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.'"
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
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.
I don't like that platform because the type of people who use it are all self-aggrandizing jerks.
> 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.
Yeah, me too. I get sick of reading a truckload of +5 Insightful Apple adverts. I see enough advertising for them on the TV, in the street and so on.
So when I log onto slashdot at night, it sort of annoys me that all people have to do seemingly to get cheap karma is to say "Aqua rulez", or "But MacOS is UNIX, and it looks good!".
At least there it's about 3/4 people who actually understand something about the platform
I think you mean, at least 3/4 of the people like the Mac, otherwise they wouldn't be reading that section. What you don't like is when people raise objections to the Mac, or state that they don't like it and give reasons. I don't see any reason with criticising something I don't like as long as I have reasons. Feel free to dislike it, but please don't confuse dislike with misunderstanding.
Umm, MacOS X is kludgy melange of Mach, FreeBSD, and a candy Apple coating. The single server BSD design is utterly brain-dead and gets rid of the main advantages of a microkernel (seperating kernel code into protected tasks). It is in no way a good operating system. Now the GUI on top is another matter. I'm pissed that Apple didn't go the whole way with the whole vector GUI (they store Windows as bitmaps instead of vector representations as they should be) and think that QE sucks because it just accelerates compositing and some window-level effects instead of actual Quartz drawing, but it can be argued that it is one of the more user-friendly UIs available.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You care to give a legitimate defense of OS X's system structure? I don't much like microkernels myself, but Be's design was a hell of a lot cleaner than Apple's amorphous "design." Reminds me more of Windows than a real OS. And note I said OS (not userland) so refrain from making any comments about nifty icons and ease of use.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Unfortunately, there are no lmbench numbers for OS X, and I don't have one handy. But most reviews indicate that OS X is quite slow. That, in conjunction with Mach's history of being rather slow, gives me good reason to make the statement that OS X is slow by design.
Hmm, I'm something of an beginning OS buff. I've studied the kernels of Solaris, Linux, Windows, and various BSDs. Kernel devel books litter my bedroom (Modern Operating Systems, Solaris Internals, Design & Implementation of BSD 4.4, Understanding the Linux Kernel, among others). I've designed my own page allocator, written my own copy of the slab allocator, have reverse engineered the method Intel C++ 5.0 uses to call static global constructors and implement exception handling, all in preperation for writing my own kernel. I've got a design spec for the VM down, and I'm in the middle of writing a filesystem. So, no, I'm not a 'leet kernel hacker, but I know something about OS design, and feel experienced enough to criticize Apple's design decisions. You have to remember that OS X is based on NeXTStep, which was designed at the height of the microkernel/component/OS personality craze, and Mach has been widely criticized as a slow microkernel. Nobody at Apple has given a technical rationale for OS X's design, the only thing we ever see is marketing bull catered at mainsteam (dumb) users. I'm not saying that OS X is necessarily a bad OS. I'm just pointing out that its not well designed like the original poster said.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
But most reviews indicate that OS X is quite slow.
See? That's what I'm talking about. You read a few reviews, and a couple of books, and suddenly you feel qualified to say that OS X has a "bad design." Sheesh.
Humility is a wonderful thing. Humility is whispering in your ear. It's telling you, "Just because nobody's told you why Mac OS X is a good design, that doesn't mean it's a bad one." It's whispering, "You don't know everything." It's whispering, "You're not smarter than everybody else." You should listen.