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.'"

Comments

OSX on X86

[MustafaJohnson]

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 :-)

Re:Apple on x86

[swordboy]

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.

Re:Windows users can compare and understand better

[be-fan]

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.