they've given way to the MSesque idea that all configuration should be done through HTML-like interfaces (ok, not exactly). The control panel menu was great, why replace it with a less efficient system where you have to open up a window to access all of the different things within it?

I could go on and on with examples of how Apple has replaced efficient interface options in OS9 with inefficient bloated ones in OSX, but you get the point. Now, that said, this isn't something unique to Apple. It seems that every single application takes major steps backwards with each release, by catering to the lowest common denominator, and dumbing things down to the simplest level, at the expense of efficiency in interface. Just take a look at those stupid fucking Eminem "help characters" in the most recent versions of MS Office. Worse yet, whereas in the good old days, you could load help files instantaneously, now they're a mess of HTML which takes ages to load; the efficient "Table of Contents"/Search/Index scheme has been replaced by the "home page" scheme.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Quartz Extreme should solve most of the performance problems by making the eye candy run in the graphics card and freeing up the CPU.

Oh, great, now its eating up my GPU's resources. Well, thank god for that. You know, I spent $400 dollars on the GeForce4 just so that OSX could hog all of its power up. If the Aqua interface is hogging up the GPU's power, that means the GPU can't do its job as well -- i.e., rendering 3D objects. Btw, this isn't really a solution to a problem -- Apple is just pushing THEIR problem onto someone else. Had they actually made their code more efficient or elminated some useless features, that'd be a real solution. What they've done is say to the user, "get a better graphics card". Gee, all the programming genius that musta went into that one.

I think the impact of a beautiful computing experience is greatly underestimated. Many of us spend the bulk of our lives in front of a screen, which is normally gray and hopelessly dull visually. Making that environment beautiful - which is virtually exclusive to MacOS X - makes our lives more beautiful.

All I can say for that is HAHAHA. If your job is so boring to you that you need a fanciful GUI, then you should have a different job. If what your doing is so boring that you need tacky distractions, you should be doing something else. Btw, many people (myself included) think that OSX is not beautiful, but tacky. Like a two dollar tramp with too much makeup.

I think doing that is worth a few extra processor cycles./I.

A few? OSX hogs up tons of RAM and tons of CPU (or GPU) cycles.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

This canard is getting a bit long in the tooth. The UI doesn't use nearly as much CPU time as people assume, and with Quartz Extreme the CPU involvement in compositing is negligible.

As another person noted, QuartzExtreme just pushes off the PROBLEM to the GPU. This is not a real solution. Now, its my GPU that OSX is hogging. Gee, if I wanna actually play any games or look at 3D images in Bryce, now the GUI is slowing me down. All Apple has done with Quartz Extreme is say to the user, "Get a better GPU; you'll now need at least a GeForce2 to run Aqua smoothly".

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Exactly what purpose do the animations serve?

They show the user where the window went.

Please. Like people can't figure that one out. Besides, that wouldn't be NECESSARY if applications minimized to their ICON on the DOCK, and then hold clicking that ICON on the DOCK would display all instances of it running, as should be the case. Also, all these animations are ANNOYING.

What about the Aqua glassy effects? Or the icon zooming?

The icon zooming makes it a lot easier to hit the right icon when you've got a LOT of things in the dock, as I do.

Firstly, that's not the way to deal with the problem. The way to deal with it is to create a scroll-up dock. Also, if they had KEPT the Apple Applications menu, it wouldn't be necessary to cram the dock full of all sorts of crap.

Transparency?

Maybe you don't ever need to see through a terminal window, but I sure do. Sometimes there's something behind there that you need to see.

Which would be nice, except for the fact that terminals (or other windows) aren't transparent. Menu's and the dock are.

If Apple's going to include all of these useless, questionable, annoying features, they should at least incldue a way to disable them and expunge them from one's hard drive.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Philip Trent]

Nearly every comment you make about the OS X UI is factually wrong. Control-click was introduced in OS 8; hold-clicking was introduced in OS X. Command-tab and command-tilde work just the same in OS 9 and OS X. The separate control panels were replaced with one system preferences application because third-party programmers frequently made control panels that messed with the system.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[drsmithy]

Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.

Bollocks. OS X's VM sucks - just try creating big files (bigger than physical RAM) and watch it chew up all your free memory into a disk cache and *then* start paging out running apps to continue caching that file. Exhaust the amount of space it has to allocate more swap and the app will crash.

There are also numerous included programs that can't handle large (>2G) files, either. Not good.

I really hope this has been rectified in 10.2. It's caused me a great deal of swearing and hair pulling since I bought my TiBook.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[DavidRavenMoon]

1. The GUI is not the OS. They are separate entities.

I have to disagree with this. People use OS X (or any Apple OS) because of the GUI. If you want a generic UNIX you can run Linux or *BSD and any of the awful WMs in X11. And you can do this on Apple hardware too. But do you notice none of the scientist quoted in the article are doing that?

People use Macs because of the OS, especially the GUI.

2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.

One again, wrong. Darwin is NOT OS X. You might as well run FreeBSD, unless you really want the Mach kernel. But I remember how much Linux users hated MkLinux because of the Mach kernel being slower.

A quote from the article:

"If I put together 64 G4s, we'll get the same performance as the Cray for a lot less money," he said. Indeed, Hunter's department has purchased seven Apple XServes -- rack-mounted Macs designed for use as servers -- to link in a high-speed computing cluster.

If Apple hardware is so "slow" and "overpriced" as everyone here seems to think, then why would they do that?

Bottom line is, you don't get it. Some people like OS X, AND its GUI. You don't have to.

Also, I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 466 MHz G4 with a gig of RAM. It's not all that bloated and not slow at all. Sure, OS 9.2 runs a bit faster. But it's not the GUI. OS 9 is much older code, and has been optimized more over the years.

Any who has used Macs for a while knows that each OS release since 8.0 got faster than the last, even thought they added more features and the OS used more RAM. "Bloat" does not always equal slow.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[DavidRavenMoon]

Nearly every comment you make about the OS X UI is factually wrong. Control-click was introduced in OS 8; hold-clicking was introduced in OS X. Command-tab and command-tilde work just the same in OS 9 and OS X. The separate control panels were replaced with one system preferences application because third-party programmers frequently made control panels that messed with the system.

Just a few corrections.

Control-clicking (or right clicking if you have a two button mouse) was indeed introduced with Mac OS 8. However OS X does not allow you to click and hold to get a menu. Web browsers like IE and Mozilla do, but that's been standard for a long time. There is a great free Control Panel for OS 8 and 9 called FinderPop that did that, and also let you add menu items.

Command-tab does switch between running apps in both OS's. I installed the free LiteSwichX, which give a list of icons when you switch. I use Option-Tab because it's less of a risk of hitting Command-Q and quitting your application.

Command-tilde on OS X pops down a menu from the title bar on a Finder window that allows you to Go To a folder. As you type the path in, OS X auto completes it based on directory names on your system. I think in OS 9 Command-Tilde switched between open windows.

I have been running OS X every day since 10.0 came out. Its a great OS... much better than OS 9 or Linux IMHO.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[FueledByRamen]

All that Quartz Extreme does to your GPU is to have it push a few textured polygons around. The window manager "renders" each window as a bitmapped texture and pushes it to the graphics card attached to a flat 2d polygon. The only reasons you need a good graphics card are:

* Those textures are pretty big, so you need video RAM to handle it.
* Some older video cards might not be able to handle constantly-changing textures.

That's it. Your GeForce4 (or Radeon 8500)'s power is being used to render a whole 4 (or so) textured polygons. (Admittedly, the textures are complex, but it should be able to handle that just great.) Drop that to 2 or 3 polygons when you're in Bryce, as it's a fullscreen app (Menubar, black background which may not even be a separate polygon, main window). Considering that a moderately complex scene in Bryce will have tens of thousands of polygons textured very complexly, I think that 2 or 3 more won't slow you down too much...

Re:MacOS X has problems

[DavidRavenMoon]

How many of you here have actually used MacOSX?

I do, every day as my main OS. I'm typing this in OS X.

But it still has problems.

Not as much as you seem to think! Every OS has some problems. But OS X has been very reliable for me. I don't have the newest Mac, and it runs great. It also supports a bunch of old peripherals, like a 3 year old UMAX 1220S SCSI scanner, a 7 year old Iomega Zip drive, a 2 year old Epson SP 870 printer, and an external LaCie SCSI CD-RW. The best part is showing friends that come over how they can plug their digital camera in, and OS X launches either iPhoto or ImageCapture and asks to download the pictures. My friend's PC running Win2K wont even work with her new Sony camera. You think you're going to get ease of use like that with any other Unix? Not likely.

OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.

Yeah, so? And how many people's OS X boxes have been exploited? I'm on a full time broad band connection. No one has gotten access to my Mac. And it does have a built in firewall too.

Plus Apple releases security updates once a month. I just downloaded one. Some of the information in the book is out of date.

That's one problem. The other problem is performance.

Once again it's not that big of an issue. It hasn't stopped me from using and working on my Mac in OS X at all. What it lacks in performance it makes up for in multitasking. And the little that I used Jaguar shows its faster still.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Control-click was introduced in OS 8; hold-clicking was introduced in OS X.

Wrong, moron. I've used both. Hold click does not work for many things in OSX, the few exceptions being folders on the dock and links in IE and Netscape. Hold click brings up property menu's in OS9.

As for the control panel, the new system to navigate through the control panel is less efficient. Its much quicker to just pull down a menu of all the control panel controls than to open up a window and click on icons.

Having used OSX alot, I also know your WRONG about APPLE-~. APPLE-~ brings up a finder window which asks you for the directory you'd like to go to; it does not switch between instances of a running applicaiton.

Next time, get your facts straight before saying something stupid. I've worked alot with both OS9 and OSX. I know about the GUI advantages and disadvantages of each.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

I have to disagree with this. People use OS X (or any Apple OS) because of the GUI. If you want a generic UNIX you can run Linux or *BSD and any of the awful WMs in X11. And you can do this on Apple hardware too. But do you notice none of the scientist quoted in the article are doing that?

The only response to this can be: IDIOT. No matter what you say, an OS is not a GUI. A GUI is the user interface to the OS. People may use MacOSX because it comes with the Aqua GUI, b ut that does not mean that Aqua is an OS: it isn't. Its a GUI.

2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.

One again, wrong. Darwin is NOT OS X. You might as well run FreeBSD, unless you really want the Mach kernel. But I remember how much Linux users hated MkLinux because of the Mach kernel being slower.

Again, the only response to this can be: IDIOT. I said that Mac hardware is not synonymous with Mac software. In other words, software != hardware. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Apple sells computer systems, with the Kernel and a GUI on top to make the OS, which are installed on hardware. That does not mean these components are all the same. They are separatable.

That Mac hardware is so great says nothing about its software. Try to understand that.

Your explanation doesn't even go together with your wrong refutation of my point.

True, Darwin is not OSX. OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua). I never said that Darwin was OSX. I said it was the core. Again, you make my point by saying that the Mach kernel is slower than the BSD kernel. So if your doing serious work, why waste time with it?

If Apple hardware is so "slow" and "overpriced" as everyone here seems to think, then why would they do that?

Apple hardware is fine. Its expensive (for personal computers), but its good hardware. Overall, its the most cost-efficient because it uses the least power and lasts the longest. But never-the-less, Mac systems (if running Mac's OS) are slow, because the software is bloated. Sit down at your local high-school's Mac, you'll see what I mean. Its not the hardware's fault, its the software's fault. In my experience, things always load slower on Mac's than on PC's. Obviously the fault of the software.

Also, I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 466 MHz G4 with a gig of RAM. It's not all that bloated and not slow at all. Sure, OS 9.2 runs a bit faster. But it's not the GUI. OS 9 is much older code, and has been optimized more over the years.

Wrong. OSX is based off of BSD and Mach, which are mature pieces of code: very efficient and lean. Yet, OSX runs slower than OS 9. It is the fault of the GUI, and all those extra useless features it adds like animation, transparency, icon zooming, etc.

"Bloat" does not always equal slow.

Again, another idiotic comment. Slow is relative. A GUI with extra features will run slower than if it didn't have those features, even if it runs fast.

You mention that Apple has added more features and the OS has taken up more RAM. Again, a problem. The OS should stay the fuck out of my way, not hog up all of my resources.

MacOS' are just resource hogs, be it CPU, GPU, or RAM.

Which is why if I were to buy a Mac computer, I'd buy it with nothing on it if possible and install Debian to get more performance out of it.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Excuses excuses. They're still requiring me to get a better GPU. An operating system should not be dictating GPU needs. A users needs (i.e., if (s)he needs to do intensive 3D work) should.

And it doesn't matter how much of my GPU its using, the point is, its wasting my GPU's power when it need not be.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Still, its using valuable resources when it need not be using them.

And its demanding that I get a better graphics card. The OS should not be dictating what graphics card I use; if anything, it should be the 3D apps I use.

And, sure, it might be minor. But alot of "little" things that use up a "little bit of resources" add up to A BIG THING.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

While its poor performance (read, slower than OS9 on the same system, much slower than Linux [i.e., Debian] on the same system) may not be a problem for you, it may be for other people.

Scientists use powerful computers to run reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times. So these things that "aren't that big of an issue" add up to hours of time.

Btw, multitasking is nothing new anymore. Every major OS multi-tasks. Unix multi-tasked back when it still used a CLI only.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[rtm1]

I'm a little stumped. How is Mac OS X insecure out of the box? It doesn't run any remote services out of the box. Port scan a default install of OS X and you get nothing. No file sharing, no ssh, no ftp, no rlogin, no telnet, , no webserver, no mail - no nothing. That makes it more secure by default than most standard Linux distros, and loads more secure than Windows. So how is it insecure? Granted, once you start turning services on you might have an insecure version of something running, but that's what the regular security updates are for.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Philip Trent]

Such name calling. Well, you, sir, are either an idiot or a liar, but most probably both. Your quote: "APPLE-~ switches between all windows." Incorrect. Command-tilde switches only between windows within an application. Yes, in the OS X Finder, command-tilde brings up a Go To Folder sheet, but in the OS 9 Finder, command-tilde never did anything. Another of your quotes: "Hold click brings up property menu's in OS9." Incorrect again. Hold-clicking in OS 9 made icons pop up into windows. And what is a property menu? Do you mean a contextual menu? Or a Get Info box? If you're going to pretend to be a Mac expert, you should get the terminology right. And a third quote, just for fun: "Having used OSX alot, I also know your WRONG ..." Next time, get your facts, your spelling, and your grammar straight before writing something stupid. Ciao.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dcstimm]

they do not make binary drivers for linux ppc.. Also the Mach bsd kernel is full of lantancy code. Aqua will be slower than Xwindows, its not as streamlined.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Read the book I referred to if your curious about the security issues.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

If you want to continue to say something which is wrong, go ahead. I can't help the fact that either you don't know wtf your talking about or your confusing OS9 with OSX (though I'll admit, I confused part of the hold clicking).

FACT: APPLE-~ switches between instances of an application in OS9. Open several IE or Netscape windows, and put the focus on Netscape by pressing APPLE-TAB. Then press APPLE-~. It will siwtch between the different IE/Netscape windows.

FACT: In OS9, hold clicking brings up (for example) a properties menu (the menu which asks you whether you want to save the link as, open link in new window, etc) in IE. In OSX, you have to CONTROL-CLICK (which is more work).

