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.
10.0.x were for the true bleeding edge.
10.1.x were for most Mac users.
10.2 is for every Mac user.
A fairly computer illerate mac user asked me about a week ago if they should get Jaguar (10.2). I replied "With 10.2, there is no reason anyone with a machine that Apple says can run OS X is not running it."
Unless you are running a specialized application that does not run under Classic, there is no reason not to be running OS X if your machine supports it.
The speed, support, and stability are all there to make this a great operating system.
The fact that I was able to throw in an old video card, a spare 100Base-T card and a USB card into my G4 at once and have them all immediately recognized and supported is simply amazing. Apple has done wonderful work with this transition.
And I have a two-button scroll optical mouse natively supported, for everyone who might chime in with that.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
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.
Regarding the VWM and Space: you might want to check out Virtual Desktop . Its not free in any sense (except for a trial/limited functionality version - 2 desktops only) but seems to be worth the price compared to what Space offers for free. Of course, when space gets a few versions older, Virtual Desktop might not be so far ahead.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
An API for a real honest-to-god VWM. Space works for now. I guess.
If Apple are serious about wooing *nix users they really need to fix at least some of these. Most of these are minor issues and should be easily fixed. It's beyond me why they haven't been fixed yet.
(I didn't even bother to mention middle-mouse-button paste).
Yeah... Yeah! And also:
How about something called Your Documents on the desktop? I really want that.
A buttom somewhere that pops out a menu where I can select applications, system preferences, etc.
An app called Manage Applications or something, where I could add/remove programs centrally, instead of having to put them in the trash.
'Trash' sounds so... harsh... They should rename it to 'Recycler' or something.
If Apple are serious about wooing Windows users they really need to fix at least some of these. Most are minor issues and should be easily fixed. It's beyond me why they haven't been fixed yet.
(I didn't even mention putting menus in application windows instead of always at the top of the screen.)
dalamcd
(include sarcasm tags as you feel appropriate)
moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
I'm currently supporting (indirectly now) the very class of professionals you wonder about.
I agree with your initial comment, but first note that the article can't possibly contain every viewpoint for every profession that uses Macs. For that, look elsewhere (maybe even my website--see my sig).
Don't blame Apple for Quark dragging their feet in their QuarkXPress/OS X support. Quark is historically notorious for very slow development and very buggy software in its initial run. QuarkXPress would be one of LAST apps I would use on its OS X release because of how buggy it tends to be, and how it has even rendered whole projects damaged beyond resurrection.
Scanner support is still weak, but better than 10.1. Plug-ins for applications is a concept that may phase-out in the way you describe to maintain system stability, but that functionality should still be available. Printer support is already there as well--the problem is that most users are used to maintain this themselves thanks to the ease of the Chooser and AppleTalk. Rendezvous and a good Mac technician should clear this up for most.
I've already made my recommendations to make the move to OS X 10.2 for the graphic crowd. There's very little to stop the move now, unless you're really stuck on Quark. I would say to unstick yourself if your business allows it and take a serious look at InDesign 2.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Filename extensions where invented back in command line days. They made a certain amount of sense when you didn't have a lot of different file types, or a robust file system for keeping track of them. Now you have dozens and dozens of file types.
File extensions are just not adequate to record this level of information. Too many have multiple meanings. (My favorite example is .WMZ, which means "Compressed Skin" to a certain media player and "Compressed graphic metafile" to a certain office suite -- both from the same company!) And how are users supposed to deal with them? If you have to specify an extension every time you copy or rename a file, Captain Murphy will make sure you get it wrong at the worst possible time. (Even worse for non-techies, who often don't know/forget that extensions are important, or can't remember all the ones they need to know.) If you leave it up the system, you're at the mercy of applications that play with extension associations without telling you and that impose "descriptions" that are more advertisements than useful classifications.
If there are problems with the way Classic does metadata, that's an implementation issue, not a flaw in the concept. Anyway, is file-type fascism on the Mac any worse that extension stealing on Windows?
If I have an issue with Siracusa about metadata, it's that his arguments on the subject tend to wander into obscure abstractions and complicated psychophilosophical rants. Computer science has some arcane roots, but computer people are a pragmatic bunch -- you can only convince them with specifics.
I have to comment on your use of the word "bigot". My American Heritage Dictionary defines "bigot" as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Dismissing other people's opinions by with simplistic stereotypes and scatological insults would seem to fit that definition.