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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
:)
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).
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.
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
Look at MacOS X the power of unix without the
weight of X11. Maybe oneday Linux developers will get a clue and dump X11.
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...
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.
This makes absolutely NO sense whatsover!!
Who would purchase 10.2 that doesn't own MacOS?? Nobody. My brother runs Windows on Intel hardware. He's not going to buy 10.2. Face it people, Apple set the *upgrade* price to be $129, because 10.2 only runs on Apple hardware which comes with an Apple OS.
If you have problems because it is too expensive, then that's a valid concern, but quit saying that they should offer discounts for people who *upgrade*.
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.
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 believe the point is that people who upgrade from other versions of Mac OS X (which is not the entire user base) should get a discount. People, then, who have Mac OS 9 should pay full price.
I disagree, but that's the statement.
This makes absolutely NO sense whatsover!!
Actually, it does make sense. If the cost of an upgrade doesn't vary whether you keep up-to-date or not, then there is no financial incentive to keep up-to-date. In other words, if 10.3 is going to cost me the same price whether I own 10.2 or not, why don't I just save myself some money and wait a year or so for 10.3? Whereas, if I get a discount for 10.3 by buying 10.2, then I have a reason to keep current.
-Joe
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.
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
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
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!"
Somehow I don't think the number of available applications for Windows has anything to do with the Registry.
It has a lot to do with Microsoft's ability to sell and market their stuff. Network effects take it over from there, love it or hate it.
D
You care to give a legitimate defense of OS X's system structure?
It works.
How was that?
Want me to elaborate? I've been running OS X full time on a G3 iMac since 10.0. The operating system has never crashed. I use the machine fairly heavily, for browsing and email, but also for publishing work with the Adobe products and for Java programming. I spend a lot of time in front of it, pounding away. It has never crashed, in any sense of the word. It has never needed a reboot. The only times I've rebooted it were for OS upgrades and back in May when I moved. That's it. The last time I rebooted was when I installed by developer seed of Jaguar 6C106. Even the prerelease version of the OS has never crashed for me.
That, my pugnacious friend, is the only defense that matters. It does everything I need with, in my case, perfect reliability.
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.
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