FACT: Hold-clicking in OS9 does not make Icons "pop up into windows". That would be double clicking your referring to.

Anyways, my point was that OSX gets rid of a lot of stuff that was GOOD from OS9. Must be something relating to Moore's law that stupidity doubles every 18 months.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Its not about disliking a GUI. Its about disliking the fact that GUI's include features which add nothing or very little to their usefulness. The reason GUI's are useful is to allow us to view several pieces of information at once, and to navigate through and manage files on our hard drives easily. Not because they're "pretty".

I'd bet that since the first GUI's in existence, the CPU/RAM/hard-drive requirements have increased about 1000x, while the usefulness has only increased maybe 2-10x (lets not talk about Amiga, even though they really pioneered the GUI and were the real visionaries before Apple popularized the idea).

What I want is that if the requirements are to increase 2x, then the usefulness is to increase 2x. In other words, if I have to pay twice as much money on Apples, I better get twice as many Apples or Apples that are twice as good. Hope that's not too much to ask for.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

As another person noted, QuartzExtreme just pushes off the PROBLEM to the GPU. This is not a real solution.

Pushing it off to a processor that's got plenty of power to handle it looks like a solution to me.

Now, its my GPU that OSX is hogging. Gee, if I wanna actually play any games or look at 3D images in Bryce, now the GUI is slowing me down.

I think you're just grasping at straws for something to complain about. When you're running any 3D game I know of, the game takes over the display, and will get 100% of the GPU's attention. (When Aqua windows aren't showing, they're not getting redrawn, and they're not taking any CPU *or* GPU time.)

All Apple has done with Quartz Extreme is say to the user, "Get a better GPU; you'll now need at least a GeForce2 to run Aqua smoothly".

Have you ever considered that it might be worthwhile to do a bit of studying, so you might actually know what you're talking about? What QZX does is take full advantage of whatever hardware you've got. If you don't have a GPU that can run QZX, then the CPU load will be higher, but Aqua UI is still plenty snappy. If you *do* have a QZX-capable video card, then you'll rarely see the CPU load hit 100%.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

Firstly, that's not the way to deal with the problem. The way to deal with it is to create a scroll-up dock.

That may be how you would choose to deal with it. I disagree.

Which would be nice, except for the fact that terminals (or other windows) aren't transparent. Menu's and the dock are.

From this, I conclude that you either 1) don't use Mac OS X, or 2) never looked at the preferences in Terminal.app. My terminal windows are 75% opaque.

(BTW, if you're running an older version of OS X, you can set the terminal opacity with:

defaults write com.apple.terminal TerminalOpaqueness .75

in any terminal window. The setting will take effect for the next terminal window you open.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Not everyone is as boring as you. Apple tries to make computers fun and easy, remeber?

If whatever you're doing is so boring that you need a fancy GUI to distract you, you should be doing something else.

And the job of an OS' GUI is not to make computers fun. That's the job of games. An OS' GUI is not a game.

Stop being such a dork. Most people in the market for a computer want a fun, neat computer with which they can get things done, not a boring, stripped-down speed machine.

And the same features which most people (myself) find "cool" in the beginning are annoying after seeing them 1000 times. Animations quickly get annoying and grate on one's nerves, as does transparency and icon zooming.

A UI is supposed to help me do things quicker and stay out of my way. Emphasize the stay out of my way part.

If you want your shit to be so fast then don't use OSX and shut your hole. "Features that need to be eliminated." Christ. And you're even trying to inflict your monotony on others. Stop posting already.

Typical of the Mac community. Suggestions for improvements are received with hostility.

Yes, some features do need to be eliminated, because they add nothing or nearly nothing. At the least, one should be able to disable them and remove them from one's system. My hard drive is not there to support Apple's obsession over tacky animations.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Philip Trent]

What happens in Internet Explorer is Microsoft's fault, not Apple's. Learn the difference between an OS and an application. Hold-clicking in OS 9 invokes the "spring-loaded" folder feature (useful if you want to drop a file into a specific folder of your hard disk), a feature that will return in Jaguar.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[DavidRavenMoon]

That Mac hardware is so great says nothing about its software.

Only an idiot would say "Mac hardware." Who is Mac? They make cosmetics!

Only an idiot wouldn't know that Apple makes computers, not Mac. Well at least you didn't write "MAC."

Again, another idiotic comment. Slow is relative.

So is fast. So your statement is a circular argument. I think that's a pretty itiotic statement.

MacOS' are just resource hogs, be it CPU, GPU, or RAM.

Do you have some data to back that up?

Processes: 60 total, 4 running, 56 sleeping... 225 threads 21:04:13
Load Avg: 2.07, 1.82, 1.64 CPU usage: 60.8% user, 32.3% sys, 6.9% idle
SharedLibs: num = 105, resident = 24.8M code, 1.71M data, 8.28M LinkEdit
MemRegions: num = 7445, resident = 211M + 17.9M private, 124M shared
PhysMem: 80.7M wired, 97.6M active, 368M inactive, 547M used, 477M free
VM: 2.94G + 48.4M 7655(0) pageins, 0(0) pageouts

PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
346 System Pre 19.8% 1:28.31 5 150 240 7.39M 13.4M 25.3M 88.9M
1517 Terminal 14.7% 0:10.55 7 152 284 5.84M+ 13.2M+ 22.1M+ 88.5M+
335 Silk 13.8% 1:07.59 4 127 120 2.32M 8.93M 11.4M 58.8M
80 Window Man 9.6% 9:54.89 5 271 305 3.57M- 52.7M+ 57.8M+ 94.9M+
1523 top 2.3% 0:28.48 1 14 16 308K 328K 564K 1.70M
390 Mozilla 1.8% 24:35.21 10 152 825 46.7M 41.0M 81.2M 159M
0 kernel_tas 1.8% 7:57.04 27 0 - - - 62.7M- 524M-
334 Default Fo 1.8% 1:41.67 4 128 129 3.27M+ 9.08M 11.9M+ 60.1M
329 Memory Mon 1.3% 2:24.17 4 142 181 4.17M 10.2M 16.2M 78.3M
328 CPU Monito 0.9% 6:37.62 4 141 194 4.62M 10.3M 17.5M 82.2M
324 SystemUISe 0.9% 4:23.50 7 142 208 3.40M 10.2M 15.7M- 83.9M
358 SlashDock 0.9% 3:20.77 12 271 286 17.4M 10.7M+ 31.4M+ 240M+
338 DragThing 0.4% 2:58.36 4 149 358 13.9M 12.5M 24.8M 89.5M
323 Dock 0.4% 2:16.02 5 179 150 3.80M 10.7M 13.4M 78.2M

I dont see it... sorry.

You mention that Apple has added more features and the OS has taken up more RAM. Again, a problem. The OS should stay the fuck out of my way, not hog up all of my resources.

So has every OS made. So what exactly are you doing on your computer that needs so much resources? I can tell that you don't use Mac OS X. But if you did, I'd ask what is it preventing you from doing? I suppose you don't want a GUI? Boot into Single User Mode then.

I do graphic and web design and audio editing. I haven't seen any instance where I couldn't do any work because the OS was in my way. Care to extrapolate on that comment?

True, Darwin is not OSX. OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua). I never said that Darwin was OSX. I said it was the core. Again, you make my point by saying that the Mach kernel is slower than the BSD kernel. So if your doing serious work, why waste time with it?

Okay, I'll talk slow here, so try and follow.

First you say "the GUI is not the OS" and then you say "OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua)."

Do you see a problem with that? You are suffering from a severe lack of logic, or the ability to put thoughts together in a way that is logical and isn't self contradicting. Oh and yes I know what OS X is. But BTW, it doesn't "run" on BSD, and you don't even have to install the BSD Subsystem.

