Slashdot Mirror
ArsTechnica Posts Mac OS X 10.2 Review
hype7 writes "ArsTechnica have posted their review on Mac OS X 10.2. John Siracusa has been writing the reviews of Mac OS X since way back with the developer previews, and in my experience they've been the most thorough, thoughtful and unbiased reviews of Mac OS X on the web. Well worth a read." He does do a fine job; so if you needed one last fix of looks at Jaguar, here you go.
You can see he's UNIX/Mac hybrid user.
He tends to balance things out quite well without getting bogged down in stuff that is too far over people's heads or way below them. He strikes a good mix between the obvious and the not so obvious when it comes to what material to include in the text.
I agree with practically everything he commented on and although I haven't actually got a copy of Jaguar yet on my system, I've heard and read enough to know a great deal about it. This review has helped to outline some of the aspects not included in the mainstream reviews which, on the whole, tender to bend over backwards in Apple's favour.
The Finder and Metadata may sound old hat but they represent serious issues, as do the incorporation of the many missing featuress that are present in OS9.
It's good to see someone speaking out so openly on these subjects
John's review was very thorough, as usual. While the Mac enthusiast is bound to disagree with his overall sentiment, I think the review is a must-read for the deeply entrenched Linux fan.
I do think that he began picking at nits somewhat (who cares if people call it Jag-Wire), and ultimately, he drew all of his 10.2 comparisons on a combination of the earlier incarnations of itself (like 10.1) and some unknown ethereal ideal (like "PerfectOS, version 3").
The charts on window server performance with Quartz Extreme were pretty neat, and while the review does not offer an exhaustive look at Jaguar's new features, the information offered was remarkably detailed and helpful, which allows readers to draw their own conclusions.
I was really hoping to see more comparisons of OS X versus other Linux flavors, or even Windows or Solaris. Instead, the review often sounded almost adversarial and at least reactionary, which I could personally do without. Whether or not he had an axe to grind, John is a very talented writer and computer savant. This lengthy review is worth your time to read.
(I didn't even bother to mention middle-mouse-button paste).
I agree with what some of what you said, and I disagree with some. But this is just wrong. X11's cut-and-paste behavior is just dreadful. Once you get used to it, it's not so bad, but I've been using X11 on my desktop for years and years now, and it still frustrates me regularly. I don't know how many times I've highlighted something, moved to another window, accidentally or thoughtlessly highlighted something else, then tried to paste the first thing I highlighted. Oops.
Explicit cut-and-paste is better by a mile.
The guy provides the most in-depth, unbiased technical review of Jaguar that I've seen to date. Overall his review is very positive and enthusiastic. But he also points out the things that still need fixing or improvement. As soon as you read that part, I'm sure your brain was thinking "Blasphemy! Must defend beloved, infallible OS!"
Puh-lease.
Sure, he gets a little nitpicky with a few problems that bother him personally, but the fact is that they remain problems that Apple needs to fix. You may not agree with everything he says either, but to dismiss the entire thing because he makes a few good points that expose weaknesses in your beloved platform is like walking around with blinders on.
I absolutely love the Mac platform. Mac OS X is, far and away, the best OS I've ever used (out of all flavors of Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX, HPUX, AIX, Solaris, VMS, DOS, OS/2, BeOS, you name it). Like you, I tend to be quick to defend Apple and Mac OS X against FUD and damaging misinformation. Case in point: the graphic designer at my wife's job has to use dialup to get his email because the MCSE network guys said "Macs can't network." I hear that all the time - Macs can't do this, Macs can't do that - and have to correct it. Sometimes it's infuriating to see the ignorant biases against the Mac platform.
But this particular review is very well researched and thought out - and accurate! The shortcomings he lists are, indeed, shortcomings. I really hope the engineers at Apple read every one of his reviews and take them into account - the next version of Mac OS X will be that much better because of it. Imagine that - as good as Jaguar is, imagine having something even better. Great, isn't it?
Say hello to zMac.
Of all the system architecture pundits I've read, Siracusa is the most literate and intelligent. But he has a certain tendency to get bogged down in minor details and issues. Which keeps him from developing much influence outside the Mac user community. Which is a pity.
I can think of many reasons why "every" Mac user should not upgrade just yet. Maybe after 10.2.1 or 10.2.2.
For starters, there are still some basic things missing, or at very least not "user friendly". I spent a long time trying to figure out how to make Jaguar print to a Windows printer. Apple has been VERY careful about not saying Jaguar can do that, and rather goes with the more general statement of "Windows network compatibility".
It came down to me having to create a symbolic link between a samba utility and a CUPS directory. This is not something I would consider ready for every Mac user.
There's also some issues with applications becoming buggy with the release of Jaguar. Even Virtual PC is problematic since I updated to Jaguar. Is this Apple or Jaguar's fault. Not really, but updating to Jaguar IS the cause of some of my problems and instabilities with applications.
So, I'd say "every Mac user" should wait for 10.2.1 or 10.2.2...or at VERY least, wait for applications that you might use to release their updates for Jaguar compatibility.
And as for my background, I came through the Linux route, have several years experience as a *nix sys admin (small [.com startup] and big [IBM] systems). And now, I'm a senior software engineer.
Just my $0.02.
-Alex
The article comments on how Apple has gone out of its way to break third party menu extras and how apple blocks full functionality of a dock replacement.
.NET so that windows apps could be ported more easily... Apple would provide hardware, a kernal, and a PDF windowing system, but a third party would control the UI...
I don't mean to be an apologist for apple, but I can see a valid reason for doing this. I think apple wants to prevent any third party from replacing the dock (a menu extra could replace the dock). If a third party dock becomes very popular developers may decide to develop for it rather than use apple's dock and apple's APIs. Some sort of super-dock (or super-menu) could hijack OS X software development by offering extra functionality in an API that Apple doesn't have.
Say some developer decided to embrace and extend OS X by replacing the dock with a "task bar" that mimicked the windows look and feel and implemented
I know this is being paranoid... but I think it's reasonable for apple to keep control of the dock and the menu extras until they feel that their software has matured.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
You're not given this choice at desktop level; You must have a finder window open.
As far as your window style preference: You can select "Open New Windows in Column View" in the Finder Preferences pane. Personally, I prefer that to List View anyway.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I believe that 10.0 was released right when it should have been. I am not one of the Mac fans that believe that Apple should have waited to release it until it was about 10.1 quality.
The point I was trying to make was in who should have adopted it at that time.
10.0 should have been released when it was, but it was still a little rough around the edges, and there were some problems with some programs running under Classic. Since there were not a lot of programs that were running natively under 10.0, I stand by my assertion that most people were better off waiting for 10.1
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman