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.'"
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!
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?"
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.
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 :-)
...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!
...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.
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.
Uhhh... I think that this applies to all software - not just Apple OSs. This is why the new XP stuff has the online product activation. If Apple followed suit, I don't see how they'd lose any money. The bottom line is that Apple initially planned an OS for x86. Microsoft got scared so they made an "investment" in Apple and then OSX for Intel mysteriously disappears.
OSX on Intel would be extremely profitable for Apple. Unfortunately, I think that Microsoft makes it extremely profitable for Apple's management not to release it.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
It works.
>>>>>>
So do modern versions of Windows (2000 and XP) but that doesn't make them well-designed operating systems. Lots of things work that aren't well designed. OS X is quite slow and unstable as far as UNIXs go. A lot of that has to do with bad system design.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...