Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" Reviews Pour In
hype7 writes "The reviews on Apple's new Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" are starting to come through. The New York Times (free reg required) heaps on the praise: 'Mac OS X 10.2 is the best-looking, least-intrusive and most thoughtfully designed operating system walking the earth today.' MacCentral is positive: 'From what I've seen Jaguar is leaps and bounds ahead of Mac OS X 10.1 in both speed and functionality.' MacWorld has also chimed in: 'for most users, there are a lot of important improvements in this upgrade: performance boosts, improved printing, and interface enhancements will be immediate benefits. And over time, Mac OS X 10.2's new technologies (including Quartz Extreme and Rendezvous) will make the update even more valuable.'"
So NYT, which requires reg, is ok to post links to.
Washington Post, which just started asking for birth year, zip code and gender -- not ok to post links to.
Hypocrites.
BilldaCat
Too bad Apple isn't giving a discount to current users of OS X, with the exception of recent OS X purchasers. $129 is a bit pricey for an OS upgrade.
At least the reviews make a point of that.
Okay, Apple, you have one of the most critically acclaimed Operating Systems out there, both in terms of usability, speed, and beauty. Why are you still putting all your eggs in the hardware basket? We all know that Darwin runs on x86. How much work do you really need to port the Mac0S shell over to x86?
If you're worried about losing control of your OS, please take a nice long look at Microsoft, a company that sells very little hardware (and outsources every piece of hardware it does sell, including the X-Box) but is one of the richest and most successful companies in the history of mankind, based solely on OS sales.
Develop and sell Mac0S for x86. You'll be glad you did.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
It's been shipping with new Macs for the past week or so. My copy was shipped from Apple yesterday, I might be getting it a day early as well.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
If OS/X is as good as people are saying, then it appears to be light-years ahead of Linux as far as a desktop OS goes. Here's my question -- how difficult would it be to port a version over to the Intel platform? There is obviously a much bigger hardware base to tap, and with the backing of Mac it may just be the alternative to Windows that we all crave. True, it's a closed system and strongly regulated by Mac, but I trust Apple at this point much more than Microsoft. I won't go and buy a new Macintosh, but I would consider experimenting (and buying!) an alternative OS if it is as good as everyone says.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
command line apps seem very much slower
alot of people say that the abi has changed because of the change to GCC 3.x but they should not work because of the ABI change not slower whats up ?
regards
John Jones
If this upgrade is really worth $130, then it should be Mac OS 11 not 10.2. Jesus christ, it's as if Apple DOESN'T want people to upgrade...
With Quartz Extreme on my G4 system, Jaguar's UI is still not as responsive as WindowsXP on a similar power machines. :(
the article mentions being able to "browse" other windows machines... does anyone know if apple uses samba to do this or something else?
Just FYI, Macworld ownd Maccentral and thus anything coming out of Maccentral will be a parrot of what's coming out of Macworld.
Not to say that's wrong, just saying that you might have well only mentioned one of the other and picked a different 3rd example.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
You heard it here. It's called the "family license".
It feels a lot snappier. I've installed it on a blue&white G3/300, and even without the boost from Quartz Extreme (which requires AGP and Radeon/GeForce or better) the GUI has picked up speed. The Finder is MUCH faster at handling windows with a lot of files and no longer feels like it's asleep at the wheel.
Maybe OS X will be usable below the Dual GHz G4 level after all. The next thing to try will be iPhoto, which was ridiculously slow on my 500 MHz iBook.
Just thought it would be interesting to note that Apple is selling "site" licences for home users as what it calls the Mac OS X Family Pack.
Just thought it was neat. Bummed that there was no upgrade price, many users were only going to purchase one box of Mac OS X 10.2 and load it on all thier home machines. Now you can legally upgrade all your home machines, for a much more resonable amount, and Apple gets $199 instead of $129
been said so many times
x86 lots of hardware (hard to support)
x86 vesa is stupid
darwin the Mach based OS that apple uses as the base has a port to x86 but only a limited amount of hardware is supported
if your intrested Code it
regards
John Jones
OH please oh please oh please......
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
OSX onto x86 would be like putting the body of a Jaguar (no pun intended) on the guts of a Yugo. Sure you could do it, but why bother?
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
Gotta watch those quotation marks!
Yeah, but look at the beauty of some of the designs. There hasn't been a PC that can compete on looks with any of the recent Macs, especially the new iMac, which really is beautiful when you see it, or even the ill-fated Cube.
If we could get them to keep making the CASES, they'd be onto a winner.
Goblin
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
I'm sorry, what's that you say?
Couldn't hear you.
El riesgo vive siempre!
thought it was Jaguire?
Apple would never do that. they would lose their vertically integrated monopoly.
maybe the justice dept should look into them
A lot of people have been saying this lately, there's even been an april fools joke about it. The fact is that it would probably take apple only a few months to port osx to x86. Why won't they? Look how osx runs on a mac...it's flawless, you don't need to worry about device drivers for the most part, the install process only asks you what languages you want. Apple wants the end users to realize that all the crap involved with computers isn't necessary, you should only have to plug it in to get it to do what you want.
Actually, sounds to me they're pinning their hopes on OS X, not the hardware.
http://danhon.com/
if they do that, then the DOJ can't claim microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system market.... thats one of the big points people have been arguing about why apple doesn't want to port. just what i read somewhere...
"an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"
Because speed alone isn't everything.
Because the system as a whole is more than the sum of its parts.
And because, if they did that, Microsoft would obliterate them in an eyeblink.
If you're worried about losing control of your OS, please take a nice long look at Microsoft, a company that sells very little hardware (and outsources every piece of hardware it does sell, including the X-Box) but is one of the richest and most successful companies in the history of mankind, based solely on OS sales.
Yeah, based on OS sales to hardware makers. If Apple can figure out how to get OSX pre-installed on PC hardware, they'd be rich. They'd be Microsoft in fact, since that's all Microsoft had before they got where they are now.
For now, if Apple makes the OS run on x86 hardware, they don't gain much. In fact they might lose some hardware sales.
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! The Macs have become self-aware and created legs to run around and reak havok!
The old NeXT operating system was very nice and had many of the same features that OSX does (not suprising since OSX, if memory servces, is based partially on NeXT). But NeXT didn't get out of the hardware market quickly enough and support hardware choice with enough earnest and IMO ended up falling as a result.
Being a die-hard Linux/Unix advocate I am starting to warm up to OSX from what I've been reading but I will absolutely not give it a second look until there are more vendors that are building hardware for it than just Apple. I use Unix/Linux partially for OS/hardware freedom of choice, I am not about to go to a platform that gives me little lattitude in either dimension!
Jobs is fun to make fun of, no?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Considering that most of Apple's income comes from the sale of hardware, your suggestion makes as much sense as telling Bill Gates to concentrate on selling applications and stop mucking about with that silly Windows stuff.
Apple is selling hardware that is half the speed at 2 to 4 times the price of Intel hardware
Or are you measuring just clock speed like some others? Compare the Max notebooks to x86 notebooks and show your x2/x4 price hike.
Making wild claims like this help noone.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
Mac OS 10 is showing us how a good operating system is designed. That's useful so that Windows users can compare and understand better what they are getting.
[whiney slashdot geek voice] I'd buy Mac OS X if it didn't cost anything, ran on x86, and came with a 2 button mouse. [/whiney slashdot geek voice]
BULLSHIT! You're not going to switch, be content with Gnome/KDE and contribute when you have something intelligent/pertinant to add to the conversation. Rehashing the same old tired Slashdot FUD against Apple/MacOS is **NOT** an intelligent controbution.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
Another thing worth pointing out is that you can get 10.2 for only $69.95 if you're a K-12 faculty/staff member or Higher Ed faculty/staff/student member. The discount isn't directly offered to K-12 students. Through a school you can usually get a discount. Apple Specialists would probably also give you a discount for your daughter's computer. Since I work at a Unv and K-12 I bought mine for $69.95.
I hear MacOS X is great and all, but am I the only one who hears "Jaguar" and thinks not "lithe jungle cat" but instead "pretty but unreliable British automobile"?
...What no one is mentioning is that yes the OS is amazing (worth the high price of a Mac IMO) but the Dev tools are simply fantastic. If your a pro you get all these amazing dev tools for free and if your a beginner now you have a reason to start.
The Cocoa framework is, once you understand it, the easiest, most powerful framework there is. You can make amazing, truely object oriented programs with a full GUI in no time t all. Objective C is a great language and the fact you CAN use all your C/C++ code in your programs and integrate things adds to the functionality.
There is an object called NSTask that allows you, the programmer in code, access and use the function of ANY command line tool in your program. Who else offers something like this?
I really suggest to all developers to take a good look at developing for this computer. It's fun, effeciant and powerful. Not to mention free and of course you have all your favorite command line tools, compilers etc. In fact, every program compiled with the free compiler is GCC.
It's simply, great.
Native Java also =)
"Allez Cusine!"
Yes, you can shut the dock down completely. It's just a process like everything else.. (I'm not sure if that will screw up anything else too much). The dock has an auto-hiding feature which is quite nice - it never gets in your way unless you are fiddling with things very close to the bottom of the screen with the mouse - and of course, you can move it to the sides of the screen if you want.
I'm using the GM version of Jaguar, and I can attest to the fact that it is very zippy (and I'm only using a G3 which doesn't have the Alitvec core) There are still a couple of rough edges - mainly little things that Apple should have stolen from Windows a while ago, like being able to set the horizontal/vertical distance for the auto-grid spacing of icons. I think a lot could be gained in terms of system responsiveness (which is very good already) by pre-loading all the directory information - I have 640 MB RAM, so I don't care if 5 MB of it get taken up by a directory cache.
As for those of you who whine about having to get a Mac to get Jaguar and say you'll stick with Linux instead - if you want a nearly-free (as in beer) OS, that's fine. But in case you haven't noticed, Mac prices are relatively competitive with PC prices - there's still a difference, but it's smaller than it was. That's what Apple gets for only having 5% of the market share. Whether you like it or not, Apple is a public company, in business to make money as well as make computers. Software is not there only product.
I'm still curious as to why OSX support for X86-based processors was dropped. I mean, I like OSX, but I hate the way that Apple rapes people with the hardware. I *want* another OS, but Linux is too fragmented for *me*.
I'd pay $200/license for OSX on X86 if they kept away from all the the new MS spyware tactics. I suppose that Linux is likey close to where I need it to be so I guess that I'll hafta wait for that.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
- You couldn't be more wrong, and the reason you're wrong is the same reason that Apple'll never port OS X to x86. MS is not, repeat,
- NOT an OS company.
Develop and sell Mac0S for x86. You'll be glad you did.They do make an OS, sure, and it even makes a few bucks, but Microsoft, for all intents and purposes, sells only one thing, and it's not Windows. It's a little office suite called MICROSOFT OFFICE!!
If Apple switches to x86 and MS says no office, guess what? OS X is relegated to the hobbyist market, and as BeOS/OS/2/Name-your-failed-OS learned, you can't survive in the hobbyist market.
- Develop and sell MacOS X for x86 and get shut out of the business market forever.
Develop and sell Mac0S for x86. You'll be glad you did.There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Has it not occoured to you that the reason that Mac OS X is so stable and fast is because they know exactly what hardware it will need to run?
I've read many comments here saying how Apple should port the OS if it's so good. But one of the reasons the OS is good is that they don't have to worry that someone will try to run it on an Althalon, or put in there $0.99 NIC and expect it to work. Just ask the Linux community and they'll tell you the bigest headache is getting drivers for all of the hardware that is out there.
So maybe we should think about this in the future. If every hardware vendor had the same quality control as Apple, and was as methodical about testing that everything works together we'd all have an OS that works as well as OS X, no matter what it was.
Trust me if Apple ported there OS to the x86 people would be screaming from day one that it sucks. They'd probably blame Apple for doing it on purpose to get people to buy Macs.
I'm starting to dread when Apple news makes the slashdot front page. That is when 3/4 of the discussion tends to be about multi-button mice, "proprietary hardware" and how we don't want to pay for it, stuipid misunderstsandings about the OS, and on and on and on.
I almost prefer the apple.slashdot.org ghetto that we're usually relegated to. At least there it's about 3/4 people who actually understand something about the platform and don't need to bring the discussion back to "why I don't like this platform" no matter what the original story is.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I'm Switching(TM) in a few weeks. Can't wait to brag about having BSD as my main kernel (with a Suse/AMD box on the sidelines).
:)
Now, having gotten that out of the way. OS 10.2 is nice. Speed improvement is striking. Not in the way that, "it should have been that fast in the first place", it's more in the way of the first time I installed BeOS on a computer to see it in comparision to WinME.
Networking is definitely faster. I haven't benched anything yet, but I can say if you have a fast line, you will see your web browser of choice speed up considerably.
The "disconnect from Network bug" is still there. Connect to a SMB, AppleTalk, or DAV volume and pull your network cord (or turn off the machine exporting the drive) and you will get the spinning wheel of death.
Video Performance is spooky, even on an origional G4 tower. You really have to see it to understand.
iChat is next to useless, but the auto discovery of other clients is nice.
SMB export was a pain in the ass. You have to enable it on a user by user basis, which wasn't obvious, in the Accounts preference pane. Then after it's enabled for a user, you have change their password. Since the GUI client changes both the Samba password and Unix password for the user, at the same time, the users CANNOT just change their password on the command line. This also raises fears that the Samba passwords are stored in cleartext on the harddrive. I suspect, this is not the case, but haven't look yet. There is no convient way to set the SMB workgroup in the GUI
XDarwin needed to be repaired (which is available at the X on X site and seemingly not part of what Fink compiles) to work. This was annoying.
The firewall has Gnutella as an option to allow.
My SCSI CD Burner stopped working. I suspect the old SCSI bug is back for the time being.
Some other shit I foget....
Burn Hollywood Burn
I think they did look at Microsoft, and what MS could and would do to them if they raised such a challenge.
Office would certainly die, probably IE as well.
Tight integration of hardware and software is a big part of the Mac experience. It avoids problems. MacOS x86 would have tons of problems, many more than windows, more, probably, than Linux, which is known for having driver problems.
I was about to write that most Mac people have never thought about a driver in their lives, but that's probably an exaggeration. They have to worry about them for scanners and stuff like that. But not for the core components of the system. Stuff just works. Which is, of course, the basis of their ad campaign.
Apple makes a profit on their hardware, because their model shields them from direct competition. The tight integration is a core component of their OS. And moving into x86 OS's would trigger an all out war from MS, and pull the plug on software that every Mac OS X user uses all day every day (IE).
First 10.0.4, then 10.1, now 10.2, it just gets quicker and quicker. Hated by wives and loved by prostitutes everywhere. By 10.5 it should run acceptably on my G4.
Apple is selling hardware that is half the speed at 2 to 4 times the price of Intel hardware.
/. where people ought to know better, perpetuates the clock speed myth. Anybody who knows about hardware will tell you clockspeed doesn't really measure anything. I could make a 50 GHz chip that would perform 20 times worse than your old 80386 chips. If you want an accurate measure of CPU speed, look at things like FLOPS, IOPS, and memory bandwidth. Those three factors will tell you thousands of times more information than a clock speed.
It bothers me whenever somebody, especially on
There's no sig like SIGSEG
Many people are commenting that Apple needs to move to x86, however, I think there are a few problems with that. First of all, Apple has never strictly enforced the licensing systems they have in place. Nearly all Mac users I've dealt with are lax about it too, usually installing the copy they get with their new computer on their older equipment, or borrowing a copy from a friend. There has never been much pressure from anywhere not to do this, because, after all, "everyone knows that Apple survives off hardware". As Apple has no copy protection scheme in place, they are worried that they would loose massive amounts of money by just selling an OS to a crowd which has always viewed the OS as a freebie.
Apple could avoid this by creating their own bios, or some other way of restricting the machines that could install Mac OS X for the x86, but historically, this hasn't worked well, just look at IBM. In the Mac world though, they have been able to hold patents and such on far more of the machine, preventing against unlicensed clones (they prosecuted quite a few companies in the '80s over Mac clones). If they don't have complete control over the hardware, its doubtful that they could prevent clones.
Finally, if we assume that Apple decides to release an OS X port that works on all x86 hardware, they would have to compete with all the x86 vendors on price (Dell, etc.), as well as Microsoft on the OS (and all the OEM agreements that entails), and they would have to set up support for a huge amount of hardware that they don't have experience. This seems unlikely to me.
As a combination of all these issues, I just cannot see Apple moving to x86 any time soon. Sure, they might be able to do it, but I don't see it making sense.
With respect, I just went through this with another Apple guy who just wouldn't listen to reason. If you look at identical applications on both platforms, a G4 is about 20% faster clock-for-clock as a P4, on the average. In some cases, it's more, and in some cases it's less, but on the average that's it. When you compare prices (I used Dell), it's about 2x on the low end, and 4x on the high end.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I don't understand people here who bitch about Apple's hardware being underpowered. In terms of just the processor, the G4 is very competitive. In terms of the bus.. well certainly the Athlon wins hands down there, but the G4 certainly isn't as bad off as critics like to make it sound. Especially with the new "multi-bus" design which minimizes load on any given bus.
e -any-other-company. I'm a proud linux-to-mac convert. I know all the options out there. I couldn't stand to have my home machien be anything but a mac. WinXP just annoys me, and I am sick-to-death of XFree86 being my primary windowing system.
Apple is a hardware company because they sell something most MS users don't really understand. They sell ease-of-use and tight integration. On a mac, you never think about drivers. Especially in OS X, things just work. No questions asked. This is part of the apple user experience and it's REALLY hard to do in the open, fragmented world of PC hardware. As far as I can see, PC hardware is such a hit-or-miss proposition (I've build 2 computers now... one was awesome one was not-so-awesome because of the board) that you're safer buying package deals even if you have the expertice to build it personally.
Apple suffers from none of this. Even if they decide to go to an x86-based archtecture ( I hope not, maybe the G4 is a decent place to be, but the x86 architecture is so strangled by legacy bs that it's hardly doing what a fresh design can ), they will NEVER just run on any old PC out there. Apple can't provide the same user experience without some idea what kind of hardware they encounter.
Think about this next time you bash Apple, or Apple-the-company-that-wants-to-make-a-profit-lik
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
You just andswered your own lame question.
They enjoy raping you on hardware.
Three guesses who lost a lot of money in Intel's stock? First two don't count.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't help Apple much. They would need to write a PPC emulator to run all the current PPC apps, but all the altivec-enhanced applications would run slower, even on a 2.5GHZ Pentium IV. In the end, Apple would not come out ahead.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Actually, I would consider the proprietary hardware to be one of their advantages.
Having a standard platform to work with may be why Apple's work is so impressive. With like hardware across the field to work with, OS X software developers don't have to worry about hardware driver interaction issues nearly as much as on a x86 platform.
It's also an obvious advantage in stability areas, where Windows is so completely flawed...since it has to be compatible with such a wide range of hardware.
As much as I'd love to see OS X for x86, I don't it will ever happen. Apple likes having complete control over their products so they can produce the best products. With a few exceptions, Apple arguably releases the highest quality and designed products in the computer industry, and I think that's a real advantage for them.
-brain
Technically, it should be fairly easy to get MacOS X running on x86 hardware, and I've heard rumors that they have it running in house.
/.ers may not use them much, but it would be a huge blow to the platform.
The first problem is that Apple makes money off their hardware. The margins may be razor thin on a new Dell, but they're much better on a high end G4 tower.
Second, if Apple started competing directly with Microsoft, you can bet that Office and IE would disappear from the Mac platform quick.
Of course, Apple may prove me wrong, but I think it's much more likely that they'll move to the new IBM made PPCs than to x86.
Msft muscled in on the original IBM PC and has hung on as the default shipped OS ever since. At least Steve has enough sense to see that nobody is going to displace Msft on the Intel and certainly isn't foolish enough to try. Could Apple afford to %25 piracy rate? Could they withstand all the just plain bad PC hardware out there making their software look bad without a thoroughly locked in consumer base? Sure, the design for the Mercedes or BMW would be affordable if they'd let bottom rate third world el-cheapo auto plants like Yugo or whatever make them, but then it just wouldn't be the same high level of quality and dependability that their customers have come to expect.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Steve Jobs: Hey, Mike, whassup?
Michael Dell: Drinking, a Bud, hoping like hell that the SEC doesn't decide that I'm next.
Steve Jobs: Anyway, what do you think of MacOS on Dell Hardware?
Michael Dell: It'd be a pain in the ass, Steve. Bill's got my nuts in a pair of vice-grips. I'm trying to break loose, but if I make any moves at all, I start paying Microsoft through the nose. I've made a few deals to ship OS-less PC's with Freedos media in the box, but I'm not sure how that's going to work yet.
Steve Jobs: Well, let me give you an offer like this. Supposing you do manage to start selling PC's without Windows successfully. How about you make us a promise to ship a certain volume of PC's with Mac0SX for x86 along with a copy of Virtual PC or something similiar so your users don't lose out on all thier Windows Apps. It should cost about the same as a Windows XP license, if you don't include the cost of the Windows license they have to buy to get Virtual PC to work.
Michael Dell: I'll do you one better. I understand there are some guys out there who've done a really good job with the Wine project for Linux. Crossover, or something like that. I bet with a small infusion of cash, they could get a version ready for OSX in just a few months.
Steve Jobs: Is it any good?
Michael Dell: It plays Warcraft 3.
Steve Jobs: Hmmm...
Michael Dell: Hmmm...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Yes, Apple fanatics: Moderate him to oblivion. Clearly any criticism of your God must be severely punished!
Burn the heretic! BURN BURN BURN!
Don't forget the publications noted in the articles are under NDA from Apple.
This upgrade is similar to Win95->Win98 upgrade. It fixes some bugs, leave others untouched and even introduces a few more.
The speed gains aren't that impressive.
On my dual g4/1000 - Slight improvement in boot time. Probably due to parallel process launching.
On my G4/733 - Very little speed improvement.
On my G3/600 (ibook) - Hardly any speed improvement.
All and all, not very impressive.
Its not like the components in a dell box are suffering a higher rate of failure or incompatability problems w/ windows then Mac. In fact, most of my friends using Mac OS X cant used much of their legacy hardware due to lack of support. So much for "just working".
Obviously a pc user who builds their own boxes will run into trouble on occasion w/ compatability issues. But that isnt a reasonable comparison really.
Why is this insightful? "x86 components have proven that they don't 'just work'" . WTF, this has NO validity behind it. Look inside your mac, almost all the components you'll see were brought from x86 or other systems with the CPU being the obvious exception. And hell, with the massive speed gap you have between the highend G4's (what, 1GHz top?) and high-end P4's (what, 2.8GHz now?) the x86 platform is clearly superior in terms of speed.
Does slashdot have some sort of deal with the new york times? You continue to post links that require 'registering'. Yesturday however it was stated slashdot would not link to the washington post because they began to require registering.
Also, I have seen ads on slashdot for Simone, the new movie about a computer generated movie star. I though slashdot was against the mpaa? I have since added slashdot's ad servers to my hostfile so I am not subjected to mpaa propaghada.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
And there's a BIG GIANT ".NET" advertisement on the page.
Whats the deal, Slashdot?
Because there are a lot of college kids out there like myself who would gladly buy the OS, but just can't afford more hardware. If it were available to the less financially well off college age crowd on x86, there would be a much better chance of us moving over to Apple's hardware down the line. However, for myself, and probably for a lot of other people, the means and incentive to even check it out just aren't there.
The first release of OS X didn't, and the one stinkin mac in the company couldn't talk to one of our windows NT servers running Mac file services! Why you ask? Because NT only supports Mac file sharing via appletalk not TCP/IP (as do all older mac servers). Does OS 10.2 finally support file sharing via appletalk?
If so, it may actually be time to get the one mac user off of OS 9.
-ted
I am writing software for the PC crowd, and will eventually need to do so for a Mac.
I have hated Macs for a long time - I have used them and never could get over huge annoying factors.
But now that they got rid of their OS which was awful (for what I needed), and are now OpenBSD, I'm more likely to switch.
I have seen it, and it is really just window dressing as far as I'm concerned.
I have heard that the command line stuff is slower now...
Anyway - I'd love for someone to sell me on why I should use this.
Things I care about are price to performance ratio. Ease of programming (tools available - need mySQL, php, Perl, Java, C/C++, etc). Cost of maintenance (software and hardware upgrades), etc etc.
I have been over this before in the past on my own, and Mac always falls up short.
The only thing that is slightly swaying me towards one now is that I need one to develop on to expand the potential client base available to my software.
Make it easier on me and give me some legitimate reasons that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy with my WinXP and Mandrake boxes that I have right now. Cheap, never crash, fast, and easy to use.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Once you port the OS, then you'd have to port all the applications, too. Or at least recompile them, in the case of native Cocoa apps. Heck, not every major application is OS X native yet(Quark). There'd be no way to run a Classic compatibility mode on Intel chips, either. Plus, tech support on Intel would be a much greater endeavor, even without a larger user base. All in all, it sounds like a nightmare to me to attempt, at least until most Mac users, and all the Mac developers, have moved to X. Later, it may be more doable.
Now, I do think that Apple has some contingency plans in place in case all of Motorola's chip factories burn, but I think it's a last resort plan.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Apple seems to be going the right way with their OS, and if it's true about OSX eventually being ported to an x86 or X86-64 architecture then it seems to me that it can only get better. As far as I know, the only grpahics cards that work with Apple are the Geforce MXs and the lower Raedeon cards. Imagine using a Geforce4 Ti 4600 or Raedeon 9700 while the AMD processor can sit back and let the graphics card do all the work. On top of all that, using intel/windows side hardware *should* make the price of those Macs cheaper. If Apple locks the hardware, then it shouldn't be too hard to make your own OSX based computer (think how well DVD and CD copy protection worked, console MOD chips and that sort) I would love to replace the WindowsXP I have now with OSX running wine or something simmilar, but then again I'm as wierd as they come :-)
It bothers me whenever somebody, especially on /. where people ought to know better, perpetuates the clock speed myth.
And it irritates me no end when Mac people can't face the truth that it's SLOW. Clock speed isn't everything, but it DOES count. As has been proven over and over, a G4 is only 20% faster than a P4, clock-for-clock. When Intel clock speeds are 2.5 times G4 clock speeds, that makes a difference.
Maybe the Mac population can do us all a favor and stop screaming "MEGAHURTZ MYTH!!!" when the applications tests prove that price/performance on the Macintosh is horrible, and that the fastest Intel kills the fastest Macintosh*.
*Except for carefully picked Apple benchmarks.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The minute that Apple starts making software to run on commodity X86 boxes is the minute that Microsoft reaches out and crushes them permanently.
I _like_ Apple hardware. It just works. My video card works with my motherboard works with my sound card. Right out of the box. With no weird IRQ conflicts, or other baggage associated with a broken 20 year old design.
Au contraire. Its on a Yugo right now. More like it would be on a Ferrari if ported to x86. Or better, it would be installed on that hopped-up muscle car no one can beat. The depth and power of the x86 hardware world simply overwhelms the Mac side of the fence. Stevie-boy just doesn't have the balls to port it. He's afraid of a direct apples to apples (haha) comparison. After all, he's been ripping off the Mac faithful for years with higher prices on the notion that their hardware is better. Lots of Mac people would be plenty pissed if their fantasy world imploded.
Look at MacOS X the power of unix without the
weight of X11. Maybe oneday Linux developers will get a clue and dump X11.
Not bad, but next time use an example game that doesn't run on OS X. There are plenty out there, you just happened to pick one that was released at the same exact time as its Windows' counterpart.
My iBook was actually the cheapest notebook available with all of the features I wanted. iBook: $1,800. Closest x86 alternative (Sony Vaio): $2300. And considering all of the features, the iMacs are very fairly priced.
Bear in mind that there are other things beside CPU speed, especially with laptops. I wanted a 32MB Radeon 7500, when most x86 laptops have 8MB GeForce2 MXs or ATI Rages. I also wanted to be able to plug the thing into any TV without a converter. My iBook does that with a $19 connector; the x86 ones I looked at need a $100 VGA-to-TV converter.
If you're stuck on meaningless numbers (like, oh, I dunno, clock speed) then sure, it looks like a raw deal. But when you look at it from a feature and usability standpoint Apple computers blow away the competition.
Yea, Apple should give up their profitable hardware business and take Microsoft on, on Microsoft's terms. That's going to keep them in business...
Stupid troll. Go buy another hooker with the money you saved not buying OS Xx better than you.
What a marketing nightmare! Can you imagine these teeming masses of ppl that don't know what speed processor they have, much less whether or not the thing supports USB (or often much more than how old the damn thing is) going out there and trying to buy software for MacOS and then calling support to figure out why the CD they bought says for Mac Only and then the software guys trying to explain that just because they run MacOS, they don't necessarily have a Mac. or worse yet, a mac user going out and buying software that says "made for mac" and then learning that the vendor goofed and they have now bought PC SOFTWARE.
one of the key central ideas to the mac is being completely usable by the people who have never heard of the x86, or the powerpc, or the 680x0,
or even (for that matter) linux or bsd
the other half of that idea is for these people to never ever ever have to learn what any of those things are, much less what they do.
maybe down the road things will be easier, but right now the proprietary hardware is still better than the x86(64-bit words since the first ppc) and its still much easier to use.
the people I know in the media/"art" industry know very well what they get from a mac. they turn it on, do their work, and turn it off. and they don't have to do any noticeable amount of work just so that they can do their work.
personally i'm not one of these people, I like my interface my way, but I grew up with the mac so I understand their point.
Jobs obviously has a big woody for all those pc users, along with the rest of apple, but i doubt they're going to allow their name associated with something that could be called confusing.
Please keep in my that my ADHD keeps me a little scatter brained and I sometimes can't focus long enough to
> Quartz anti-aliasing for Carbon apps
About time. Anti-aliased fonts have only been in Windows and X for several years.
> Unicode character palette
Uh. 'Kay. Windows 2000 has one of those.
> Mount ftp servers directly in Finder
Gosh! And Explorer can't do this... in what way? Oh, that's right - it can do this.
> iChat
Try MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger or Trillian.
Take your pick, really.
> Sherlock 3
Is nothing more than a glorified search engine front-end. Try Google or Teoma instead.
> Quartz Extreme
Putting "EXTREME" on the end of something makes it much more exciting, no? No.
> better interopability with windows networks
Samba. Yawn. Also: Windows has no interoperability issues with Windows networks.
> IPv6
And this is usable... how? Unless you have an internet2 connection, but you're probably enlightened and running a genuine *BSD at that point.
> Rendezvous
> Inkwell
> improved Address Book
Oh really, how very interesting. Not.
Anyway, in conclusion: I don't really like Microsoft or Apple, but neither is an "escape" from the other. They're both giant corporations that want to take your money - and they certainly aren't getting any of mine if I can help it.
Yes, I use Windows 2000 and FreeBSD. In my mind, Windows 2000 (pre service pack 3) was the last, greatest OS that Microsoft will ever produce. They've destroyed it all with all of Windows XP's Mickey-Mouse bullshit look of a toy operating system, the same crap that irritates me in OS/X - I'll migrate completely to FreeBSD as Windows 2000 fades into obsolesence.
My girlfriend takes care of a (new) Mac farm for video work at a university. From her experience, the newest Macs aren't any more reliable than a PC. They don't always recognize Firewire drives, their own built-in Ethernet and crash due to hardware problems regularly. I realize that video is demanding but there are supposed to be better.
Just can't get Atari out of my head? Y would Apple port OS-X to the Jag? O! I C!
"None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
but when will this be ported to PC's?
Do you really live there? I giggle everytime I drive down Borland or Stafford...
Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
is that a new record ?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
here
Is it just me or is Apple cranking out more OS upgrades now more than ever? Do you think it is to stay ahead of WinXP (we all know that interface was a direct challenge to OSX) or is there really a "need" this soon for the enhancements?
What say you Mac experts?
Who is John Galt?
The only problem with your argument is it would have been excellent a year and 6 months ago when Mac OS X was originally introduced. Jaguar is what it should have been originally. All it is now is re-introducing things they took out of the original Mac OS 2 years ago, things like spring loaded folders and such.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
...a few points to keep in mind:
1. Your fucking multibutton mice work in OS X. Plug them in and see for yourself. So STFU!
2. The upgrade costs $129 dollars. If you can't afford it, or aren't willing to pay it, then write Apple a letter and then STFU.
3. Apple controls hardware as a means of stabilizing the user experience. The hardware Apple makes is competitive in performance and price. Do some realistic comparison shopping (and then STFU).
4. Please redirect all you FUD about Mac OS X to a brick wall, and STFU!
I ordered the Family licence, but got my hands on the 10.2 upgrade CDs in my 17" iMac.
So I installed on the older hardware around the house.
Beige G3 with Radeon/466MHz G3/Firewire
iMac DV 400 MHz
Powerbook G3 400MHz
The Beige G3 is really snappy. Bootup is down to about 25 seconds from when the chime starts to when the Dock shows up. Everything about it is fast, fast and stable.
iMac and Powerbook are also very snappy. Finder draws when a large folder on a remote drive open are as fast as they are in 9.2.2.
My Beige G3 would hang about one every two days when I monkeyed with Firewire, no longer.
10.2 on my PowerBook G4 550 is really fast. Only problem is that I can't get Dave to uninstall.
Worth the $200 for 5 or $129 for a single.
I'll bite.
Yes, I know this subject has been beaten into the ground ad-infinitum, but it still needs to be said once again: DUMP THE PROPRIETARY HARDWARE.
Apple uses off-the-shelf hard drives, optical drives, RAM, and graphics cards. The only proprietary pieces of hardware are their motherboards and cases.
Apple is selling hardware that is half the speed at 2 to 4 times the price of Intel hardware. Yes, apparently there are enough hard-core fanatics to keep the company alive, but why be satisfied with that? Why sit arrogantly back and just preach to those people?
Half the speed, only if you count Megahertz. Mac OS X comes with lots of software which runs faster than any comparable software in the Intel world, such as their G4-optimized MP3 encoder, which can encode high-quality 160kpbs MP3s at 10x real-time on a 733 MHz G4, directly from a CD. Your P4 may be running at 2+ GHz, but since there are currently no MP3 encoders that are optimized for the P4 architecture, your MP3 encoder is slower. Also, Mac OS X takes advantage of your graphics card for all of its drawing now - something that neither Windows or Linux does. This frees up the Mac's poor MHz-starved processors to do other things.
2 to 4 times the price? What are you smoking? The only way you can get a PC for half the price of a similarly-equipped Mac is by using dirt-cheap components that only work half the time. If you want poor-quality or mediocre hardware, you can get a cheaper PC. If you really want good hardware, a Mac is usually priced about the same, or maybe 10-20% more. (Mac laptops are often a better deal than similarly equipped PC laptops; desktop Macs are usually 10-20% more expensive.)
Yes, I know that Apple is traditionally a hardware company. So what? Being a software company hasn't exactly hurt Microsoft. Software is HUGELY more profitable than hardware.
Ha! Apple has at least twice the profit margins as Dell. They make plenty of money on hardware.
Unfortunately, as long as Microsoft has all of the major computer manufacturers in their back pocket, all major brand-name PCs will come with Windows preinstalled. Nobody has a chance of competing with that.
And besides, what's stopping them from "doing Intel right" and coming out with their own line of expensive hardware? Oh, no one will buy it because it will be so much more expensive? Well, some fanatics will continue to buy it, and meanwhile they continue to make huge $$$ on the software.
The main problem with Mac OS X running on ALL Intel hardware is drivers. Unless you're going to talk all peripheral manufacturers into writing Mac OS X drivers, there'd be no point.
As much as I despise Apple-the-company, I would LOVE to have a real competitor to Microsoft on the desktop, particularly one that was Unix based.
If you're unwilling to buy Apple's hardware, you'd better put your money behind your favorite Linux distro, then. Apple makes a great hardware/software combination and they have no reason to start running on PCs.
I really wish Steve would pull his head out of his ass and stop being satisfied being a boutique.
Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if Apple started advertising to Windows users, letting them know how Mac OS X is fast, stable, practical, and "just works"? Oh wait...
So, I think my powerbook is cool already, I don't need to spend another $129 on this. I can buy like 4 games for that. If it was a lot cheaper, yeah I'd get it. I'll wait till next year's upgrade to see what it has to offer. I'm still getting over the $2.5K I shelled out for the laptop just 6 months ago. I personally think it's too early to ask 10.1 users to pay for a 10.2 upgrade. If it was 11.0 with tons more features, sure.
2) Universal Access -- So what if you got all your eyeballs, ears and arms, doesn't mean you can't take advantage of the amazing Universal Access controls in Mac OS X. Apple's Text to Speech technology rules. Now my Mac talks to me when certain events occur, "Mutha Fucka! E-Mail Server Down!", "Some asshole is NMAPn' me!!!". I can also hilight text and have the Mac read it to me with a simple keystroke.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Ummmmm i can tell you have no education with computer hardware. Because one of the most basic classes you would take would have taught you that clock speed is not the end all be all of how fast your computer will work. For example a G4 667mhz is a little over the speed of a 1ghz from intel. Why you ask? Well there is alot more going on in the CPU then a little quartz crystal sending out a little electrical pulse.
And no im not an Apple lover, i hated them for a long time till i bought a Powerbook, now i like them just as much as Windows.
"If you look at identical applications on both platforms, a G4 is about 20% faster clock-for-clock as a P4, on the average. "
Well considering you would have to convert clock speeds of both intel and apples CPUs to a common standard and then take in considering everything else from the chipset used to the speed and ammount of RAM, and about 50 other issues, yea then maybe you could get a good test. But i doubt you did that.
Before you bash Apples maybe you should buy one and test it out for yourself, or maybe at least some classes about a topic you know nothing about.
Cool, deal. Smart move on Apples part.
The Cocoa framework is, once you understand it, the easiest, most powerful framework there is. You can make amazing, truely object oriented programs with a full GUI in no time t all. Objective C is a great language and the fact you CAN use all your C/C++ code in your programs and integrate things adds to the functionality.
Gee, I thought once you understood something it was always easier then something you didn't understand. Thats really impressive becouse easy and powerful are almost always mutial exclusive.
There is an object called NSTask that allows you, the programmer in code, access and use the function of ANY command line tool in your program. Who else offers something like this?
Humm... how about every ANSI compilers system(const char *command); Function?
I really suggest to all developers to take a good look at developing for this computer. It's fun, effeciant and powerful. Not to mention free and of course you have all your favorite command line tools, compilers etc. In fact, every program compiled with the free compiler is GCC.
You forgot to say it will help me pick up chicks.
It's simply, great.
Ok.
Native Java also =)
Is instaling a program really that hard? I didn't the cpu could run java bytecode direcly! Amazing! Someone should tell INTEL!
Actually, I use Windows. I'm not sure about that "Windoze" business.