Why "waste my time" with OS X? You seem to think that because it does something 5 seconds slower than OS 9 that it's not worth using. You are suffering from a feeling that any computer that isn't the "fastest" is inadequate. You need to think about that for a while. Stop and look at what you do on your computer and see how long things take. Do you need some tasks to be faster? Why? If I'd doing something that's going to take a while, say rendering a picture, I can just move on to something else. That's what multi tasking is all about. I find I'm much more productive in OS X than in OS 9. I use OS 9 at work everyday so I know. I also don't see a speed difference except for the Finder, and that's been fixed in jaguar. Photoshop, a program I use every day, runs faster in OS X than OS 9 at work.

Calling someone an "idiot" when you contradict yourself really shows a lack of credibility.

And yes, I understand your point, that the core OS is lean and you value that in an OS. But not everyone does, and just because YOU think OS X is too slow to be usable does not mean everyone agrees with you.

Obviously a lot of people in places like NASA don't. I would guess they are smarter then you are also.

On to another winner.

In other words, software != hardware. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Apple sells computer systems...

What part of "computer systems" don't you understand? The same holds true of SGI and Sun. Most people who buy systems want the whole system. It's well known that one of the strengths of Apple systems are their integration between hardware and the OS.

Of what benefit would you get separating the two? Very little. You can buy a G4 and run Linux on it if you like. I run Linux on a G3. It doesn't run as fast as OS 9, so there goes your theory on bloat.

You can also buy a G4 and run Darwin and XDarwin. Again, to what advantage? Maybe it's a bit faster? So what. You can't do as much with it. How fast does it have to be, and what advantage is that when you lose most of the OS? If you can't get "serious work" done then you are doing something wrong. Don't blame it on the GUI being too slow. Of course your "serious work" is probably more serious than mine, even though it pays the bills. ;)

Here's something to think about, I don't use a Mac because of Apple's hardware. I appreciate their hardware (even if it's not keeping up with AMD or whoever). I have always used a Mac because of Mac OS. What makes Mac OS so different from Windows or Linux or IRIX or Solarus? I have used all of those but prefer Macs. It's the GUI!

People also don't buy cars because of speed alone. Sure you can have a stripped down car that's basically a motor on wheels. It wont ride very well though, and you miss all the amenities.

OS X is more of a luxury car than a Dragster. It corners better too!

Learn to accept that other opinions are as important as your own!

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

No, I'm not grasping at straws for something to complain about.

The problem is they're making my hardware solve problems that should be solved by either them coding better or eliminating code (or giving me the option to eliminate code/features) which require alot of resources.

Also, you fail to consider that one may be running several Bryce windows at once; thus, Aqua windows will be redrawn.

The point is, these are useless (or near useless) features. At the very least, I should have the option to disable these useless features. Even if they don't affect my performance, they're still taking up RAM (who is Apple to assume I'm using hundreds of MBs of RAM?). Furthermore, they're using "milage" on my system. Computer systems have a limited life-time, which is dictated by how rigourously they're used.

Again, alot of little things add up, and there's alot of bloaty "features" in OSX.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[DavidRavenMoon]

While its poor performance (read, slower than OS9 on the same system, much slower than Linux [i.e., Debian] on the same system) may not be a problem for you, it may be for other people.

Well as I said, I run OS X, and I don't see it being that much slower, and when it is, it's the Finder that's slower. But I don't do much work in the Finder as compared to other applications. I also disagree about Linux being faster on the same hardware, because I run both.

Scientists use powerful computers to run reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times. So these things that "aren't that big of an issue" add up to hours of time.

So why are so many scientist running OS X? I guess they don't care as much as you think! The Human Genome project was run on G4 clusters.

Also having a slow GUI doesn't stop you from running "reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times." They don't run in the GUI.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

That may be how you would choose to deal with it. I disagree.

Which is exactly why the user should have the option to choose between the two methods, or a combination thereof (i.e., shrink icons until X, then start using a scroll-dock). Apple has never muched liked the idea of giving their users choice though.

From this, I conclude that you either 1) don't use Mac OS X, or 2) never looked at the preferences in Terminal.app.

Thanks for the tip, I'll be using a 100% transparent terminal now. However, part of my point still stands: to the vast majority of people for the vast majority of time, transparency is useless in the dock and in menus. We should at least have the option to disable that feature and purge its code from our hard drive.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[gcondon]

The problem is they're making my hardware solve problems that should be solved by either them coding better or eliminating code

Because, after all, software doubles in speed every 18 months or so ;-)

Seriously, Apple is building a product that is going to carry the platform forward for another 10+ YEARS. What you consider a superfluous waste of processing resources now is going to be lost in the noise before you know it. Granted, they are certainly going to ladle on more eye candy as this happens but it will always be a balance between performance and appearance. If you don't agree with the mix, than you are probably outside the target market and should go back to your xterm on twm. Nothing to see here - move along.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Only an idiot would say "Mac hardware." Who is Mac?

If your trying to say I don't know that Apple makes computer hardware, I believe that point is nixed, since I later said, "Apple sells computer systems.

80 Window Man 9.6% 9:54.89 5 271 305 3.57M- 52.7M+ 57.8M+ 94.9M+

Well, I don't know how fast your comptuer is, but you mentioned a G4, so I'll assume somewhere around 867MHz (that's what I read the G4 speed as being from Apple.com). So, your WM is using up 9.6% of your CPU's resources -- in loose terms, 83.232MHz of the 867MHz. That's alot of processing power just for a WM. That means it probably won't run on hardware that's 10 years old (10 years ago, PC's were around 100MHz, so I assume Apples were a little bit "slower"). On the other hand, many Linux WM's (pwm and any of hte light WM's, as well as probably WindowMaker) will run on 100MHz PC systems.

First you say "the GUI is not the OS" and then you say "OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua)."

Do you see a problem with that? You are suffering from a severe lack of logic, or the ability to put thoughts together in a way that is logical and isn't self contradicting. Oh and yes I know what OS X is. But BTW, it doesn't "run" on BSD, and you don't even have to install the BSD Subsystem.

Um, no, actually there is no problem with that. Aqua is not OSX, just as (in general) a GUI isn't an OS. Its like saying a fruit's seed is not the fruit, nor is just the "flesh" part the fruit. The fruit is the entire thing. I never said OSX runs on BSD, I said it was a combination of BSD and the Mach kernel, meaning it is based off of Mach and BSD code.

Why "waste my time" with OS X? You seem to think that because it does something 5 seconds slower than OS 9 that it's not worth using.

Depends on what it is that's 5s slower. If its a long long algorithm that normally takes hours, that's no problem. If its an application, that's a BIG problem. I usually buy either the best system available or one just behind it which is still great, but priced in accord with what it offers (i.e., so I'm not paying an extra 90% for that last 10% of performance). For the money I spend, I expect everything to happen instantaneously. Programs should load instantaneously, and should do any normal tasks instantaneously. I have leeway for things which SHOULD take longer and which aren't the fault of the OS. I don't expect a multiple alignment of 100 sequences averaging 10000 amino acids to align instantaneously...that'll take a while (like several minutes).

Btw, I've found that most "updated" versions of software run and load much slower (i.e., MSO 'XP loads about 5x slower than MSO '97), but yet don't provide many more *useful* features. If somethings going to take up 10 times as much of my resources as a previous version, I expect it to be 10 times better. Why should something perform 10 times worse if its not 10 times better? (better meaning that it has more useful features).

You are suffering from a feeling that any computer that isn't the "fastest" is inadequate.

Isn't the fastest it can be, given the needed functionality. I expect programs to load instantaneously, RAM usage to be minimal, etc. In general, I don't like "wait-time". I don't find it amusing waiting 30s listening to my hard drive thrash, or watching a little clock cursor go round and round because some routine is poorly designed.

Most other people feel the same way. If not, Broadband connections never would have become popular.

You need to think about that for a while. Stop and look at what you do on your computer and see how long things take. Do you need some tasks to be faster? Why?

I need things to be faster because I don't have the patience to wait for something to get done slowly when it should be done quickly. I can tolerate it taking 30s to (for example) align many long protein sequences with eachother; I can't tolerate it taking that long for the Word processor to load.

This partly about ideals. Sloppy coding pisses me off. In the good old days where people had to "rent" time on a computer, code was written very efficiently at all levels, so it ran quickly. It was a thing of beauty. Now, alot of code is just slop which is poorly written.

This is why I like Linux (particularly Debian) so much: because it can actually still run on a 386.

If I'd doing something that's going to take a while, say rendering a picture, I can just move on to something else.

Which will, consequently, make rendering the picture even slower; furthermore, whatever else you're doing will happen slower. Also, sometimes we want results fast. If I'm running a Bayesian phylogeny, I want the results ASAP, because its a competitive field; also, because quality (maximum likelihood) phylogenetic analysis is very intensive, and the quicker its done with the better. Regarding bayesian phylogenetics, MrBayes is a program which I particularly respect for representing the ideals of good code. Each new release has become faster, and it does in days what other programs would take years to do (MrBayes bootstraps maximum likelihood phylognies about a million times in two days, whereas doing that in PAUP via Maximum Likelihood would take months or more likely years).

That's what multi tasking is all about. I find I'm much more productive in OS X than in OS 9.

So do I, but I could be more productive in it yet if some of these issues were dealt with. Firstly, there's the performance issues (try running OSX on the same ancient hardware you ran OS9 on). Secondly, OSX eliminates alot of good features of OS9. My beloved Apple program menu is gone, for example. The very nice control panel menu that you could navigate to from the Apple menu is gone, replaced with a MSesq control panel. If one installs an add-on Apple menu in OSX, it has annoying mini-icons in the menu next to the words, rather than just the names of the program. Just having the name of the program and a carrot was great.

I'm not all negative on OSX. The core of OSX is great, and there's many things I like about Aqua's GUI (if you look over that site, you'll find several places where I praised Apple on their GUIs.

I use OS 9 at work everyday so I know. I also don't see a speed difference except for the Finder, and that's been fixed in jaguar.

Unless your comparing the two OS' running on the exact same hardware, its not a valid comparison. Asking someone who has run both OS' on the same computer at the UOR how he liked OSX, his comments were "I don't like it, I hate it. Its slow, it hogs resources, and its ugly. The only thing I like about it is that its stable and doesn't crash." I've seen how the two OS' perform on the same computer, and I agree. As for "its ugly," I have to agree. Aqua's water-like appearance is about as classless as a two dollar tramp. I prefer a simple, plain look. Again, the user should be given the choice to choose a faster, more classy appearance.

well known that one of the strengths of Apple systems are their integration between hardware and the OS. Of what benefit would you get separating the two? Very little.

I'm not separating them. They are already separate, technically. My face is part of me, but it is not me. You could put a different face on me and I'd still be me. My point was not that computers don't come as systems, as a package. My point was simply what I said. Software is not hardware. This is an important point as has been shown in recent MS anti-trust trials. Distinguishing between the various parts of a system is important, especially if we want to preserve modularity. One should be able to "mix and match".

You can buy a G4 and run Linux on it if you like. I run Linux on a G3. It doesn't run as fast as OS 9, so there goes your theory on bloat.

I question what distribution you're running. If its Mandrake, I can see that. But don't expect OS9 to run faster than Debian on a G3. It seems widely acknowledged that good Linux distros are faster than other "common" OS' such as Solaris, IRIX, *BSD, Windows, and the Mac OS'.

Now, I'm not saying Linux is perfect. Linux still has PLENTY of room for improvement. BeOS and QNX represent the ideal in terms of minimal system resource use and speed. Such performance panaceas are definately possible for Linux if proper care is taken to what really matters.

You can also buy a G4 and run Darwin and XDarwin. Again, to what advantage? Maybe it's a bit faster? So what. You can't do as much with it. How fast does it have to be, and what advantage is that when you lose most of the OS?

I wouldn't run Darwin and XDarwin, because many *BSD and Linux packages haven't been ported to Darwin. I'd run Debian. One advantage being performance. The other being Debian's proven record for rock-solid stability. The biggest advantage being the freedom factor. GPL'ed software doesn't tie me up in a web of legal knots.

Here's something to think about, I don't use a Mac because of Apple's hardware. I appreciate their hardware (even if it's not keeping up with AMD or whoever).

Actually, Apple's hardware is keeping up fine. Apple hardware may have a lower clock frequency (MHz), but it takes less clock cycles to get an instruction done.

It's the GUI!

Which has alot of pros. I'm simply pointing out some areas where improvement is needed (namely resource utilization) and where Apple has taken a step backwards by eliminating GREAT features that were in OS9, like the Apple programs menu.

OS X is more of a luxury car than a Dragster. It corners better too!

What scientist need is a Dragster for their heavy duty-computers and a Porsche for their PC's, so to speak.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

What exactly is the purpose of all this eye-candy? I find that its mostly just annoying and a hindrance, as well as tacky.

The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.

That said, Apple's certainly not alone in that category. MS has recently started developing their applications to make better screen-shots not better performance (Word XP is for 99% of users no better than Word 97, yet it takes up more space, more RAM, more CPU %, and loads slower). And of course there's the screen-shot mania insanity in the Linux community that you can witness and gag from.

Btw, if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's, how come everyone and anyone who's used BeOS or QNX says things like "applications loaded instantaneously" and "I can play 50 movies at the same time without losing responsiveness"?

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a nice program called Duality which allows theme installation for OS X. Granted, there aren't a whole lot of themes out there currently, but I run one that uses the brushed metal look like the iApps use. It's attractive and not distracting. Search at Versiontracker.com for Duality. I agree, the stripes grow old rather quickly. ;-)

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

No, I'm not grasping at straws for something to complain about.

Oh, yes you are.

The problem is they're making my hardware solve problems that should be solved by either them coding better or eliminating code (or giving me the option to eliminate code/features) which require alot of resources.

Have it your way, dude: if you don't like the GUI, then don't run the GUI. Load your Mac up with Linux, or just run Darwin from the console. The rest of us Mac users rather like working with a UI that's pleasant to look at.

The point is, these are useless (or near useless) features.

YMMV. In fact, my mileage varies quite a bit. Call it a "quality of life" factor.

Even if they don't affect my performance, they're still taking up RAM (who is Apple to assume I'm using hundreds of MBs of RAM?).

Okay, now this is an even sillier canard than the first one. Have you looked at the cost of memory lately? If you don't want to spend fifty bucks, then why aren't you just using a $500 x86 linux machine to do your work?

Get real.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[bnenning]

Typical of the Mac community. Suggestions for improvements are received with hostility.

And your attitude couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Hint: saying "it would be nice if I could turn some of the Aqua effects off to reduce CPU usage" makes you appear reasonable. Proclaiming that Aqua is useless and calling people who disagree with you idiots makes you appear to be a jerk.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

However, part of my point still stands: to the vast majority of people for the vast majority of time, transparency is useless in the dock and in menus.

Says you. I say you're wrong.

We should at least have the option to disable that feature and purge its code from our hard drive.

You do have that option. Just delete /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.fra mework/Frameworks/CoreGraphics.framework. ..then get back to us and tell us how well the loginwindow works without it.

Sorry, but it would be simply asinine to remove one of OS X's key competitive advantages just because you happen to be misinformed as to the effects of window compositing on system performance.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[gcondon]

First off ...

if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's

I think you have me confused with someone else as I never said that. I joined the thread late and am not the person you were originally bantering with.

That said, I'll take the bait ;-)

What exactly is the purpose of all this eye-candy? I find that its mostly just annoying and a hindrance, as well as tacky. The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.

That may very well be the case. After all, they are in the business of making sales and, like it or not, many people make their purchasing decisions based on appearances.

I think that what you are trying to say is that form should follow function and, if I have represented your position correctly, I agree. Unfortunately, while you and I may consider maximizing performance and efficiency as the primary function of the OS, Apple (and MS and, for that matter, RH) view the maximization of revenues as the primary function. Hence the emphasis on appearance as a tool to increase sales - even in the Linux community.

Now here's the kicker. I use OS X everyday on my desktop and laptop. I also use W2k, RH6/7 & SOL7/8 every week on a more than passing basis. I don't find the OS X GUI performance to be a significant hindrance. Frankly, I barely even notice it. What I do notice is the interface inconsistencies for X Windows applications and the general obtuseness of W2k. But hey, that's just me.

If you don't like OS X, fine - don't use it. It's not like Apple is trying to force it down the throat of world + dog like MS certainly would. But to deny it offers real value in an appealing package is somewhat disingenuous. While it may not be a open and free as Linux, it is certainly more open and free than Windows and like to become even more so. For that reason alone, Apple should be encouraged by the community rather than villified for perceived sub-optimal GUI performace (which, by the way, is one of the areas they seem to be working the hardest).

And anyway, their hardware is pretty cool ;-)

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Okay, now this is an even sillier canard than the first one. Have you looked at the cost of memory lately? If you don't want to spend fifty bucks, then why aren't you just using a $500 x86 linux machine to do your work?

How arrogant. Aside from having to spend the money on OSX, now I have to spend 50 bucks to upgrade my RAM? I should not need to upgrade my computer just to run an OS smoothly.

Also, even if I have enough RAM to run it just fine, why should the OS use up so much RAM? You know, I buy RAM so I can multitask more programs. The OS should not be using up more RAM than any other program on my system (which is the case for most computers I've worked with, except some Linux, BeOS, and QNX systems).

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

We should have the option to disable it without it affecting other parts of the OS negatively.

Menu / dock transparency is not a "key part of OS X's competitive advantage".

Its competitive advantage is the power offered by a *nix OS.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[SlamMan]

Backgrounds, themes, and screen savers (arguemnt can be made for screensavers) aren't exactally necessary on computers either, but I like having them. I don't actually NEED sound, or the ability to run games, or a window manager. I don't need spring loaded folders, but they make working with the computer a little nicer and a little easier. If having these things makes it take an extra second to load up SPSS or maya, than I think its a good trade off.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[SlamMan]

Maybe he was thinking that Apple + ~ lets you cycle between windows in explorer.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

How arrogant. Aside from having to spend the money on OSX, now I have to spend 50 bucks to upgrade my RAM?

Dude, it looks like this discussion is pointless. Things change. Get over it.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

We should have the option to disable it without it affecting other parts of the OS negatively.

Submit it as a feature request at bugreporter.apple.com. I'm sure they'll file it with the rest of the "I want it to be just like System 7.5" complaints.

-jcr

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical of the Mac community. Suggestions for improvements are received with hostility.

How would you know? You haven't suggested any IMPROVEMENTS, you've just bitched about things you don't understand.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Many things may hinder performance, but actually reduce the time you spend doing something on a computer: i.e., overall, they save you time.

GUI's in general save you time, even though they are necessarily slower than CLI's. This is because the time you save by being able to do things in a graphical manner rather than via the command-line greatly exceeds the time lost by increased load/run time.

Such features which save you time overall should be kept and/or added. Those which don't should be removed or not added.

Spring loaded menu's save you time overall, even though they take up more of your system resources and work slower than CLI equivalents.

As for backgrounds, themes, and screen savers, all of those are optional and can be disabled/removed for those of us who don't want to bother with them. The only one of them that's of any use is screen-savers, and I'd say good arguments can be made for a simple "blank screen" screen saver: (1) Saves power; (2) By requesting a password to exit it, adds to security; (3) Thus, saves you money.

My issue isn't that Aqua includes features you don't need, but that are overall useful. My complaint is that they include features which are useless, like the pretty Aqua effects, menu/dock transparency, and animations. Think of how many hours were wasted by Apple developers to make the Aqua effects, hours which could have been spent doing something more worthwhile. Transparency is easy to make and not too costly, but should still be optional. As for animations, the only possible use of them is telling you where a program went when you minimized it. This would be a non-issue if Apple had made things minimize to their icon on the dock (where hold clicking that icon would bring up a list of all of the instances of that app running).

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

I don't want OSX to be just like previous versions of Apple's OS. I do, however, want it to bring back the useful features which were eliminated, and deal with some problems.

In OS 9, menu response was instantaneous. In OSX, its nearly instantaneous. Not a big issue, but it is better to have things pop up immediately.

OS9 still had that nice Apple menu with applicatioins on it. OSX has replaced that Apple menu with a crippled Root Menu, lacking the spring-loaded menu for the control panel, and also lacking an applications menu. If you want the Apple menu in OSX, you have to download a special third-party application. Way to take a big step backwards, Apple. To be fair, the dock can have sring-loaded folders on it, thus effectively allowing the creation of a programs menu. However, the menu-based control panel was far superior to Apple's MSesque control panel, which presents the user with a bunch of icons. Again, another case where the user should have the choice.

That said, there are many areas in which OSX does improve greatly over OS9:

1. Minimization and maxmization are great features (which should have been added by Apple a long time ago), though maximization is buggy as it doesn't maximize the window to fill the entire screen.

2. The dock is great. Very good to have a dock and a desktop. However, the dock could use some work too. Firstly, one should be able to set prefs for if icons get smaller as more apps are loaded on it, or if you get a "scroll up" dock, or a combination of both. Secondly, apps should minimize to their icon on the dock, and hold-clicking on that icon (lets say Explorer) should bring up a list of all instances of that application running. Thirdly, dragging the icon of a running application off of the dock should quit that application. Once that application has quit, dragging its icon off the dock again (if its a permanent member) should remove it from the dock. Finally, one should be able to adjust how many levels deep one can go from a folder on the dock in menu mode; i.e., 5 levels, 10, etc, or infinity.

3. Column-based file navigation. This is a truly excellent way to navigate through one's files. What I really like about it is that navigation is possible entirely from the keyboard. However, Apple should work on keyboard-based navigation in the other Finder modes, which is poor.

4. And, of course, the terminal.

These are some very nice additions by Apple. However, there are areas where they should take it further than they have. For example, there's a universal menu in Apple's OS'. This is great, as it saves screen space. However, why not also have a universal tool-bar so that every application's toolbar doesn't take up space on the screen when that application isn't in focus? Also, why not give the user the option to make the universal menu hide-away, thus allowing the user to use more screen space? There are many other things, which not only Apple's WM, but every WM in existence should be addressing.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[SlamMan]

I personally think the transparency of the dock is worth the time ( I like being able to see my background pictures at full size, esp. since they now change every 30 second with 10.2) The bouncing does seem to be a bit of a waste, but it does let you know whether a program is actualy loading or just sitting there. (Yeah, I know, weak reason). And I'm pretty sure you can even turn it off. Don't know if that'll save you any resources, if its already loaded the routines into memory or not.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

I have a hide-away dock, so it doesn't matter.

As for the bouncing, it is a complete waste. It doesn't tell you which programs are running. A little arrow next to the program tells you if its currently running. The bouncing tells you that that program's prompting you with some kind of yes/no question. That could be indicated by making the arrow red rather than black.

Other animations which are annoying are the ridiculous minimization/maximization animations. I want something to minimize/maximize instantaneously -- the next frame, it should be minimized, or maximized, not in 15 frames.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to be one of those scientists. I agree with you on most counts, including that of MSWord being only available for one Unix. However, in the scientific community, nobody but nobody who wants to be taken seriously would use MSWord. It's Latex all the way. (Which, incidentally, sucks. Why scientists on the bleeding edge use a 30 year old text editing system is beyond me! But that is another story.)

Re:MacOS X has problems

[jcr]

maximization is buggy as it doesn't maximize the window to fill the entire screen.

Not an Apple bug. It's up to the app to do what it wants with the "maximize" command. If, for example, the content of the window can't use the whole screen, it won't take up the whole screen.

dragging the icon of a running application off of the dock should quit that application.

Very bad idea. Dragging has never been a way to quit an app before, and this would pose a hazard of quitting an app when you meant to just change its location in the dock. How would you propose explaining that to a new user?

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Cantus]

From "dh003i" on Wed August 21, 21:41 (#4114850)

In previous versions, APPLE-TAB switched between applications, while APPLE-~ switched between instances within an application. Now, APPLE-TAB still switches between applications, but APPLE-~ switches between all windows.

From "dh003i" on Thu August 22, 0:30 (#4115875)

Having used OSX alot, I also know your WRONG about APPLE-~. APPLE-~ brings up a finder window which asks you for the directory you'd like to go to; it does not switch between instances of a running applicaiton.

All I can say is LOL!

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

Open up two or more finder folder windows. Then press APPLE-~. It will NOT switch between the various finder windows; rather, it will bring up a Finder pop-up window asking you which directory you'd like to go to.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[castanaveras]

Jaguar has a built in gui for the kernel's firewall capabilities.

If you're so concerned about running without gui overhead for your computations, log in as console to turn it off for the duration of a login, and you'll still have the ability to run commercial stuff when you aren't doing a run.

And do you really think X Window is small?

Re:MacOS X has problems

[dh003i]

And do you really think X Window is small?

Depends on what you do.

I personally use XDirectFB. If you use that in combination with a good slim WM like pwm, then it is pretty small and very fast.

Re:MacOS X has problems

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, I just opened two Finder windows and APPLE-~switches between the two windows and the desktop

what kind of science?

[Yarn]

Pretty crap for what I'm doing, requiring several data aquisition cards (using windows for that). Also no OS X native Matlab yet, meaning I have to switch to (yuck) classic. (I just go and use a SPARCstation).

That said, TeXShop is a great app, I'm doing all my writeup on my PowerBook. Not science though ;)

What the mac is good for is not specifically science yet, it just happens that scientists regard computers as tools and aren't as tolerant of crashes, and don't always have the time to play with the OS.

(I do have a dual CPU IBM netfinity for playing with Linux on ;)

Re:what kind of science?

[GreenKiwi]

Come on people, do some f***ing research before posting clearing erronious material.

Also no OS X native Matlab yet, meaning I have to switch to (yuck) classic. (I just go and use a SPARCstation).

Did you even take the time to look at MathWorks Website? Or have you not looked at it in the 6 months?

Here is a link to MatLab of OS X.

Please have some knowledge before you post...

Re:what kind of science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of drivers for data acquision cards is indeed an issue. LabView, since National Instruments has pretty much been a Windows dominated shop for the last several years, has been very slow to bring an OS X native version to the table, and they're not interested in supplying OS X drivers for their PCI DAQ boards.
I say screw 'em. If they don't want to bring their stuff to the new party, we can just use Apple's free dev tools to write apps, and there are groups working to make drivers for DAQ hardware such as LabJack (USB, but it does everything I need). I can save $2500 by not going the National Instruments route- 2 grand on software, $500 on hardware...

Apple better than SGI...LOL

[dh003i]

http://www.sgi.com/workstations/fuel/

Nothing Apple has compares to that.

Apple doesn't even have 64-bit processors yet, so lets not jump the gun and assume they're going to overtake SGI and Sun in the scientific market.

Granted, for the type of computer Apple offers (32-bit), they're great. But, as I said before, why use the bloated OSX which'll hog alot of your RAM and CPU time, when you can install Debian, which won't?

Re:Apple better than SGI...LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and it starts at $11,500. Give me a break. Different types of machines for different tasks.

Compare your precious SGI to 64-bit OS X machines when they come out. Then we'll see who the troll is.

Re:Apple better than SGI...LOL

[Alrescha]

"http://www.sgi.com/workstations/fuel/ [sgi.com]

Nothing Apple has compares to that."

While true, you didn't bother to mention that the Fuel starts at $11,500...

A.

Re:Apple better than SGI...LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sgi.com/workstations/fuel/ [sgi.com]

Nothing Apple has compares to that.


Yeah, but that SGI is only 500Mhz, making it half as fast as the current macs and 1/4 the speed of a Pentium!

You laugh? Read the incessant dribble posted on Slashdot from mindless knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing Intel drones who know only clock speeds and nothing else.

Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[spicyjeff]

Matlab has been out for OS X for awhile now. Latest version is 6.5, same as all other platforms. Spec page here.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Yarn]

yeh, but our department refuses to order it as there are only 4 boxes running X currently.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Well call me crazy but isn't the topic of this entire thread OS X? If you don't run it, for whatever policy/financial reason, that doesn't detract from the usefullness to others the software has and what it can do.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Dixie_Flatline]

That's not what you originally said. Here's the quote:

"Also no OS X native Matlab yet, meaning I have to switch to (yuck) classic."

So which is it? Or should you just cut the crap and admit that you weren't actually paying attention?

Now, you may use really specialized hardware and not be able to do science on your Mac, but that doesn't make it less useful for scientific applications. If you read the article you'd know that these guys aren't just THINKING about doing scientific work on the Mac, they're actually DOING it. They're doing BioTech and Fluid Dynamics and probably a bunch of other stuff. So, I'd say that this assertion of yours:

"What the mac is good for is not specifically science yet..."

is false.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Yarn]

I slipped into a rant: my other comment re: lack of high quality acquisition cards still stands.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[stux]

Yes, it probably does :)

Unless the high-quality acquisition cards you are talking about are for 10 bit uncompressed video ;)

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so full of shit. Period. You do not have a job. You do not even have a computer.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Yarn]

Heh, I don't have a "proper" job, I'm paid about £8000 per annum to play with lasers, optical fibres etc.

Postgrad student. I should probably put it in my profile, only it's ending in a month.

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[mach_5]

Here is a short review of Matlab 6.5 Review

Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile

[Anonymous Coward]

National Insruments is now coming out with LabView and all their PCI cards and USB intrfaces

!!!!!!

BBQ anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

After making a comment like that, I hope this Scott Sneddon person specializes in fire-retardant materials...!

I've Seen This

[Fished]

I have a friend who works at Jefferson National Labs (I go to church with him) who is some kind of particle physicist. Recently, I talked him into trying OS X on his Mac at home. He's now totally hooked on OS X. In fact, he described it as "a bright spot in an otherwise humdrum life."

Basically, it lets him have his cake and eat it too.

CAD

[ek_adam]

I really wish that Mac OS X had some serious 3D Mechanical CAD software. SolidWorks or Pro/E for example.

SolidWorks is Windows based, so I don't have my hopes too high for that package. Pro/E runs on both UNIX and Windows however, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to port it to OS X.

Re:CAD

[beartoe]

The problem with SolidWorks and Pro/E is that they can't be used casually. In other words, these packages are complex enough that you (a) need training and (b) need to keep your chops by working the app most every day. Most people in research have far too varied a "job description" to allow this. For them a broadly-capable CAD program with an industry-standard interface like VectorWorks is better. And VectorWorks runs native on MacOS X. See http://www.nemetschek.net/

Re:CAD

[ek_adam]

Pro/E may have a steep learning curve, but SolidWorks doesn't really. SolidWorks was much easier to learn than Photoshop.

Re:CAD

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Vectorworks in OS X, and it is absolutely awesome. As a graphic artist working for a studio that does a lot of tradeshow and pop display work, I have to switch-hit between Pshop, Illustrator, InDesign, BBEdit (for html editing), and Vectorworks for designing in 3D and doing plans for our fabricators. I had no formal 3D training before this, and had no trouble picking up Vectorworks. I also (and this is HUGE) get operating system level color calibration so my prints look like they're supposed to. CAD is alive and well on OS X, and it's all thanks to Vectorworks.

Re:CAD

[theloki42]

Amen. I'm a student interested in drafting and SolidWorks, and the lab at my school was just upgraded to Pentium 4s. What's really sad, and I've written to the SolidWorks company about this, is that it's not for Mac. Why not? Macs have the better graphics and number crunching power. That's precisely what's needed for SolidWorks and AutoCAD but they still insist on "Wintel Only." Screw them.

Re:CAD

[Erik K. Veland]

Learning Photoshop is one thing, mastering it is a whole other playfield. I've used Photoshop for work and play since 1.0a (on a IIsi and SE/30) and with Photoshop 7 today I still can't say I've tapped even 50% of it's potential.

A learning curve is always steep when you're standing on the bottom of the hill.

Re:CAD

[ek_adam]

On the other hand, it's not entirely SolidWorks fault. SolidWorks is built on top of the ParaSolid kernel. Try writing to Parasolid also.

Re:CAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, will register to post when I have a little more time.
Meanwhile, the urban myth that Solidworks is easier to use than ProE is not altogether true. In fact, I find its interface more ... 'consistent' that Solidworks. Its really much more elegant overall, and the new release will be as visually friendly as Solidworks.
The real friendliness for ProE, however, lies in the network of platforms throughout industry. Solidworks is not as ubiquitious as ProE: It is not always easy to find an established vendor running SW. They too often have discovered its limitations. When you do a $100,000 development each year, no one really cares about the extra few dollars ProE might cost overall. In addtion, once things start getting complex (surfacing, large part configs), Pro/E really shines.
Now, having said that, anyone doing anything interesting with Ashlar's offerings?

I love OS X and I will support Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The two combined will be the future.

Re:I love OS X and I will support Linux

[ahknight]

The two combined will be the future.

Yeah ... so I'll go to the Apple Menu and select "About this Mac" and get a console message: "NSError: 'Hey, anyone know how to generate this window? Can it wait until the next rev?'"

I like OS X too, but come on...

[SvnLyrBrto]

> If you want to be a hermit and be unable to send
> your scientific reports to PC users since you
> have inappropriate software

You haven't spent much time around the scientific community, have you? Inappropriate software? PC users? Scientific reports are written in tex, (or latex or whatever front-end to tex is the preference nowdays) not word. And the people who write them don't give two shits about the little people and their toy computers.

If they lower themselves to make ANY accomidation to the ms types, they just export their tex document to pdf, and be done with it. And word/office is *still* unnecessary in this case.

> OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block

OS X is a memory hog. The best medecine for a slow Mac is an extre 256MB of ram. I think that actually helped ME more than going from 10.0 to 10.1.

> (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2
> update)

Won't help me. I don't have a 3D card that supports Quartz Extreme. But I do have room for another 256MB (see my above statement)

> CLI and OS kernel that soars.

No arguement there. Though I'm not a big fan of Apple's terminal program, I hardly ever have to use it (except as a novelty... to proove to skeptics that MacOS really IS BSD/Mach now). And getting X to run is no big deal.

cya,
john

Re:I like OS X too, but come on...

[pmerrison]

Actually, you'll find that you'll get a decent speed boost out of Jaguar without Quartz extreme. It's not the only optimisation in there you know!

Care to elaborate???

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.

wasted fuel

[Outland Traveller]

As cool as the SGI FUEL system looks on paper, and as cool as the case looks in person, it provides poor value.

We've successfully ported our high end graphics/ video application from the SGI platform to Linux running on a high end dual-xeon workstation.

The Linux/Intel performance is more than double that of the fuel system, and our apps push the system to its limits. And, even figuring in the cost of the high end video boards, the Linux/Intel solution is 1/4 of the FUEL price.

It's very easy to justify the porting cost.

Re:what kind of science? -TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty crap

As if that's not enough evidence, you're trolling. First you write this:

Also no OS X native Matlab yet,

But in a later response, you write this:

yeh, but our department refuses to order it as there are only 4 boxes running X currently.

You claim it's not out, but then you claim your dept. wouldn't order because... blah blah. If you're going to troll, get your fake story details straight first, m'kay?

5. MacOS X has retail apps

[Anonymous Coward]

5. MacOS X has retail apps

The fact that MacOS X lets one run traditional Unix tools and off-the-shelf retails apps (ex. MS-Office) in one environment is a big advantage over Linux. Add to this the commercial Unix apps (Sun and SGI based) that are explicity being ported to MacOS X and not to Linux.

MS-Word is used far more than tex ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

You haven't spent much time around the scientific community, have you?

Pot, kettle, black.

Inappropriate software? PC users? Scientific reports are written in tex, (or latex or whatever front-end to tex is the preference nowdays) not word. And the people who write them don't give two shits about the little people and their toy computers.

The vast majority of documentation and other paperwork in industry is written in MS-Word. Tex may be used for papers submitted to academic journals and the like but day-to-day grunt work and documentation tends to be Word and Excel. As a matter of fact at a monstrously large global chemical corporation I was used to seeing chemists with PC and Unix workstations. The PCs were just for doing documentation.

Re:MS-Word is used far more than tex ...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Pot, kettle, black.

Well, for two years, while in college, I earned my beer money by providing IT services and support to various professors engaged in grant-funded research projects. By no means does that make me a full-time academic, but I got a good feel for the (computing) tools that go along with the job.

The vast majority of documentation and other paperwork in industry

(Emphesis mine)

Who said anything about industry? The parent, and I, were talking about the scientific community; and specificly talking about research papers, at that. And yes, amongst scientists (as opposed to corperate drones), tex is, and always has been, king.

cya,
john

Re:MS-Word is used far more than tex ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

I earned my beer money by providing IT services and support to various professors engaged in grant-funded research projects

I developed chemistry and molecular visualization apps that were used in academic and commercial environments. I ported computational chemistry apps from legacy platforms (mainframe) to more modern systems (workstation).

Who said anything about industry

By industry I am specifically talking about the scientific industry, not industry in general. Scientific industry is where most of the scientific market is and where a lot of research takes place. Some of the chemists validating my ports were world class chemists that are widely published in top chemistry journals, most likely more respected and more widely published than the academics you ran into. Does this make me special, no, I'm just a grunt programmer but don't try to pass off that crap about academic environments is where it really happens. I've spent time doing software for grant-funded researchers as well. I've seen both sides, academic and commercial. Tex is a niche product in science. Get used to that.

OS can include GUI

[Anonymous Coward]

While GUI != OS.. the GUI is part of the OS. OS is not necessarily 'kernel'. This is why Linux is not really an operating system as you can't DO anything with it (except boot about half way) without any userland tools. FYI, *MANY* people are buying OS X/Apple hardware now for the combination of the usable GUI, and the "unix underpinnings".. It's great for development especially. Your argument that people who uses OS X is disappointed with the GUI and would rather it use windowmaker is fatally flawed. OS X, especially the GUI portion, are ** WHY PEOPLE BUY APPLE HARDWARE ** ..

Good night!

-JD-