My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
Ummmmm i can tell you have no education with computer hardware. Because one of the most basic classes you would take would have taught you that clock speed is not the end all be all of how fast your computer will work.
Ummmmmmmm why don't you read WHAT I WROTE. Note the "20% faster clock-for-clock on the average" phrase. Before you criticize me, at least learn to read.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
First David Pogue (NY Times) is biased towards the Mac for the most part.
I love Macs and want 10.2 to be great and successful and change the world, but this is such a fantastic understatement considering that David Pogue wrote the best selling O'Reilly "Missing Manual" for OS X.
BTW, according to Tim O'Reilly, Pogue's Missing Manual on OS X was "the #1 bestselling computer book at Amazon, Borders, and Barnes & Noble for most of 2002"!
It seems that KDE and GNOME just keep chasing Windows, especially Miguel (Windows done right (Is that even possible?)) Icaza.
Maybe the wrong target is being chased. Maybe the sights are set too low. Maybe Be or Mac would be a better desktop target.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So why doesn't Linux and Windows have this sort of feature? I would love to see Gnome or KDE rendering everything using my GPU, so that my CPU could do something more interesting.
Is there any way to run OS X on an emulator under Linux? I've thought about porting some of my software to OS X, but I'm not ready to give up precious desk space to yet another box just yet. But being able to run OS X in an VMware-esque environment would be perfect. Any solutions out there for doing that yet?
Quartz freaking extreme.
Imagine - a OS who's GUI is being handled by the graphics card...
what an idea!
QE makes Mac OS X feel like Mac OS 9 - except that you get vector graphics everywhere.
Resizeing the whole screen, watching DVD's thru a translucent window, and drop down menus no longer drag your computer to a halt. - so long as you have a 16 meg Radeon or nVidia video card.
For users of older machines - you'll still like the performance enhancements, plus the longer battery life.
10.2 is worth every dime.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I'm talking about command line apps for 10.1 that actually compute and output is min e.g. SETI command line compiled for 10.1
regards
John Jones
...to STFU. And the reason I told you to STFU is that you don't have a fucking counter-argument, AC. It's been shown again and again that your gigantic shitty Korean OEM white-box 13-fan fire hazard PC is not equivalent to a PowerMac.
I have a Windows box with an OK printer. I'd like to be able to print to it from the mac using the normal printer-sharing thing that Windows does. (If it's not clear already, I don't print very often, and am clearly not an expert in the configuration of printing)
As far as I can tell, this isn't possible using Mac OS 10.1; is it possible using Jagwire?
Also, is there any other way to get printing from my mac to my windows box working? The easier the better, of course. I have seen that there's a program called "Dave", but it's too expensive a solution for my casual printing needs, and the box is a little, well, too touchy-feely old-school "Mac" for me. :)
I hear GNOME is great and all, but am I only the one who hears "GNOME" and thinks not "uhhh... stands for something" but instead "ugly, ceramic garden decoration"?
since when does UID matter if he's right
I am so fucking sick of the Apple zealots that I want to jam them all into a refugee ship and sink it. They would probably find some way to turn an old-fashioned massacre into some faggy mac love-in complete with steve jobs smearing his smarmy shit over all of their faces. "Hi. I am a complete idiot and have trouble dressing myself. That's why I switched to mac." Does anyone actually read the support forums for Apple? Don't feed me that bullshit that the mac is faster, more stable, or is easier to use than a Wintel box. If any of these recent 'switchers' had read the fucking forums they would know the true pain of owning one. Call this a troll all you want. You 'moderators' are trained to suck dick anyhow. It's the plain truth, explained in a colorful way.
it flies. Hell 9 seems clunky and slower to me.
Well la dee da. Of the 20 or so computers I've bought in my life, "looks" has always been dead last as a requirement. And judging from the mac's hideously low market share, I'd say that 95% of the world agrees.
I'm not buying a fucking sculpture. I'm buying a tool to work and play on. The better the machine is at doing what I want it to do, the better for me.
And Mac isn't that machine.
the major problem whould be getting the ROM functions to work
for that you actually need a apple ROM you can get Mac On Linux to work so this might be the best place to look
regards
John Jones
Certainly, Apple could fall victim to that route. I own a NeXT Dimension, and it was a decent box, but it WAS NOT WORTH what NeXT charged for it. Even my father, who was a major hardware engineer at NeXT, would say, "We're overcharing for this stuff."
Apple is charging a lot, maybe a bit of overcharging. However... it's not nearly so pronounced as NeXT. And their lower-level models are more competitive, and their laptops are terrific.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Just go to apple.com, look for authorized bookstores that are online, and pick a college campus.
Everyone cries about Apple's death if they move to x86, but they could move to x86 chips on a completely proprietary architecture (ala SGI Visual Workstations).
This wouldn't change much for Apple, except them having faster processors.
Of course, I think you have to take the reviews from Macworld et al with a grain of salt. I remember when OS 8.5 came out, and Macworld's review ended with (something like) the words "In summary, this is a good OS update, but not a must-have one like 8.1 was." On that issue's cover was the blaring headling "OS 8.5: THE MUST-HAVE UPDATE." At the end of the day, they're still trying to sell magazines and generate site hits.
"Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
- Were willing to spend the extra money on a G4 tower to gain the ability to upgrade the video card
- Were so committed to their gaming addiction they were willing to buy and install the extra hardware
Apple shocked the users when it subtly announced that 32 megs is "recommended" for optimum performance on Jaguar, but it will run with less. Can anyone give us some non-hyped, non-"Jaguar-freaking-makes-EVERYTHING-better" information about how much of a difference the extra VRAM makes, and what kind of performance the majority of us can expect?Mac OS X v10.2 Family Pack
Students and professors should take advantage of the Apple education discount. I am working on my M.S. part time, and that was enough to qualify apparently, as my $69 Jaguar shipped yesterday.
But I'm thinking you've already made up your mind.
...now that they got rid of their OS which was awful (for what I needed), and are now OpenBSD, I'm more likely to switch.
Ummm, it's FreeBSD. There's a difference.
I have seen it, and it is really just window dressing as far as I'm concerned. I have heard that the command line stuff is slower now...
Hmmm. Well, it's just window dressing wrapped around a Mach kernel. It has native (I said NATIVE) open technologies, like Java, OpenGL, and the Cocoa API. And for what it's worth, I will stack Apple's API's, written in Objective-C, against Win32 or MFC any day of the week. But then, you've already made up your mind. I'm sure you think that Objective-C is a complete waste of time, but I see the best of C++, Smalltalk, Lisp, and Java in Objective-C. It's beautiful to use. If you have to look up the word "erudite" in the dictionary, you probably don't know what I mean. As far as the command utils being slower, I have been running a developer seed of Jaguar for over a month, and it compares very nicely to earlier versions of OS X. I haven't noticed a slowdown.
Things I care about are price to performance ratio. Ease of programming (tools available - need mySQL, php, Perl, Java, C/C++, etc). Cost of maintenance (software and hardware upgrades), etc etc.
Apple's stuff is hard to steal. So, you're gonna have to pay $129 for an OS. You will need a machine to run it on. You can get an iMac for $800. So, for around $1000, you get a list of features longer than your arm. You get a development tools CD that comes with everything you need for serious development. Java 1.3.1 is pre-installed. The gcc compiler is pre-installed. OS X loves perl. Apache 1.3.1 is pre-installed. Tomcat is a simple download. I develop cross-platform applications for x86, Moto, and SPARC. And I'll even agree with you that programming for the "classic" MacOS was pretty painful. I love OS X, because it is the most efficient development platform that I own, and I'm pretty sure I've tried them all. (I must admit, I do love many things about Visual Studio).
As far as upgrades go, on a G3/G4 tower, just pop the hatch and install your RAID. I did a toolless install of a 512GB RAID two weeks ago. It took ten minutes, literally. The most recent machines use DDR ram, Ultra-ATA drives, AGP4x, PCI. What upgrades do you want?? It comes with gigabit ethernet. It comes with a very nice video card, and many of the towers come "dual-head-ready."
Oh, one more thing. The reason that sliced bread is great is because it's convenient. Someone did the annoying cutting for me. The result is a product that contains less waste and saves me time. Speaking of time, I'm so convinced that you don't care, that I'm not going to waste any more.
...and therein lies the rub. If Microsoft asked everyone to "standardize" hardware the way the Apple has for Macs, people on /. would freak out and cry foul. Since its Apple, I guess its ok that we have "approved" hardware -- since it makes it fast.
Well, to answer you question, the Mac will remain a niche product until it moves to x86. Period. Corporations will not spend 2x as much for a Mac simply because it's prettier while underneath, it does the same things as their current $699 x86 systems.
In fact, I'll even go a step further. I would run the MacOS tommorrow if I didn't have to pay through my nose to do it. I'd gladly give Apple my $100 or $200 for their OS -- but I don't want to give them $2000 for their hardward AND OS. I already have hardware. It's open, flexible....and most important, it's MUCH cheaper that what Apple offers.
the thing i like best is that the option to turn on a Software Airport basestation is included (under sharing in the sys preferences). I like that idea because it saves me more then the price of the OS.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Darwnism at its finest...and you thought Darwin was just a clever open source port name! Ha! Don't believe me? Check out mammals.org! :-)
In terms of development, OS X is a very attractive deal. You don't have to work in C++ unless you want to (which is a good thing, C++ is a shitty language). The OPENSTEP library is one of the most famous in developer history, and it's only gotten better. Developing in Objective-C and the openstep environment is interesting. There is excellent object-archival and object-graph archival (like a more advanced form of java's serialization) that the librarys use to actually story GUI's. They have an elegant visual system for creating GUI's and object networks visually which is quite usefull for getting the View and Controller part of the MVC paradigm done.
Apple has excellent Java support, all the bells and whistles, and a Cocoa-Java bridge. Meaning Objective-C, Java, and Applescript code and interact and use the same object library. Very cool. However, they have not gone to 1.4 just yet. Apple says they'll switch in November/December with the iCal and iSync update (something I am looking forward to).
In terms of maintinence, it's kind of ridiculous. Macs never really need any work. I live in a dusty environment so I blow mine out every now and then. In software, the core system components are kept up-to-date with a nice automated software update package. You can easily use apt-get to get and update new BSD softwate (a project called "fink" at sourceforge).
Apple release security fixes for its core system components (which include OpenSSL and apache) very quickly. The LONGEST that it's ever taken is about three and a half days.
Hardware upgrades are just like a PC. Software upgrades are not really established. Some have been free (10.1). This most recent one cost money ($129 standard/family, $60 student).
In general, Apple has bent over backwards trying to make developers like macs.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Anyone else notice that there are virtually NO aftermarket upgrades available?
I mean sure you can get a Geforce4 4600 or a Radeon 9000 (if you want to spend a lot), but the only ones that I can find require the proprietary 12V connector for the ADC. My Mac doesn't have this.
The only card that I can find is the Radeon 8500. Nice enough card, but $200?!! WTF?!
This same card is about $70 for the PC. Anyone know of a way to get the PC version to run on a Mac? I assume it would require a ROM flash or something...
Any other suggestions?
BTW, I've played with 10.2 at the Apple Store. It rocks. But I'm going to wait for Fink to be upgraded first.
Found this link in Google:
o m/ bloom.html
http://www-i5.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/mbp/blo
B'wa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... ...idiot!
You forgot about the return of the 'software base station' functionality. The older technique worked well but requires too much babysitting for general users. There was a petition some time back to reimplement this feature. And here it is. Compared to their competitors, Apple is very responsive to feedback.
As for the rest, if you don't require these features, you've saved yourself some cash. Choice is a wonderful thing.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
I'm curious about what 10.2 server adds from 10.1.5, because the previous versions of 10 server have been worthless for every purpose i've had. Mac Manager hasn't worked since before 10.0, and still doesnt in 10.1.5 - i'm sick of it. the product DOES NOT WORK. Netinfo is constantly squirelly and unreliable. the DNS service leaves quite a bit to be desired as far as stability, and having programs randomly quit at any given time is totally unacceptable.
Here is a review from cnet2 028487 3.html?tag=ld
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806340-1204-
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
You obviously never used a Newton 2000 or 2100.
Inkwell is based on the last iteration of the Rosetta engine behind the Newton's HWR.
My 400Mhz G3 PowerBook runs 10.1.5 and iPhoto just fine. It does have gobs of RAM. I have noticed that OS X runs slower on older iBooks/iMacs than my same-era PowerBook, though...
Fink is great, and I really appreciate everything that the developers are doing. Same with XDarwin. But major support from Apple (including official "hooks" in the OS where necessary -- eg. a seamless window manager) could make OSX a much more attractive unix platform.
I can imagine Apple's viewpoint: "We would rather support Carbon/Cocoa developers than X developers. X on OSX is kludgy anyhow. Use Aqua."
While this is fine for newbies, many companies are only going to support OSX through X applications (Matlab, VMD and others). That's reality. Apple should work damn hard to improve the user experience with these applications. Not as a top priority, mind you. But some real effort nontheless.
What do other people think?
I think Apple is looking hard at AMD's upcoming 64-bit Hammer CPU. And it seems IBM is also wanting to sell them a 64-bit Power CPU. Apple will never throw away their PC platform just to take up the old 32-bit x86 architecture.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
I think that they kind of "snuck" this *major* upgrade on us after the fact. Especially to us "switchers". I'm not very happy that less than a month after I bought a G4 powerbook that I'm told that now to have an up-to-date supported OS I need to shell out full price for a new version. Even on major release updates, most other software vendors have a grace period of when you buy the previous release (a 1-3 months) that you get a low-cost or free upgrade to get the new one. That's good business practice. If you did publicize a new major release coming shortly (which Apple didn't do enough of earlier IMHO), you'd give those who just bought the older release a grace period to get the newer release, otherwise your sales will plummet before the next release with everyone waiting for it rather than buying the shortlived previous release. I'd accept a decent upgrade price as I would expect for other OS's/packages.
Had Apple said earlier that 10.2 was going to be a major release change (that was considered a major release change as opposed to 10.0 to 10.1), or announced it as OS 11 (which doesn't go well with their OSX abbreviation as then it would need to change to OSXI), then I might have held off for another month to get my laptop. I was uninformed and paid the price. That doesn't make me happy.
I was told by Apple support when asking about this that I should have known that something like this would be announced at MacWorld (as I guess the Mac faithful are used to hearing), and that had I known past history of MacWorld announcements, I would have waited. Well, if this practice gets well known, then watch system sales drop even more next year before MacWorld as people wait for announcements then too. I don't think Jobs wants to have to stand up and say that they're last month sales are dropping heavily then will he?
Who doesn't need to worry about device drivers? The reason you don't on Macs is because there is a fairly small set of decent quality hardware that the people at Apple understand. If they put it on x86, that advantage will go away completely. It would be an uphill battle for them to convince hardware manufactures to write drivers. Also, how do they make money. I've seen a lot of comments saying that they are charging too much for it and right now the OS is heavily subsidized by the hardware business.
Microsoft is the 72nd largest company in America and the 175th largest company in the world.
If so, you'll like the networking, power and sleep management in OS X. Location management is excellent. You can have arbitrarily many sets of networking environments, and switching between them takes two mouse clicks, no reboot required.
My 500 MHz iBook's wake from sleep time is two seconds, counting from the time I unlatch the lid. I reboot it only after major OS updates - the last one was July 8th. I have never lost work due to a faliure to wake from sleep.
My battery life in the field is about three hours, mostly running emacs and developing code. I can stop in the middle of anything, close the lid, and walk away confident that I won't lose work. The machine will sleep for about two weeks on a full charge (I lose ~7% battery power per 24 hours).
You can even safely run the battery completely dead - OS X's last gasp is to write the complete state of the machine to the hard drive, and when you find an outlet, plug in and reboot, you come back to exactly where you left off. My kids do this with full-screen games.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Never needed to spend any money to increase the speed of my CLI and never will.
"I'd like to thank all the BSD developers for giving away your IP and receiving nothing in return." Steve Jobs.
Samba uses a diffrent password file from the rest of the system, because on any decent unix system, the passwords are hashed before storing them, so that even one steals your password files, he won't be able to recover the password (not easily, at least). Thus, even Samba can't get them from the system, and need to reget them from the user herself.
See 'man smbpasswd' for details.
Reality Master. Let's think about this. The iBook is obviously a reasonably fast laptop. I know this because two of my friends own them. They can play Warcraft III and Quake3 smoothly, they can compile quickly.
They're competitive in speed.
Now, on to features. It's really hard to find laptops with all the features that an iBook has. I'll name one area. 802.11b (digital spread-spectrum 2.4Ghz wireless networking). The iBook and tiBook (and all the desktop models, actually) have internal antenna whips that give them increble range on wireless. It's almost double the range of the little PCI cards. How about weight/battery life? An iBook and easily pull 5 hrs on 1 battery. That means less profile, less weight, less cost replacing old batteries. Hmm. How about target-disk mode? Maybe dell laptops w/ firewire do it, but I can't figure out how. You can plug a 6-to-6 firewire cable into another machine and you iBook and mount the iBook drive as a portable firewire hard drive. Fscking awesome for syncing your iBook. Just make the file system on the iBook's drive UFS, and bam, a fast file transfer to anyone who supports UFS.
Awesome, eh?
Apple sells a lot more than clock speed. Dell, Gateway, Sony and Compaq seldom do.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Another triumph of BSD over the eviL empire.
Granded, the general public should not be used to beta test (ala 10.0.0) especially at $120 a pop...
WOAH! Stop the horse... I believe OSX came out BEFORE Windows XP... correct me if I'm wrong here?
The apple case is easy to open, no screws, even during machine operation. The case is well laid out, and it's easy to get access to everything. It's great. I've never seen a PC case as easy to modify as the apple one.
It's more than just a pretty face.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Michael Dell: I'll do you one better. I understand there are some guys out there who've done a really good job with the Wine project for Linux. Crossover, or something like that. I bet with a small infusion of cash, they could get a version ready for OSX in just a few months.
Steve Jobs: Is it any good?
Michael Dell: It plays Warcraft 3.
Does it play warcraft 3 on LinuxPPC or YellowDog, or any version of Linux that runs on PPC? Get real. That is no benchmark of compatibility. VirtualPC emulates an X86 processor; Wine emulates the API. Also this little dialogue didn't bring up the fact that Dell pays microsoft for a MS license regardless of whether or not the PC actually ships with windows! So there's little financial incentive for them.
Why is it that whenever I read about OSX, I get such a powerful urge to dust off my copy of Beos PE and play with it? Am I some sort of recidivist, counter-revolutionary x86 using pervert?
I'm the stranger...posting to
I don't know how people claim that this new version is fast on GUI. Yesterday I tried in CompUSA and it was still slow, maybe a little bit faster but still scrollbars scroll after some time I press the mouse. No matter what, people will realize this difference and they will regret to buy Macs.
Thank you, I was going to say the same thing. IMHO microkernel is a better design for a desktop anyway though. I _wish_ I had an x86 *nix microkernel OS without the dated X11 display server. I'm hoping for L4/Hurd and Fresco or somethnig.
And yet, Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS sales; they sell very little hardware.
Man, oh man, this myth has gone on too long. Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS licensing. Let's all hearken back to the old days of late 1998 / early 1999...
Remember the call for the end of the Microsoft tax? Remember that you still have to pay that tax if you buy a brand name x86 box? Notice that only a week ago, Dell "outsmarted" MS by announcing they will be shipping FreeDOS in the box with the blank PCs. Microsoft didn't make its money by selling their OS exclusively. They made it by being everywhere, making the ubiquitous solution, and licensing with every x86 computer manufacturer there is.
And this rise was made possible by "nobody ever getting fired for buying IBM" in the 70s and early 80s. And then the skyrocket that was the PC Clone market.
They played smart business that turned into bully tactics. And the sheer size of their early success has allowed them to maintain this advantage.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Let's say that Apple were to port OS X to commodity PC hardware, and were to make their own high-quality (and likely expensive) well-designed x86 boxes running OS X. If you're not running on an Apple box, don't expect OS X support.
Other than predictable bitching, the first thing that would happen is that Windows would be installed on the box by a number of users who like the hardware, but not the software. The second thing that would happen is that people would likely be able to get OS X running (badly) on cheaper hardware, reducing in the process Apple's reputation for solid and dependable software. This would reduce the user base for OS X software at the same time as Apple's hardware profits are sinking. App developers would flee in droves, and the OS sales would trickle to a halt. In about two or three years, at most, Apple would either be back on PPC (having lost a lot of money) or dead.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I have been using OS X with Fink also and I find it more fun and in manyn ways superior to Linux. OroboOSX helps, ..... I also have the latest and greatest in Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, etc..... Here we have a pure BSD environment for true *nix users. M$ofties beware! This is not for U.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
When you code to take advantage of the altivec (which you can do quite often) then the G4 is a beastly processor, easily beating down just about everything on the market. The G4 is a powerful vector processing unit. For single-precision floating point, it's great! Most people forget it's got all that power available for integers, shorts and bytes, in proportionally longer increments.
That's an incredible performance boost, and the libraries to use it are trivially easy (just some C functions and a data type you can union with an array). Using Intel's SIMD requires ASM coding or the use of their compiler with several very obscure performance primitives, and it's a pain. Much harder than the altivec to use, and not everyone can apply it.
I've seen Java apps w/ altivec acceleration via the JNI. That was neat. AMD doesn't have SIMD that competes with either yet, from my reading and (admittedly limited) understanding of their new systems.
You keep trying to make these broad arguments that ignore pertinent details. Maybe you should do some reading before you continue here?
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
If you're tied to ix86 or other hardware your best and cheapest way has got to be sf.net and the compile farm that was suggested in one of the other comments.
If you're porting a lot of GUI apps and want to make use of the better parts of OS X (Quartz, etc...) you'll be better off with a real box with you logged in on the console. Search google for "kCGErrorIllegalArgument: initCGDisplayState: cannot map display interlocks" for a glimpse of the frustration you'll be putting yourself through trying to port large apps with only shell access to the build environment.
Shot in the dark if you have a non-NuBus PPC box...
I remember the Mac-on-Linux team was rumored to be working on OS X support over a year ago. Mac-on-Linux is a Linux/ppc application that will run Mac OS 8.6/9.x without a ROM image. Not much use if you're on x86/sparc/etc...
While it's not a long term solution, nor do I suggest that it is to be expected from the average user, there IS one way that those of you comfortable with the CLI can often "resolve" the spinning wheel of death. Usually, this "wheel of death" only affects the finder itself. Sometimes other apps will be slowed as well, but 9/10 times they'll respond eventually. With that in mind, the below solution often gets me out of jam with this issue.
/Volumes hierarchy. Depending on which one (ones?) you are dealing with do the following:
/Volumes/
All mounted network volumes (at least appletalk and samba, dunno about DAV) are mounted in the
1. open terminal.app
2. in terminal.app run:
% sudo umount
3. Force Quit / Relaunch the Finder using the interface that pops up when you press cmd-option-esc.
This usually works for me to remove the spinning wheel of death that is mentioned without forcing me to forceably reboot the machine.
-fp
maybe someday I'll be able to buy that mac I've been wanting. just have to keep saving up the pennies I find on the street.
-
The only reason they didn't give it an integer increment to "11" is that they have too much invested in the "OS X" ("X" as in "10") brand right now. Under any other circumstances, this would be a full integer upgrade. And it *does* have "tons of features," not the least of which is much better *speed*.
If this one isn't worth paying for, there's no OS X upgrade worth paying for.
makes geforce4 cards that list MOSX as supported... I assume that many cards out there may possibly work, but since the drivers are supplied they aren't listed as being MOSX compatible.
One problem that continually bites me though, is the line-ending convention. Some of the system header files use CR-only line-endings. Just try grepping for something in those; grep thinks they're all one long line!
Someone needs to fix the gnu text tools to recognize a lone CR as a line ending, and then I'll be totally happy.
(OK, the NetInfo stuff is a little weird too; I'm pretty used to regular Linux/FreeBSD sys admin stuff, and it seems like they gratuitously replaced a lot of that. But no big deal.)
The problem with the proprietary hardware is specifically the Motorola CPUs. THEY ARE SLOWER. If you just run, say, gcc3 compiling a large app on an OSX box vs. a comparable-vintage x86 Linux box, the Linux box will blow it away. Or try the Gimp. Or an mp3 encoder. Or just about anything.
Yes, photoshop is fast because it's highly optimized for the PPC's simd/vector instructions, and takes advantage of both CPUs. So's my own software, and I can tell you, x86 creams the PowerPC.
Clock-for-clock, or Mhz-for-Mhz, on regular code without handcoded SIMD (for either CPU), the PPC is a bit faster. But Apple's just shipping the 1.25 GHz PPCs now, and the P4s are at 2.5, pushing 2.8 shortly. Sorry, it's just no contest anymore.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Apple. I love OSX, but real people have real work to do and they need the speed. The PPC is a boutique part. It has no volume, the price will always be exorbitant, and Motorola has next to no other customers demanding high-performance PPCs. Get with the program.
-- Tristero
Well first off with OSX you don't need Mac file services, you have samba.
Windows has been doing this through the GDI since Windows 3.0
you should have looked at the latitude series of laptops from dell. they're comparably priced.
The student asked the master, "Why don't we port our operating system to a newer, faster CPU?"
The master simply replied, "Even the fastest operating system with no software that will run on it makes you wait forever." And the student was enlightened.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
When's the last time you saw BeOS warez in a store? Still waiting?
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
One thing I can't seem to find is how easy/reliable it is to print to someone else's windows-based printer. Considering the trouble that I've seen with different versions of Windows trying to do this, not to mention the hassles of printing under Linux, I worry.
Hmmmm... I wonder who else does... could it be... DELL? Compaq and Packard Hell used to be notorious for this, but one is dead and the other was assimilated... by HP, who AFAIK does the same thing.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
How did you get the crashing feature? Mine only came with the upgrade price!
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
> basically, I should look at Mac OS X as unix with a stable X Windows over it that isn't as
> configurable as X Windows, but is faster.
No, Aqua is a really cool gui but it is not network transparent so you'll have the same problems using Aqua remotely you'd have with GDI (Microsoft's low level GUI). However OSX runs real XWindows rootless so anything that's not Aqua based that you do want to use over a network will work perfectly.
So I'd rephrase to: I should look at Mac OS X as a complete unix including X with an additional alternate stable gui.
I don't think Apple would outright fail if they phased hardware sales out and became predominantly software.
I don't think they would either. What "Apple is a hardware company" means to me is that they have no interest in becoming a software company. They are a profitable, successful hardware company, why change that?
Everyone seems agreed that 10.2 is notably faster on G4 hardware, due to UI processing being offloaded onto the GPU (and presumably some quite large degree of optimisation towards the G4's specific processor features).
I'd be really interested to know if a similar speedup is noticeable on G3 machines (and specifically the iBook) as I'm planning to get a 12" iBook soonish (can't afford the PBG4, and it's too damn big anyway).
Steff
"In fact, one command tells you, in months, days and hours, how long your Mac has gone without having to be restarted" -NYTimes Article
what is this command?????????
OSX borrows alt-tab (as apple-tab), Microsoft's one positive contribution to computing. The NYT article says that it borrows anti-aliasing, but that's not correct.
Check this site for a very easy to understand guide to get the shared printer on your Windows machine to work in OS X: http://iharder.sourceforge.net/macosx/winmacprinte r/
Would you mind telling me when you ordered yours? I ordered mine on July 24th and it's still "being assembled" Grr..
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
I can't seem to find it. I'm running 6C115... Haven't installed the dev tools yet, is it in there? z
They shouldn't of modded you down. He is right.
Keep in mind people that Linux is cheap because development is uh like free. A distro only need to hire packagers and write a few installer scripts to put things together and then add some support staff's. Lets Face it. $50 is not the price of an average os or would a company even break even on a sale at that price. I think we may all be spoiled because of linux.
What apple is offering is really not that bad for amajor upgrade. THe graphics layer had to be rewritten from scratch, smp code had to be re-updated, several apps were added, and I bet apple had to fund some usability testing so they could improve the ui. Its not a 1.2 release but rather a verison 2 release and I think the versioning has confused some people. MacOSX will always stay version 10. If Apple changed to MacOSXI then the OS name would change and confuse consumers. If it were $129 for a bunch of bugfixes (cough cough win98se), then it would be different.
All the other cheaper upgrades so far were minor revisions. ALso if you own version 10.1 or 10.0, you do not have to upgrade. Think about the internals here. System 6, System 7 and System 8, all looked alike from the outside but were totally different inside which made them different releases. Same is here.
http://saveie6.com/
No, it's the OS X users that want a free upgrade
There are quite a few OS X users who are upset that they are going to have to -pay- for an upgrade which will fix many major OS X bugs and or once again support certain features of Apple hardware (ie software WiFi support for OEM Mac antennas) that where disabled with 10.0 or 10.1
OS X 10.0 was by no means a complete OS. And, even though OS X 10.1 was much better, the same could be said for 10.1 as well. I can understand why these people are kind'a ticked off. They want what should've been given to them for free.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
AMEN!!! Thank you for submitting this. Some of us use computers to do work, not devote our lives to making our computers work!
And actually since 1991 its reliability record has risen considerably. I remember reading a couple years ago that they had the highest customer satisfaction index of any luxury vehicle.
www.clarke.ca
I'm hearing a lot of positive things about OSX and would really like to start running it at home (I'm pretty sure that my wife would prefer to use OSX instead of Mandrake Linux that she currently uses)... but I consider new Macs to be too pricey, so I'm looking into used Macs.
So what is the 'oldest' (cheapest) Mac that can run OSX? (and what is the oldest/cheapest Mac that can run it effectively)
I got yer Jag Wire RIGHT HERE.
Close mindededness gets you nowhere. You're like those people who used linux because it sounded cool, not because it was the best OS for the job. Use something because it's better, not because you think people will be impressed when you use it.
:P
All their products are new. Nothing from 10 years ago exists. That's all old news. Apple has taken a good BSD distribution and made it into one of the most flexible, easy to use, and customizable OS's on the market. They have some of the best developer tools and developer API's created to date. They support interoperability with all OSs out there.
What more does it take to make you admit that Apple has made a superior product? Does Jesus have to come gliding down from the heavens, aglow with holy light, and say, "I use OS X!" before you'd at least consider trying it a a local store? Reading a bit about it? Considering the technical standpoint Apple has taken?
It's fine to dislike Apple hardware, there is plenty to harp on there (although it's still a nice machine). The software is so far beyond anything on linux or WinXP that it's not even amusing.
Now if only Apple could finish getting its OWN COMMUNITY to adopt.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
If OSX ever did run x86 then you would only need VMWare or something of that sort to get to Windows and Windows apps. Alternately you could run Windows or Linux as the base OS and then run OSX in VMWare.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Its on a Yugo right now. More like it would be on a Ferrari if ported to x86.
:)
Hmmmm. The current towers are not that shabby (Yugo) when it comes to performance! More like BMW (nice human interface and more than adequate performance) vv Ferrari (a car built with cheap ass Fiat components and a kick-ass engine).
Maybe in a year or so Apple will leapfrog x86 - if the rumours about the IBM POWER4-lite are true... Then it would be x86 Ferrari road car against POWER4 Ferrari F1 car
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Also, please read this this important announcement: Jaguar Release To Include Real Jaguars
I've taught my iBook to speak Sanskrit, so it's a Porta-Lama (use Bruce voice, slow speed (or Bubbles, I don't care)):
From the centruhl realm, Gana vie oo huh.
The Bood huh Vie rocana.
Shines bryetest white.
From the eastern realm, Ah birati.
The Bood huh, Ackshobe yuh.
Shines bryetest blue.
From the southern realm, Shree maht.
The Bood Huh, Raht nah Sambhava.
Shines bryetest gold.
From the western realm Sue kha vati.
The Bood huh, Ah mee tah buh.
Shines bryetest red.
From the northern realm Prakuta.
The Bood huh, Amoghasiddhi.
Shines bryetest green.
I like how some words just work without mangling!
Then speed up the voice for Pure Land fun,
Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh Ah mee tah buh
Notice how the voice will pause to catch its breath! How cool.
1. Windows should be completely vectorized. This is faster to load than bitmaps, takes up less RAM, and less hard-drive space.
2. One should have the option to turn off all of the fancy features of Aqua -- i.e., shiny effects, transparency, animation. Why? Firstly, many find these features tacky. Secondly, they serve little or no function. Thirdly, to speed things up. Transferring the rendering of the GUI to the GPU is better than letting the CPU do it (note to X-windows WM developers, hint hint), but it requires many users to needlessly upgrade their GPU when they wouldn't have to otherwise. Thus, one should be able to turn off these resource-hogging features.
3. Minimization/maximization. Windows should minimize to their appicon on the dock, and hold clicking on that appicon should bring up a pop-up menu of the instances of it running. Dragging the appicon of a running application off the dock should quit that application, while dragging an instance of it off the apicons menu should close that instance. After the app's closed, dragging the apicon off the dock again should remove it from the dock, if it was a permanent member. Maximization should maximize to the entire screen.
4. Bring back Apple menu, with all the nifty menus. The old apple menu was great -- had applications, control panel, and many other useful menus. The new one should get those features back. Btw, control panel options should be entirely accessible through menuing: why make us open up a whole new window?
5. Keyboard control. Apple has long had issues with keyboard control -- namely, that you can't do everything you want from the keyboard. I suggest a very simple and traditional fix: F1 opens up File, F2 opens up Edit, F3 opens up View, and so on and so forth; in other words, they F# opens up the #th menu item.
6. Scroll bar buttons. Up/down scroll bar buttons should be available at the top and bottom of a scroll bar column.
7. For other things which Apple should integrate into their WM (as should every WM), see this site.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Saw clerck in local Apple shop today putting price tags on Jaguar boxes. Would not let me buy one. Bastard ..... but I respect his integrity. I love the OS but the "Jaguar" skin every where is a little too Austin Powers for me.
I went into System Preferences, Sharing, and checked the box for Printer Sharing. I then used nmap to find that this opened port 631, cups. So, I installed cups on my Linux box, launched cupsd, and pointed Mozilla to http://localhost:631/ per the documentation. I was surprised to see that my Linux box had already found my USB printer connected to my eMac on the LAN. Very impressive!
/var/log/cups/error_log:
Now comes the not-so-impressive part. It doesn't actually print. Test pages show up under "completed jobs" as "cancelled". This happens regardless of whether I try to print from the Linux box or from the eMac (although I can print from OSX applications just fine), so I'm assuming the Linux side of this setup is working perfectly.
I found this in
E [21/Aug/2002:21:36:48 -0700] Unable to convert file 0 to printable format for job 7!
The documentation on cups.org says this is often caused by not having ghostscript installed. I wouldn't expect that to be the issue, since all this stuff came preinstalled and preconfigured by Apple and all I did was check the box. Does anyone have any ideas?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
With previous versions of OSX, Apple basically sold people a very raw and unfinished product, with many bugs.
The problems fixed by 10.2 are things which shouldn't have been problems in an OS you spent $129 USD for.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
If MacOS were available for a lot of platforms, it wouldn't work as well as MacOS. I seriously doubt that it's even possible to create a truly reliable OS for an uncontrolled hardware base. Macs work like Macs, you plug stuff in and it just magically starts to function. If they ported to x86 and the 1x10^9 bits of associated hardware, they could no longer insure that this would be true. At that point, they're just a smaller Microsoft with better art school grads. Sticking to propriatary hardware allows Apple to avoid price wars (PC hardware is a virtually profit free industry) and make better products. They might sell a bit more software by porting to x86, but they'd lose every competitive edge they have. This is why SJ quickly killed off the clone makers. This is why the iPod has no documented support on non-Mac platforms. If Apple changed their strategy, Macs would no longer Just Work (TM) and they'd be just as unpredictable and idiot unfriendly as all other computers.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
makes as much sense as telling Bill Gates to concentrate on selling applications and stop mucking about with that silly Windows stuff.
While Windows dominance is a major part of MS strategy, my understanding is that it is the applications that really bring in the cash for MS--specifically Office and the server apps.
Methinks Apple and MS long ago reached a mutual understanding: Apple will stay out of the x86 pool and MS will produce decent Mac software. (For that matter, how tied are XP and 2K to the x86 platform? What would it take to port them to Apple hardware?)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Finaly, someone besides me is doing research!!!!!
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
seti was just one example sed and all the rest that I compiled myself are slower
regards
John Jones
Actually, is a hybrid. It is mach with some bsd fused together.
Its not a microkernel or a macrokernel. Its something in between.
It works beautifully.
www.apple.com/darwin
"Half the speed, only if you count Megahertz. Mac OS X comes with lots of software which runs faster than any comparable software in the Intel world, such as their G4-optimized MP3 encoder, which can encode high-quality 160kpbs MP3s at 10x real-time on a 733 MHz G4, directly from a CD. Your P4 may be running at 2+ GHz, but since there are currently no MP3 encoders that are optimized for the P4 architecture, your MP3 encoder is slower."
Give me a break 10X mp3 encoding from a is easily attainable on a P4 based PC running Windows XP throw in a recent AMD chip and the results are pretty much the same. And in either case the PC will have more storage and RAM then the comparable mac for the price.
"Also, Mac OS X takes advantage of your graphics card for all of its drawing now - something that neither Windows or Linux does. This frees up the Mac's poor MHz-starved processors to do other things."
Funny NVIDIA has been doing this for a long time on the Windows side just as the mac guys have been doing it for the 2D. While I will admit that the supposed novelty factor is there, I still think that OS 10.2 is just at par with Windows on comparable hardware as far as drawing windows, apps ect. except in certain cases eg. PhotoShop where the MAC draws faster. I still question that though because even when the Apple and PC workstations I use complete at the same time doing the same task, the PC's do not give as much screen output regarding the process. This could be an Adobe, MS or Adobe on MS issue.
Of course, Apple machines are really nicely made, so you sound like a total idiot, but hey... nothing like homegrown, for that gamey flavor geeks love!
I bet a lot of us remember our HP calculators with a great deal of fondness.
;)
They were great because they did stuff other calculators just didn't do, and they did it really well.
They were also very expensive (twice as expensive as TIs and far more expensive than Casios and Sharps), harder to use (you needed to learn Reverse Polish Notation), and incredibly slow (they actually ran in software on general purpose processors rather than being hard-wired -- as a consequence they were often 10x or more slower than Casios at trig functions for example).
Macs do stuff PCs simply can't do and do it really well, and do most things PCs can do better. Arguably they're a little slower at some things. but much faster at others. But like HPs they're harder to use and cost 10x more... Um wait... no that's not right...
Pick a PC if you value your free time at $0.10 per hour
It's hating the bullshit ones.
CIP, Multibutton mice. If you are a PC user, and have purchased a computer in the past 3 years. Most likely it has a USB mouse. When you buy your mac, plug in the PC mouse. It's not like you'll want to use the PC again anytime soon. And even if you do, unplug and switcvh (without powering down the mac, and hopefuly without powering down the PC, or just buy a $3 discount mouse for the PC
If you have valid complaints, by all means, bring them up, but when someone helps you don't come back with a "well... uh... um.. it's still too pricey and it's not like my box" because that isn't a valid complaint
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Go to www.enlightenment.org and check out evas. Raster & co. have been working on this for over a year. You can read slashdot stories on this subject here and here. You can check it out via annon cvs. It's also in debian unstable. The lib itself comes with a demo that shows off some very nice alpha blending, animation, and anti-aliased text. IIRC the last time I ran it with hardware acceleration enabled it cranked out 400+ fps. This lib will form the rendering backbone of e17 (which runs very fast. I've got to wonder if Apple didn't take some inspiration from this project though of course it's such a good idea that independent development is more likely.
What is the matter, don't like paying the "idiot tax"?
except in certain cases eg. PhotoShop where the MAC draws faster.
Mac is not an acronym. Pigfucker.
Win XP doesn't crash. However, it does begin getting quirky. Sometimes, with many windows open, it will take 5 seconds to respond to a keystroke. Sometimes, it will stop responding to mouse clicks, or be very slow. It doesn't exactly crash, but it is necessary to reboot to get full functionality back again.
not 'Troll out'
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Does anyone else think it a bit disturbing that the New York Times' review of OS 10.2 is written by David Pogue? His effusive review of "the best-looking, least-intrusive and most thoughtfully designed operating system walking the earth today" only mentions one feature flaw - the lack of an adequate online help system.
And there's the strange thing -- for what do we think that a reader of this review would do? Well, how about buy the software, but also look for a good book to replace the online manual? And there's where David Pogue's own "Mac OS X: The Missing Manual" comes in. Described by Tim O'Reilly as the fastest seller in O'Reilly's history since 1994, Mr. Pogue's review would seem to have precisely the effect of increasing his own net worth.
Mass media may not have the credibility that it used to, but surely we should expect at least a disclaimer from an institution with the reputation of the New York Times?
Is e an ceol is fearr liom na jazz
Yeah, and Win XP is everything Win 3.1 should have been. Can't belive they had the balls to charge me for 95, 98, ME, 2000, then XP. Now that you mention it, I also paid for Office 95, NOW they want me to buy Office XP! I think I'll try to explain to them that the next version they come out with is actually the version I deserve for free.
...but they didn't annouce it was going to cost $US129 at WWDC!
Don't try that crap. We were expecting an upgrade price, and we didn't get one!
Eh? When I tried to use Inkwell, it didn't seem particularly impressive at all. It usually saw my l's as /'s and inserted lots of extra spaces and things like that.
The truth is that 'just working' is mostly a function of whether or not you use a PC-type BIOS or you go for Open Firmware. If Intel and Microsoft came out and said that their next PC hardware reference platform included open firmware, the IRQ hassle would go away and MS could actually make very good plug and play support for Windows.
Shame they don't do it but they're deathly afraid of innovating here because of the legacy problem.
It's a good thing that Apple will be able to get IBM Power4lite chips soon. Motorola is a dog, true but it's not the only possible supplier of PPC chips. IBM's got a very valuable Power4 franchise and the volume off of their own RS/6000 machines will make PPC a priority for them for the indefinite future.
The nice thing about this mounting scheme is it allows you to change your drive's id (SCSI here/or ATA master/slave setting) at will and still be able to boot unlike many UNIX systems I'm familiar with.
Here's a few more scenario's for Mac superiority
Biotech desktop running BLAST (Altivec makes BLAST much faster than x86 variants)
Getting a computer for mom, dad, and the grandparents
Running a file and print server cheaply with no not very savvy IT support and without pirating.
I'm sure there are lots of others.
Just don't look down - your dick is still small and you still have a PC... Salivating moron.
1. Spring-loaded folders. I find them indispensible.
2. A return of old-style "Find Files." No longer are you forced to use Sherlock.
3. As the journalists have been spouting, there are a number of optimizations that both make OS X faster and make OS X seem faster. Also, the interface has been cleaned up a bit; some people might complain that it's a bit more utilitarian than the "classic" Aqua look-and-feel, but it's still nice.
Now, if only I could find a decent TWAIN driver for my Epson Perfection 1640SU that worked with Photoshop 7. Yes, I know there's both the Epson Scan-To-File utility and the TWAIN driver, but it doesn't work--yet. For that reason (and the fact that USB support under Classic seems to be broken *again*) I won't use OS X 10.2 at this time . . . leaving me with 9.2.2 *sigh*
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
--yas think jag-u-r is weird, dig this. I lived for around a year in a state spelled missouri. Half the state pronounces it miss-oooor-eee, the other half of the state says miss--oor-ahhh. It's nuts! I took a look, and to this day call it miss-orr-EYE, the way it's frickin spelled! The entire state there is crazy nuts, they all argue over it, none of them are correct! I wanted to scream in peoples faces, it's a freeking I at the end, not a soft A pronounced "uh" or a long E! I really did, it bugged the snot outta me! MUH HAHAHAHAHA!
I moved instead, it was easier............ to georgia, where one third the state pronounces it jaw-jah, one third of the state speaks broken various dialects of "yankee" or one third speaks mumbled ebonics containing mostly triple consonants with one vowel per sentence, or now it's starting to be a lot of spanglish and I can't understand how they say anything, but it's really, really fast...... text on a screen is much mo better, IMO....
%^)
http://clustermonkey.org/~laz/pbook/rob.lmbench.tx t
It's slow in comparison to Linux on the same hardware. See the lmbench numbers at http://clustermonkey.org/~laz/pbook/rob.lmbench.tx t
The point is further irrelevant seeing as the ACPI standards are around which allow for extensive IRQ sharing etc. IRQ's haven't really been a problem since the days of ISA, and the early days of PnP ISA.
I'm a "switcher" and this is what I've seen so far: No upgarde price (even MS offers that) and moving from free iDisk to $100/year. I can understand charging something for iDisk, but $100 (not taking into account the $50 upgrade price (which is at least somewhat reasonable))?? Apple went from being "the cool company" to the "how else could we possibly gouge our customers? company"
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
"
Linux as a whole doesn't have this feature because it would be a tremendous pain in the ass. Don't think nobody's tried though, have a look at E17 and Evas - evas is an extremely slick rendering canvas, unfortunately it still needs a tremendous amount of work, and as far as I can see development has nearly stopped ^_~. e.sf.net [sf.net] for more info"
Kind of like development on Gnustep.
Mod parent up. ... etc. I'd love for a "Stepper" (NeXT veteran) to come out and point out these things more clearly.
Those who know of NeXT can see how, prior to XP, Windows was nearly a complete rip-off of the NeXT interface. Window controls, the dock
Linux on the desktop is dead.
1 /s witch.html
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/08/2
Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar upgrade (not update) over 10.1 is a full upgrade.
It's not a wishy washy bug fix like Windows 95 to 98.
I't more like Mac System 7 to System 8, a full blown upgrade with tons of features. The "over 150" claimed by Apple don't begin to touch the number of small tweaks and enhancements.
Best $129. I ever spent. And no copy protection, no registration, and none of that Microsoft nonsense. Apple is holding it out with pride and saying this is quality and it's worth $129. It's easy to make pirated copies of the Mac OS. But Apple takes pride, rightfully so, in this product and is entitled to charge full upgrade price. Cheapskates can pirate it like they always do.
OK, so you admit that your evidence that Mac OS X is slow comes from reviews and statements, not first-hand experience.
My first-hand experience with Mac OS X was that there were two areas where the OS was slow, and that was Quartz and Classic mode. Mac OS X.2 goes a long way in speeding up Quartz, and the Classic issue will resolve itself as more and more programs/devices are designed for the newer OS. As most reviews concentrated on those two areas that I mentioned, I think your basis is not solid.
What I have noticed, though, is that various elements of the OS actually make work on the computer faster, either through intuitive placement of the controls or through the fact that it works the way I want to work (instead of the other way around).
The Darwin underpinnings have ben updated as well, and the developer tools encourage better, streamlined programming (I'm always amazed at how cruft swallows processing speed!).
Oh, and as for Apple and the technical reasons: you can find them at the Apple Developer Connection website, as well as at Apple's World Wide Developer's Conference. Ever since Apple caused mass drowsiness with its explanation of the "Megahrtz Myth", they've been careful to keep the boring techie stuff on the sidelines.
I appreciate the fact that you have way more experience with the guts of an OS than I do, but I would appreciate it if you would test the OS first-hand before telling me how slow it is.
none of these are really "BIG PROBLEMS". do they prevnt you from getting wrok done or networking? no. these are mostly UI hacks. "BIG PRBLEMS" get real .
From what I recall, Warcraft 3 runs on WineX, but not Wine. WineX is a fork of Wine by Transgaming, whereas CrossOver is a line of products by CodeWeavers, also based on Wine.
I've been running 10.2 for a while now on my Pismo (G3/500/8MB Rage 128M) and compared to 10.1.x it runs like a dream. Mind you, I haven't seen 10.2 running on a G4 or a QE-enabled machine, but it definitely seems faster.
Mimizuku no Lew
Yet the product itself is crap. You haven't the slightest idea about what makes a good end product, but damn if you're not good at putting together & maintaining the guts of it.
So what do you do?
You seek out similar projects, and model your end result after theirs.
So what's wrong with this picture?
Absolutely nothing, if you're content to lead a life of mediocracy. You don't take the wheel and turn it into a hoverboard. You just find new (and occasionally, innovative) ways of polishing the wheel, improving it's traction, and longevity. You leave the real innovation to the people in the large corporations. Your number one and two excuses: time and money. You don't have alot of each, so you don't even bother.
Sound familiar?
I don't really give two flying fucks about Linux on the desktop. BUT, if Miguel Iglecias & the KDE team want to really make an impact, they should start doing what these big companies do: through UI design and analysis. This means:
There's no reason any GUI/WM team has to go chase the big companies who have already done all this, and more. It simply turns them into "me too's", and does little to really advance their cause. Sure, each iteration will look slightly prettier than the last, but they'll all look like something else -- and that's not innovation... that's just tinkering.
Symptom
1. Some computers that appear in the Chooser do not appear in the Connect to Server dialog.
2. The following message appears in an alert box when you attempt to use the Chooser in the Classic environment: "The AppleShare server you are trying to connect to appears not to support the IP protocol required by Mac OS X. Check with the server's administrator if a 'Server IP Address' is available."
Products affected
Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.0.4
Mac OS 9.0 and later
Mac OS 8.6 and earlier
AppleShare IP 5.0 and later
AppleShare IP 6.0 and later
Windows NT Services for Macintosh
Any other third-party server that offers AppleShare (AFP) over AppleTalk only
Solution
Update to Mac OS X 10.1, which can connect to AppleShare over the AppleTalk protocol. The following section is useful if you do not yet have the Mac OS X 10.1 Update. It may also provide you with useful background information.
Connecting in Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.0.4
Mac OS X versions 10.0 to 10.0.4 only connect to AppleShare volumes over the TCP/IP protocol. Mac OS 8.6 and earlier, as well as some third-party server products, only offer AppleShare over the AppleTalk protocol. Since Mac OS X cannot connect to them, you can reverse the sharing relationship as a workaround: Set up File Sharing on the Mac OS X computer and then connect from the Chooser of the AppleTalk-only computer. Using this method, you can still copy files between the computers. Alternatively, you can update the earlier operating system to Mac OS 9 or later to achieve true bidirectional sharing.
Mac OS 9 and certain versions of AppleShare IP do not share over TCP/IP by default, so you must select this option. The following sections can help you do this or perform the workaround.
Printing 'just works', except when it doesn't at all. The only problems I have experienced have been on a Novel Network printing to networked printers that hooked up using very old network adapters. Anything at all current has worked just fine...
So then.... why doesn't Microsoft do what all the "OS X on x86" folks want Apple to do?
Let MS devote all of their energies to Office and the like and commoditize Windows by open sourcing it and turning it over to the geeks. That way Windows could be run on many more platforms (remember when "cross platform" meant it would run on Alpha, PPC and x86? Now for MS "cross platform" means it'll run under ME/2000/NT) Open sourcing Windows would also get a lot more eyes on fixing security flaws, stability problems and other issues that haven't popped up yet. These arguements are moot because the phrase "snowball's chance in hell" comes to mind when the subject of open sourcing Windows is broached. The same is true of expecting Apple to make OS X available on platforms other than PPC/whatever Apple comes up with in the future. It just ain't gonna happen folks.
Here is a much better explanation of what OS X is. It is most correct to say that OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is the BSD reference platform. There are many flavors of BSD, but the main ingredient of Darwin is Free. If you really want to get down to the nits, download a FreeBSD project and then download Darwin. Do a file compare. It will be pretty clear then.
Have a look at my NeXTstation Turbo Color.
68040 @ 33MHz, 128MB RAM, 2GB HD, 21" color screen
Fast, fast, fast -- no lie.
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
I was reading some comments made in this post and the other one [Mac OS X Switcher Stories] about how OS X "Just Works" - refering to a very smooth integration with USB devices, and other hardware, and 2nd, that PC's aren't quite as reliable as Mac's anyway. I think we lost sight of a few things in this excitement: ..../dev/fdxxxxx You get the idea.
1) OS X is a commercially supported product, running on a machine which has a narrower scope of devices to support ( In the OLD days, it was tremendously narrower ). But the sheer range of configurations makes it possible to have a more reliable experience. Especially if the mainboard and other components are made by or spec'd by this same commercial entity. As a result, they have most of the R&D in the AQUA interface / desktop. The Unix underneath was already done. The Linux Community has never said "OK, we only support X mainboards and Y Graphics cards, Z soundcards, and DEF nic cards." They have tried to support as many devices as are available, many times WITHOUT aid of the manufacturer.
2). In spite of this, a linux install on GOOD quality components - ASUS, ABIT, or similar quality mainboards; ATI, Matrox, S3, GeForce, or similar graphics boards will result in a consistent behavior.
3) The New desktops from Oeone [oeone.com], Gnome,and KDE are very compelling! I understand that the Mandrake offering (KDE?) will pass the "Granny Test" -- give it to your Mom or whoever is not so technical and they could figure it out. The Oeone screenshots reflect alot of thought. But one test linux finally passed about a year or so ago is one my old boss ( a diehard windows lover ) tossed at me: Take a diskette from Joe X, with an Excel spreadsheet on it and put into Applix without any command line stuff. This was back in the days of RedHat 4.2. Not happening..... mount -f
4) I think a desktop should be like a " real " desktop: A calendar/blotter on a "desk" ( which if you click on it, launches a PIM type thingy with a calendar/reminder function ). On your left, a "telephone" icon, which allows you to "auto-dial" out of your address book or above PIM. Printer & Fax icons which allow you to do the obvious. An icon which looks like a piece of paper and the word "documents" under it, will start your favorite WP application. Finally a Start icon, with everything else. Everyone has a desk. Why is it that our "desktops" don't at all emulate a desk ????!!!! DUH! I guarantee it would pass the Granny test. Please send your check for $29.00 to glbny@yahoo.com DOH!
If it makes you feel any better, I also know several right-wing bigots who use Macs -- Rush Limbaugh for one.
Unless the early days of ISA and PnP ISA include last year, there are still ocassional problems. Pulling a card, restarting, and then reseating a card to get it recognized should have no place in a modern operating system environment. That was on a Win2K system which was a sealed box with an extended warranty so it had to go into the shop to do it.
Aside from IDE, pretty much every technology found in both Macs and Wintels was first implemented in Macs.
I'm not generally in favor of the government regulating speech, but moronic statements like that have become so commonplace that I'm actually in support of the FTC's recent hints at forcing computer vendors to use comparable numbers when reporting speed.
Which is faster, a 5-speed Honda Accord or a 4-speed Testarossa?
(I'm not interested in car-nerd rebuttals about whether or not Hondas actually come in 5-speeds - I have no idea whether or not they do; you get my point)
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Aside from IDE, pretty much every technology found in both Macs and Wintels was first implemented in Macs.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, but I believe the PCI bus was first used in PC's, SDRAM, DDR RAM, you mentioned IDE, AGP, Nvidia and ATI cards used in said buses, etc. (Not saying these were all invented on x86, just that they came to the x86 platform before they came to mac).
I'm not generally in favor of the government regulating speech, but moronic statements like that have become so commonplace that I'm actually in support of the FTC's recent hints at forcing computer vendors to use comparable numbers when reporting speed.
Yes, yes, we all know about the Megahertz myth, and yes I've taken several architecture classes so I think I have an inkling of what I'm talking about. Show me ANY benchmark ANYWHERE that shows a 1GHz G4 beating a say, 2.5GHz P4. I'm afraid even your altivec benchmarks don't even give that great an edge any more since the addition of SSE2. Please do back up your statements.
I don't know what to say. We could sit here and trade anecdotal evidence back and forth, but this type of discussion clearly has no conclusion. Safe to say that this discussion should go no further I think.
My point was that Apple had copied the alt-tab from Windows, and that I was not aware of any other copies from Windows nor any other Windows features that call out for copying. Not that they introduced the copy in 10 or 10.2. Since you've explained that it was Amiga that invented alt-tab, I am now unaware of any positive contributions from Microsoft to GUI design.
The iBook isn't available with the Mobility Radeon 7500 (comparable to a GF4 Go), it comes with the Mobility Radeon, which is comparable to a GF2 Go. The Mobility Radeon 7500 does come with the Powerbook, but those start at $2500.
I'm typing this on a Sony VAIO laptop with a Radeon 7500 which was ~$1700 at Fry's Electronics.
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
If you used 10.0 and/or 10.1 throughout their lifespan, you were getting your money's worth with all the benefits. We have three machines running Mac OS X and they have crashed only once each (kernel panic, restarted perfectly) since the very first Mac OS X release (almost 18 months).
I realize this discussion is about the kernel, but I don't have time to download the FreeBSD or Darwin source right now... however, I do have a MacOS X 10.1.5 install here, and here are some possibly-interesting stats:
[greyfox:~] root# uname -a /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* | wc -l /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* | wc -l /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* | wc -l /mach_kernel | grep BSD
Darwin greyfox.azeotrope.org 5.5 Darwin Kernel Version 5.5: Thu May 30 14:51:26 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-201.42.3.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
[greyfox:~] root# grep -l FreeBSD
14
[greyfox:~] root# grep -l NetBSD
133
[greyfox:~] root# grep -l OpenBSD
24
[greyfox:~] root# strings
setconf: IOFindBSDRoot returned an error (%d);setting rootdevice to 'sd0a'.
BSD Name
IOKitBSDInit
IOBSD
BSD Major
BSD Minor
BSD root: %s
BSD Component Version 5.5:
In other words, the kernel itself has no $*BSD$ RCS ID strings in it at all. And of the binaries that come with the system, a large majority are actually from NetBSD, with OpenBSD second and FreeBSD last. As an example, these are the RCS ID strings in /bin/ls:
/bin/ps is from FreeBSD though:I know it's on a lot of people's tongues and what not... but i swear... the only reason I am not buying a mac is because of
e tc
1) initial cost is a big bite (smaller reason)
2) i can't get copies of *everything* from all my friends (big reason)
The sad thing is -- While the *main* function of the computer is to browse net / email; once in a while the functionality of MS WORD / EXCEL really becomes damn useful. it's not frequent enough that I think is warrent of $400 bux, but in a pinch, they are life savers. (photoshop too)
and then there are the occasionally used stuff that are cool but not typically used much:
mathematica
matlab
autocad
pcanywhere
again, these are used so infrequently (but really damn useful that one or two times a year) that I really feel almost justified copying them.
also -- Frys does not discount Mac games so much... which is a shame too...
besides those, i would glady pluck down for a Mac...
Apple doesn't let you buy a computer without macos, so what's the point here? unless you actually bought a old mac without osx. It seems pretty unrelevant to me. Of course, if you want to go legal, apple will probably think of something amiga is doing that's infringing their "intellectual property" junk.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I got here a little after 10:00 and the line went well behind the book store. I estimate there were about 1,000 people waiting when I got here, and there were many in line behind me after that.
Here I sit in front of the store, enjoying the free but short range wireless internet access. The line of people still goes around behind the store. This is nuts. You'd think Star Wars: Episode III was showing inside or something.
Did someone say that Apple was a dying platform?
It is also true that some of these features Apple is getting 'for free as in beer'. Just one of the advantages IMNSHO.
Virtual PC is a very solid PC. Solid enough that there's several secretaries I know that use it on their Mac to do all of their PC work... just for the added 'hard drive is a file' backup features. I find it a little bizarre, but they made basically the same comment you did - they didn't want two boxes.
You'll get people who flat out disagree with me, but I have a 1997 G3 & a 1998 G3 that do fine by me... so long as RAM is maxxed. Which is fine by you - RAM is cheap.
Off the top of my head, you're right on those. Fortunately, I said "pretty much" and those are a tiny minority of the significant technologies involved in the machine.
I didn't say the 1GHz G4 was faster than the 2.5GHz P4 (though, depending on the real-world task, some benchmarks run on some implementations may show that).
My issue was with the statement that implied direct comparability between clock speeds on different processor models. Such is charlatanry.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Off the top of my head, you're right on those. Fortunately, I said "pretty much" and those are a tiny minority of the significant technologies involved in the machine.
This statement shows a lack of understanding computer internals. Basically, other than the cpu and BIOS, Macs and PC's are basically indistinguishable today. The chip is of course a MAJOR part of the computer, but if we're talking peripheral "component" tech, then your statements are absolutely not true.
You then go on to say that:
My issue was with the statement that implied direct comparability between clock speeds on different processor models. Such is charlatanry.
And for recollections sake, here is my quote to which you replied:
And hell, with the massive speed gap you have between the highend G4's (what, 1GHz top?) and high-end P4's (what, 2.8GHz now?) the x86 platform is clearly superior in terms of speed.
How could you POSSIBLY think I was saying to compare each MHz processors?? For one I was talking P4's which don't even have 1GHz models (AFAIK), so such a comparison would be impossible.
There's no doubt that Mhz-for-Mhz the G4 can outperform the P4 at some things (note the SOME things). But when the best g4 you can compare is 1GHz, and the best P4 2.8GHz, it's not going to be a close call. Such is reality, as unfortunate as it is.
$129 down the fucking drain, now I'll have to reformat and re-install 10.1 again.
"Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if Apple started advertising to Windows users, letting them know how Mac OS X is fast, stable, practical, and "just works"? Oh wait..." Apple's idea of going after Windows users stinks. They TALK about it in the new ads but talking doesn't cut it. They should fire their ad agency. Seriously. They need to SHOW people. Apple ads are nothing but eye candy and talk. Neither is helping them. Their 2.7% market share proves this. Seems they will never learn...
I just installed Jaguar (yes, I stayed up into the wee hours to do it) and I am blown away. The performance increase is nothing to be ignored and all of the other upgrades are excellent. All I want now is iCal.
Why would anyone want to run Win 2k on Mac hardware? If you've already spent the $1000+ for a Mac, why not run the best OS out there on it? All of the arguments for x86 OS X work in revernse: why would people buy a big Mac when a $300 PC can run the OS? (I don't necessarily believe all of those arguments, but they apply here.)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
This is an almost completely different OS, and it is PHENOMENAL. I can't describe how striking all the new features are, from Rendevous, to Inkwell, to the system-wide functionality of the Address Book, bluetooth, sherlock 3, the raw SPEED of this OS ... this is an amazing accomplishment, and OS X has finally matured. THIS is the OS people will be dying to switch for.
It runs EXCEPTIONALLY well, even on old hardware. My old beige G3 that I built from parts is ASTOUNDINGLY FAST under 10.2!! Even with 6MB of VRAM on a crappy RagePro, this OS is gorgeous, fluid, and incredibly pleasing.
Go to your local apple store and check it out for yourself!
Apple praised client side developper that their platform is the fastest available for graphical applications (and i do think they are right, because of the great JIT they've got) !
.... ...).
But for godnesssake, where is the J2SE 1.4 announced to be in ?
There is none or am i blind
If so, the Apple have one and again lie to the developper community that have prayed to get in fine a viable cross platform for advanced rich clients (no s**king HTML GUIs
Are we stuck on 1.3.1 on OSX ?
-4R34'.
But, dammit, you make me mad.
Which flavor of Lisp would you like me to lecture on? CLOS? Dylan? Scheme? Some little vignettes on origins, maybe, like MacLisp, or eLisp?
The similarities that I find between Lisp and Objective-C are some really nifty things like dynamic typing (although Objective-C permits both dynamic and static typing of objects), RMI, single inheritance, blah, blah...
Generally speaking, the hybrid languages such as Objective-C, C++, and, oh yes, Lisp, underly a wide swath of extensions that go fairly unnoticed to the novice, but they become exceptionally handy to the advanced programmer. This is great for a couple of reasons. First, the language is exceptionally easy to learn. Second, it is quite easy to extend the power of the language.
Some of the handiest features of a language like Smalltalk, Java, or Objective-C are the useful thread safety mechanisms, such as public and private methods and variables. This is exceptionally useful when trying to profile the memory of a large, multithreaded application. Since Lisp doesn't privatize data or functions, I give a slight edge to some of the other OO languages in this regard.
But don't take offense at this. I think Lisp is great for just about anything, but the scope of this thread was concerning Macintosh development where there really isn't a place for Lisp, considering that other worthwhile tools make much more sense.
Now, stop being an idiot.
Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS sales; they sell very little hardware.
Actually, Microsoft makes a very slight profit from selling copies of Windows -- because the development costs of making sure Windows can run on such a wide variety of hardware are enormous.
The majority of M$'s profits come from sales of Office. (Another area where M$ has a near-monopoly. Apple's office suite, AppleWorks, generates very little revenue. The bottom line is that if Apple became a pure software company, it would be nothing like the cash-generating monster that M$ is.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I think trying it expect it to suck is pretty much dooming it to suck, no matter how good it is. It's got a lot more than iCandy.
By the way, I'd like to go on record saying, "I don't have an oppinion."
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense