Slashdot Mirror


Review of Mac OS X 10.3

alphakappa writes "The NY Times has a review of all the new Panther features which states that the 150 odd features added are so good that calling it a 0.1 upgrade is not fair. It finds the new Expose feature and other security features (like being able to encrypt/decrypt the entire home directory on the fly) extremely appealing. Gripes include the $130 price tag and the (somewhat) lack of backward compatibility."

843 comments

  1. apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now if OS X only had apt-get it would be perfect. Is Debian Troll working on a version of apt-get for OS X when winaptget is finished?

    Debian rocks!

    1. Re:apt-get for OS X? by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not sure if you're trolling or not, but here ya go.

      Debian on my desktop, OS X on my laptop, life has achieved perfection.

    2. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough*http://fink.sourceforge.net/*cough*

    3. Re:apt-get for OS X? by gladbach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dont know about that, but gentoo is working on a version of its portage... http://www.gentoo.org/news/20030620-metapkg.xml

      that, and there is always fink for osx... which Im pretty sure uses apt-get anyways...
      http://fink.sourceforge.net/

      --
      "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
    4. Re:apt-get for OS X? by nizcolas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually Fink, Gentoo and Darwinports have combined forces. If anyone has run a beta release of 10.3, they've seen a very early build of the app that these groups have produced. Think finkcommander done with apple elegance.

      --
      If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
    5. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Debian on my desktop, OS X on my laptop, life has achieved perfection.

      What would it achieve with a G5 factored in there somewhere? ;-)

      I'm drooling over one of the dual 2 GHz. models...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    6. Re:apt-get for OS X? by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I had the cash, no doubt I'd pick up a G5 also, but as it stands, I can build my own tower out of commodity parts, whiz-bang it out with geeky toys like neon lights and the like, install Debian, and I'm good to go. I have a primary desktop/file server storage for mp3z and pr0n (sweet, sweet pr0n). Add a PowerBook, and I have all the application and ease-of-use userspace things that I lack with Debian; iTunes (there is no better mp3 player), Word (I know, I know, but the fact of the matter is Word is a pretty good piece of bloatware. Does anyone know where I can get document templates for OOO and the like? 'cuz I'll switch if I can get those), iTunes (no seriously, it's good), not to mention games, Adobe and Macromedia products, the list goes on. Plus PowerBooks are sexy with the backlit keyboard and all.

      So I'm good for the time being.

    7. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG teh p0wa5b00X r0x0r5!!!

    8. Re:apt-get for OS X? by weatherbug · · Score: 1

      Think "fink". apt-get is alive and well on OS X :-) http://fink.sourceforge.net

    9. Re:apt-get for OS X? by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My advice: wait. Apple is trying to get new versions of the G5s released in a couple months, including a dual 2.4 GHz model, and eventually a dual 3.0. When that happens, expect retailers to drop the cost of the dual 2.0 model signifigantly.

      (I don't often advise waiting to purchase a computer because "something better is just around the corner," since this is IT we're talking about, and that's always the case. But reviews I've read place the power/performance ratio for the top of the line G5 at higher than its little brothers, a distinction usually reserved for one of the cheaper models. So here, it seems worthwhile to bide your time.)

    10. Re:apt-get for OS X? by __aahkth3217 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a word of warning however, the fink project hasn't yet been updated to work in 10.3. Check their sourceforge page for more info here.

    11. Re:apt-get for OS X? by djh101010 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Check out fink, it's as close as I needed, might do it for you.

    12. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Nykon · · Score: 1

      yes but when the duel 3 ghz comes out I'll be drooling over those and not want the 2 ghz model anymore :) *sigh* choices choices

      --
      "It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
    13. Re:apt-get for OS X? by CommandNotFound · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does anyone know where I can get document templates for OOO and the like?

      The easiest way is to just buy StarOffice for $79 USD (I believe the license still allows 5 users to use a single "network install"). It comes with lots of clip art, doc templates, presentation templates, etc. Buy it here.

      If you want less stuff, but for free, I believe you can find files here and here.

    14. Re:apt-get for OS X? by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      The delta for fink between 10.1 and 10.2 wasn't all that long. But I recommend a Clean install of 10.3, not an Upgrade, if fink is involved.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    15. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean choices of what to droll over, right? :-)
      it doesn't sound like you'll be choosing which one to buy, but don't despair - they might start showing up on ebay in some 3-5 years ;-)

    16. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yuck, fuck fink -- DarwinPorts rules!

    17. Re:apt-get for OS X? by rowdent · · Score: 1

      Or if you're a "student" you can download it for free.

      --
      "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
    18. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks apt-get is some dweeb cream you lose interest in when you turn 14.

    19. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fink commander is pretty cool too.

    20. Re:apt-get for OS X? by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

      fink has some nice ends, darwinports has some advantages too... but i really wish i could run "gentoo/darwin" on top of an os x install. i hope metapkg.org is everything i'm dreaming of. :-)

    21. Re:apt-get for OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do. fink.sourceforge.net

    22. Re:apt-get for OS X? by tychay · · Score: 1

      So everyone keeps telling me when they see Panther on my notebook. But I've been running Fink on 10.3 for quite a while now and can quickly show them this is not the case.
      > "..that far more software is available for Windows (true; "only"
      > 6,500 programs are available for Mac OS X).."

      Just because there is no pkg download install of Fink for 10.3 doesn't mean that you can't. Do a netsearch.

      Ahh, the beauty of open-source.

      Take care,

  2. Re:They Should by inteller · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    wow you are ultra retarded. They put out patches once a week, not service packs. Is it comfortable under that rock?

  3. I use windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    you insensitive clod!

  4. well then... by xao+gypsie · · Score: 5, Funny

    . It finds the new Expose feature and other security features
    it also rubs the lotion on its skin....

    xao

    --


    xao
    http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    1. Re:well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      it also rubs the lotion on its skin....

      Unless it wants the hose again.

    2. Re:well then... by Carbonite · · Score: 1

      only because it wants to avoid the hose...

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    3. Re:well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my coffee like I like my women. . . . lukewarm and bitter.

  5. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Service packs are to fix M$'s shit code, not introduce new features.... your comparison holds as much water as a sive.

  6. Re:Yay by SavoWood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    M$'s service packs patch hundreds of holes. Panther offers 150 new *features*. I'd pay for features.

    --
    Plant a tree in a developing country.
  7. odd by andih8u · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hard to see someone in an industry dominated by Macs having a pro-Apple slant.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:odd by Xel · · Score: 1

      What industry would that be?

      --
      "Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines."
    2. Re:odd by andih8u · · Score: 1

      desktop publishing / journalism

      --


      slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    3. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hype

    4. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desktop publishers use macs... most journalists use PCs

    5. Re:odd by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Wrong. You are ignorant and misinformed.

      If you had named that industry as being David Pogue, you would have had a point.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  8. Testing an os? by Tshombe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when do we trust newspapers for a review of an operating system? Sort of:"Look at all the new features!!"

    1. Re:Testing an os? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This isn't a technical review aimed at geeks or pro users. The NY Times is read by a hell lot of people. Average Joe might read the NY Times but this is aiming more at a large group of people and business man.
      Can't be bad for Apple.

    2. Re:Testing an os? by Roofus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I found it nice to see something as mainstream as the NYT buzzing over Apple, and throwing a few jabs at MS at the same time.

    3. Re:Testing an os? by Surlyboi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since Pogue has been writing tech books for years,
      I'd say he's fairly well qualified to write a review of the OS.

      And for the most part, he's dead on. Expose has changed
      the way I work, that feature alone is worth the upgrade cost for me.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    4. Re:Testing an os? by mojoNYC · · Score: 1
      the reason this review is legit is that the author, David Pogue, is a longtime authority in the computing world, having written several books on Macintosh subjects--he's not exactly impartial, but he's level-headed enough to call a spade a spade...

      -mojo

    5. Re:Testing an os? by mmar · · Score: 1

      If the author is the same David Pogue who wrote this, I'd probably trust is opinion on a new version of Mac OS X.
      Guess what! It is him!

    6. Re:Testing an os? by Tshombe · · Score: 1

      So I might be biased because Dutch newspapers don't know how to write about computers? Or even worse, we actually have only one magazine with any serious creds, the rest is aimed towards (and written by?) n00bs, newbees and nono's. NOFI, but I just would a review in a daily newspaper.

    7. Re:Testing an os? by bojan · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. human beings write reviews, NOT newspapers.

    8. Re:Testing an os? by clontzman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but, to be fair, Pogue writes books about the operating system that he's reviewing. It's in his best financial interest for people to adopt the new OS. I've always found it really dubious that the Times lets him report on the Mac since he's not exactly what you'd call a neutral observer.

      What's next? Harry Knowles writing reviews of Tarantino movies for Entertainment Weekly?

    9. Re:Testing an os? by Surlyboi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno, I'd say his familiarity with the OS would
      help. He's one of those Mac users that's fairly
      vocal about what he thinks sucks about the platform.
      I'd rather have him write the review than someone
      who's got either no knowledge of the system and its
      precursors.

      And Harry Knowles shouldn't write reviews of anything
      for anybody.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    10. Re:Testing an os? by teridon · · Score: 1
      Before Expose, did you use a virtual desktop application like Space or CodeTek Virtual Desktop?

      I'm just wondering if using Expose is that much different...

      --
      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
    11. Re:Testing an os? by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      I've always found it really dubious that the Times lets him report on the Mac since he's not exactly what you'd call a neutral observer.

      Rob Enderle is allowed to write about Microsoft...

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    12. Re:Testing an os? by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      I haven't used either app, but they seem to both be
      a bit like the standard multiple desktop implementations
      in X-windows. If that's the case, Expose is different.

      It basically shrinks all your open windows to tiles
      and splays them out across the desktop, giving you
      their names as you mouse over them. It also allows
      you to pull up just application windows or just
      pushes all the windows out of the way to show you
      your desktop. (Kinda like the show desktop command
      in 'doze)

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    13. Re:Testing an os? by CatOne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Expose isn't really a virtual desktop application. You still have just one desktop.

      What it is GREAT at is accessing any window immediately. If you want to get to Mail, hit F9, all the windows will shrink, click on it, and there you go.

      What I use most though is F10, which shows all windows from the current foreground app at once -- to find that draft email that's behind the main mail window (say I was cutting and pasting from another window). Takes about a second, instead of the old "minimize click restore" of old.

      And F11 gets you straight to the desktop... no need to manally hide every window to get to that thing you saved on the desktop.

      I don't think it's going to change the world, I just know it saves me 3 or 4 seconds, about 20 times a day. So maybe it's only 3 or 4 more minutes of productivity per day, but it's for free (well, $129 amortized over 14 months... guess it more than pays for the OS just itself based on salary savings :-)

    14. Re:Testing an os? by clontzman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do they let him review Microsoft products? There's a difference between reporting and reviewing.

      If the answer is yes, then they shouldn't do that either.

    15. Re:Testing an os? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, prove It!

    16. Re:Testing an os? by stingerman101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More to the point, since when do we trust Computer Magz who are seeking the advertising revenue of the companies they review. I wonder how PC World's review of Panther will read? What do you think? LOL I think Newspapers have a different advertizer base and are probably less partial.

    17. Re:Testing an os? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, does expose explode tabs? By this I mean, when you tell it to show all windows, if I had say a safari window with a bunch of tabs, does each tab become it's own window in expose?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    18. Re:Testing an os? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always found it really dubious that the Times lets him report on the Mac since he's not exactly what you'd call a neutral observer.


      I've always found it really dubious that people here expect the New York Times to even attempt neutrality in any story it publishes. That's like being surprised any time Microsoft abuses its monopoly power to take over a new market. Get real!

    19. Re:Testing an os? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but, to be fair, Pogue writes books about the operating system that he's reviewing. It's in his best financial interest for people to adopt the new OS. I've always found it really dubious that the Times lets him report on the Mac since he's not exactly what you'd call a neutral observer.

      Yeah, those bastards. Next thing they'll start allowing war correspondents to report from Iraq, even though they have a financial interest in the war continuing since it's their job to report about it. I agree with you and propose that nobody who writes about something for a living should be allowed to write about it. New golden age of objectivity, here we come!

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    20. Re:Testing an os? by OECD · · Score: 1

      I've always found it really dubious that the Times lets him report on the Mac since he's not exactly what you'd call a neutral observer.

      Actually, that's a trend in reporting. Minorities demand to be assigned to stories involving their particular minority group. Since Mac users are more of a minority than most minority groups, this would fall right into line with that method of assigning reporters.

      (In all seriousness, I'm not sure if the NYT has adopted that model of story assignment.)

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    21. Re:Testing an os? by gryphokk · · Score: 1
      Since when do we trust newspapers for a review of an operating system?

      Since David Pogue (The Macintosh "Secrets" and "Dummies" books author) began writing for the NYTimes.

      Excellent writer, great humor, and knows more about Mac than Guy Kawasaki!

      --
      And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.
    22. Re:Testing an os? by CatOne · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't explode tabs. A Safari window, with all the tabs, is "atomic."

      You could have multiple Safari windows of course and they're independent.

    23. Re:Testing an os? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Pogue has been writing tech books for years
      Pogue doesn't write most of them. He pays people to do it for him. Besides, he's terminally clueless - almost as clueless as you (no fear, he can't catch up).

      If Expose changed your life, you're brain-dead and shouldn't be allowed near a computer or any blunt objects.

    24. Re:Testing an os? by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Enderle, is that you? Didn't your mom tell you to stop trolling on /.?

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
  9. Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your yearly Mac Tax is due. Why else would we call it FeeBSD.

    1. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'm a mac user and I thought that was pretty damn funny.

    2. Re:Attention all OS X Users by thejuggler · · Score: 1

      I'd rather pay the Mac Tax than the Windows Tax. I'd get much more for my money with the Mac. Unless you want to count the security holes and virus' as 'more' features in Windows.

      I wish I had bought a Mac last year and not a damn PC.

    3. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, the spelling and grammar attack. The attack of those who have nothing.

    4. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you completely fail to read my first sentence or something? The grammar and spelling attack was secondary (And valid).

    5. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming this post is a joke, but I actually have had people make this argument before. I know a guy who gets upset whenever I mention Apple about how they are the real monopoly and how I could get this for free via free BSD. Yet he gets nice and quiet when I say, "ok, I could but then I'd have no GUI unless I installed X-windows or something else. I would also be unable to run 99% of Mac software.

      Some people are just clueless and nothing you can do will make them any less so.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    6. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would you use capital letters on /. ? it's a waste of time and a finger :D

      and no, i'm not a mac user :P

    7. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "cannot," not "can not," and that would be "either," not "too."

      Have a nice day, asshole.

    8. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "cannot," not "can not,"

      See the usage note at the bottom In case you have trouble with that, let me quote for you:

      "\Can"not\ [Can to be able + -not.] Am, is, or are, not able; -- written either as one word or two."

      (Queue Dennis Leary)

      Ohhhh, I'm an asshole, asshole, asshole..

    9. Re:Attention all OS X Users by acey72 · · Score: 1

      Aha, but it's not a Mac Tax I'm paying, it's a beauty tax! My desktop/laptop needs beauty, so I pay the tax. My server doesn't, so it's on 4.8-RELEASE.

      It's all good.

    10. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the usage note at the bottom In case you have trouble with that, let me quote for you:

      You're missing a period between "bottom" and "In."

      You might also want to look up Queue, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Later, chump.

    11. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      I realize this is a joke, but I've heard this argument before.

      My reply is simply: "I don't have to upgrade"

      Now, as it so happens I've purchased a 5-computer license because I think it is worth the investment, but it isn't mandatory that I upgrade.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    12. Re:Attention all OS X Users by ryanw · · Score: 1
      I wish I had bought a Mac last year and not a damn PC.
      I'm glad I bought my first mac last year instead of another PC. I get enough headaches at work from SunOS, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Linux, and Windows. It feels good to be able to do my own personal stuff (ie. short films, home videos, photo albums, record friend's bands, etc) without having lockups, bad updates, driver incompatibilities, or viruses waste my time.

      I know there was an update (10.2.8) that broke networking on some older systems, but I dodged that one. The last year has been effortless for me.

      Recording Project all done in my Home Studio
      Friends Website done on spare time
      And much more...

    13. Re:Attention all OS X Users by BitGeek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you pay more, and yet you get a much better deal. Amazing how that works?

      Why go with free BSD, saving the money, but spending a hundred times the cost of the MAc OS upgrade in wasted time and hassle and lower producctivity?

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    14. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing a period between "bottom" and "In."

      Quite right. However I am using British English, so your last period after "In" is incorrectly placed inside the quotation marks.

      You should have quoted "queue" and there was no need to use an initial capital "Q". Your use of commas both after "Queue" and between "Later" and "chump" are both incorrect.

    15. Re:Attention all OS X Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they aren't.

      I'm using American English, and in it, you're a fucktard.

      No, go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

  10. Huh? by MouseR · · Score: 1, Informative

    (somewhat) lack of backward compatibility

    FUD.

    I've been using Panther in a mixed environment with Jaguar, Cheeta and Puma releases with no fights.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you're not having problems, then obviously, anyone else who claims that they are is a big fat LIAR. Software always works the same on every machine. Especially updates from Apple.

    2. Re:Huh? by cnkeller · · Score: 4, Funny
      I've been using Panther in a mixed environment with Jaguar, Cheeta and Puma releases with no fights.

      Shame on you for missing the obligatory cat-fight reference....

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    3. Re:Huh? by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've been using Panther in a mixed environment with Jaguar, Cheeta and Puma releases with no fights.

      I think there's a job opening for you at the Mirage...

    4. Re:Huh? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Well if you're not having problems, then obviously, anyone else who claims that they are is a big fat LIAR. Software always works the same on every machine. Especially updates from Apple. (reference to failed initial release of 10.2.8 removed)

      What's a failed update got to do with backward compatibility? That update got fixed and re-released.

      I'm using apps back and forth with all Mac OS X releases. Both dev tools, the app we do, and ALL software without a hint of an issue.

      File sharing works in most cases (10.0 had bugs on this, so it doesn't share well to newer versions of the OS, but can happily mount other machines)

      If QuickKeys doesn't work on a particular version of the OS, it's because it relies on hacks to do what it does. Just wait for an update (heck, Panther is not released until tomorrow, so it's a good bet this guy doesn't have an updated QuickKeys).

    5. Re:Huh? by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think there's a job opening for you at the Mirage...

      yeah, but a guy who used to work there says it's a pain in the neck...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    6. Re:Huh? by Blimey85 · · Score: 1
      This is terrible! I love it!

      The bad news is that Roy was injured.
      The good news is that now we know which one is Roy. -David Letterman

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    7. Re:Huh? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Funny
      I think there's a job opening for you at the Mirage...

      yeah, but a guy who used to work there says it's a pain in the neck...

      Worse than that. The job really bites.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a failed update got to do with backward compatibility?

      Nothing. It has to do with "software doesn't work the same on every machine in exactly the same way," as you seem to think.

      "Works for me" means nothing to the guy whose i/eMac won't boot now. The fact that your particular installation works fine and you think that that invalidates other people's real problems is frightening.

    9. Re:Huh? by atheken · · Score: 1

      it just keeps getting better.. I mean worse! puns are fun, butt please go back to work. :-)

  11. Scheduled Start and Shutdown of Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Panther threw back in the ability to schedule automatic shutdown and startup of my Mac. Suck this Windows users....

  12. And for those on linux.. by leming · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you don't already know about this, and your eyes are glittering with the prospect of encrypted home directories.. there is a way to do this in linux also. It's called the cryptoloop. This is a kernel loop extension that uses the CryptoAPI encryption options to create an encrypted loop of a mount for your system. Although I don't think there is anything to make it as automagic as they probably have set up in OSX, this is something that's out there for those of us that are ultra paranoid. You can visit the CryptoAPI site here where you can get everything you need, or look into the new 2.6 test kernels that have cryptoloop and the CryptoAPI options as a standard feature.

    1. Re:And for those on linux.. by DebianDog · · Score: 1

      Yes but, there is something nice about just checking "Encrypt Home Directory" in your user preference though.

      I agree with the article, the Expose' feature is enough for me to upgrade. Why does the Linux community get busy with that so I can update my Suse box with it ;-)

    2. Re:And for those on linux.. by warfare · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly the way MacOS X does it. It just mounts an encrypted diskimage as your homedirectory.

      --
      -- If windows is the solution, can we please have the problem back?
    3. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wanna know what's wrong with file-by-file encryption? Lots of stuff, but let's start at the beginning:

      file names.

      If I look at your laptop and see "Plan for World Domination.rtf," I know you're planning something, even if I can't read the file. Just the simple fact that the file's there--and that it was last modified on Tuesday--tells me something.

      What else? Cache files. Windows doesn't encrypt cache and temporary files. Lots of important information can be pulled out of those, particularly if you use a company Intranet with confidential data on it.

      The Apple solution, on the other hand, encrypts your entire home directory, caches and preferences and documents and everything, into a single sparse disk image file. If you don't have the password, you can't get anything.

      Who's sucking it now?

    4. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows has had this for THREE YEARS now! File-by-file transparent encryption! Bwahahahahhhhahahahha!

      Uh, Linux has had loopback encryption for a while now too (at least a year, not sure exactly how long).

      Just because _you're_ hearing about it for the first time doesn't mean that it was just invented. :)

    5. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Linux crypto loop stuff predates the Windows encryption by quite a number of years (not sure how many off the top of my head).

    6. Re:And for those on linux.. by Cthefuture · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem I've had with the crypto loop stuff is that the format and tools keep changing. I have many encrypted files that I now can't access because I have no idea which version of the loop stuff they were encrypted with. Most of the time I only encrypt archived data so often by the time I need it again the whole crypto API has changed. There are too many tiny tools and such needed to make it work. You need a kernel module, plus the loop tools like losetup, and then special mount tools. All of those can and have changed over the years.

      As a result I have over 20 GB of encrypted data that I now can't get to. I've tried older versions of the tools and stuff. It's just too hard to get everything to match up again. I've stopped using the encrypted loopback stuff for now. This is where commercial solutions really shine because good companies make it easy to either upgrade your encrypted data or keep backwards compatibility. All too often open-source projects slap you in the head with incompatibilies. Sure, this lets you stay on the bleeding edge but some of use like to get work done.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    7. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then put a padlock on your computer or lock it in a room, run only the services that you need, and quit screwing around with things like "crypted file systems". Local data encryption is about the stupidest idea for "security" I've seen. If someone has your computer, they *can* get the data.

    8. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting an end to data recovered from used hard-drives would come to an end. Adding the hardrive to another system will only show a large continuous unreadable file.

      Encrypted file systems can also be better if permissions are set up on what decoded data has access to eth0.

    9. Re:And for those on linux.. by bojan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry, you're completely wrong, this is impossible to do in linux.

      part of OS X is bringing the "magic" of unix to a "human being".

      i click button X, and Y happens. As opposed to the unix motto..

      I configure X,
      I compile X,
      I build X,
      I install X,
      I adjust boot X
      I now have Y happening.

      The two are WORLDS apart, and are the primary reason why Linux is not adopted by everyone.

      People are willing to pay huge sums of money, if you allow them to do with ease what they otherwise couldn't. Linux developers need to learn this lesson.

    10. Re:And for those on linux.. by javax · · Score: 1

      "If someone has your computer, they *can* get the data."

      I doubt that. It may take several billion years to decrypt the stuff from harddisk. That's long enough to call it impossible - at least for human purposes.

    11. Re:And for those on linux.. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Funny

      >If I look at your laptop and see "Plan for World Domination.rtf," I know you're planning something, even if I can't read the file.

      If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart.

      I'd probably call my plan for world domination file "ILikefluffyKittens.rtf" or something equally innocuous. Or better yet, "readme.txt", since nobody ever reads READMEs.

    12. Re:And for those on linux.. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart.

      That's my grocery list, actually.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    13. Re:And for those on linux.. by CatOne · · Score: 1

      No...

      That's the WHOLE POINT of an encrypted file system. If they get your computer, they CANNOT get the data, unless they have the crypt password.

      Like... DUH.

      Well of course unless they plug it in to the Apple cluster at Virgina Tech and use brute force... then it may only take a year or so to crack it by brute force :-P

    14. Re:And for those on linux.. by Goo.cc · · Score: 1

      Of course, any temp files and any information written into the swap file could be recovered.

      Also, I can't help but be suspect of any commerical corporation offering me cryptographic security solutions. For all I know, Apple has some way to bypass that encryption that only they (and the NSA) know about. Now, if they allowed for third party encryption options, like using GPG, that would be interesting.

    15. Re:And for those on linux.. by x0n · · Score: 1

      This is unfortunate, I sympathise with you mate, but any good book will tell you security is about 90% procedure, 10% technology. The situation you find yourself in is due to your own lack of disciplined procedure rather than some inherent flaw in the technology. This is certainly no help now to you, but I'm only defending the tech.

      - Oisin

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    16. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can take all sorts of time with an "encrypted loop of a mount" or test kernels, or you can pay to install something that works.

      Tough decision.

    17. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about you, but I would have called it RTFPfWD.rtf since no one RTF anything anymore... especially after installing OS X since "everything just works".

    18. Re:And for those on linux.. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Windows doesn't encrypt cache and temporary files... The Apple solution, on the other hand, encrypts your entire home directory

      Now, I've not actually tried it, but I can't imagine that there's anything stopping me from setting my entire home directory on Windows (ie Documents and Settings\username) as encrypted. Sure, the average user wouldn't know to do that, but then the average user probably wouldn't care, either.

      Your point about filenames and other meta data still holds, though.

    19. Re:And for those on linux.. by dimator · · Score: 1

      Why does the Linux community get busy with [Expose] so I can update my Suse box with it

      I don't think that will be easy to copy at all. Even if you were to copy it in the linux desktop world, I don't think it would be fast enough to be useable. The reason being, on the mac, I think those kinds of effects are easier to pull off because of Quartz and all its vectory goodness. You could only pull something like this off in the X world by taking screenshots of the apps and scaling/translating them.

      I could be wrong, though. Someone might be more clever than I am and pull it off. :)

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    20. Re:And for those on linux.. by firewood · · Score: 1
      I'd probably call my plan for world domination file "ILikefluffyKittens.rtf" or something equally innocuous. Or better yet, "readme.txt", since nobody ever reads READMEs.

      Or perhaps developers need to name their README's, "Plan for World Domination.txt". Then more users might read actually them! :)

    21. Re:And for those on linux.. by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1
      If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart.

      Neither is security through obscurity. If I suspect you're up to something, just the frequency and volume of file updates can be significant, never mind the names of the files or their contents (though, of course, that could be useful information as well).

    22. Re:And for those on linux.. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Funny. I'd assume that it meant he was a "Pinky and the Brain" fan. Of course, he'd still loose a lot of respect...but I might scan the bookmarks & other files rather closely.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tech is flawed if he can't recover his data. Apologizing for the lack of "procedure" and "discipline" on behalf of developers promoting these solutions makes you look like a cocksucking ass.

    24. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      + You can encrypt directories in Windows as well -- can't see the filenames.

      + Type SET TEMP at a W2K box and tell us what you see. Holy shit! It's a "home" directory. Guess you feel pretty dumb.

    25. Re:And for those on linux.. by CatOne · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that info in the swap file could be recovered, yes, because that's not in a home folder.

      As for the cryptographic solutions, it's AES 128 I believe. Encrypted disk images have been a feature of OS X for years (they're really cool, based on my use).

      I'd have to check, but you know like 50% of everything that OS X is built on is open source (hell, Darwin is open source). I believe the encryption algorithms used are all open source and you could verify them. Unless you think Apple is calling something AES 128 and actually using something else, Mulder ;-)

    26. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the parent poster had it wrong. Windows has an encrypting file system. It is not file-by-file. You can set it for any directory, not just your home directory. You're sucking it now, bucko.

    27. Re:And for those on linux.. by hmallett · · Score: 1
      I'd probably call my plan for world domination file "ILikefluffyKittens.rtf" or something equally innocuous. Or better yet, "readme.txt", since nobody ever reads READMEs.

      Perhaps you should call it SlashdotArticle.rtf
    28. Re:And for those on linux.. by A+Naughty+Moose · · Score: 1

      And for the really paranoid, one could encrypt everything on the hard drive, including swap. This thread tells you how.

    29. Re:And for those on linux.. by scosol · · Score: 1

      uhm- *you'll* be sucking it if you cant remember the password...

      haven't we all learned by now that "encryption" on magnetic storage is iffy at best?

      i mean really- if you're doing something so sinister and confidential that you need to encrypt it, you should also realize that unless the area of the disk that contained the original has been overwritten and flipped 7-8 times, your plaintext can still be retrieved.

      and come on- a keystroke logger is all you need to "break the encryption"...
      the encryption might be strong, but unless you keep your laptop chained to your wrist with an eject-and-shatter hard drive, the packaging is not

      stop fooling yourselves.

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    30. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, in Windows XP Professional, right click on My Documents (or it's parent if you want to get everything in your profile), select properties, click Advanced and check off Encrypt Contents.

    31. Re:And for those on linux.. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      And this is exactly the way MacOS X does it. It just mounts an encrypted diskimage as your homedirectory.

      If that's the case, then why haven't I given up any storage space? Is it deceiving me?

    32. Re:And for those on linux.. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      unless the area of the disk that contained the original has been overwritten and flipped 7-8 times, your plaintext can still be retrieved.

      Why would you say "7-8"? If seven is not always enough, then it should be just 8. And if seven is enough, what do you need the 8 for?

    33. Re:And for those on linux.. by the+argonaut · · Score: 1

      Here's how it does it:

      1. Create expanding encrypted sparse disk image
      2. Copy home directory to disk image
      3. Delete home directory

      Then when you log in it decrypts and mounts the sparse disk image to where your home directory was.

      So the space that was occupied by your home directory is simply moved to the disk image. When you need more space in your home directory, it expands the disk image to accomodate.

      --
      fuck you.
    34. Re:And for those on linux.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      part of OS X is bringing the "magic" of unix to a "human being".

      Except it doesn't, really, because a) the bits of OS X most users actually use isn't really unix (or unix-like) at all and b) all the cool stuff OS X does isn't at all reliant on the unix guts.

    35. Re:And for those on linux.. by bojan · · Score: 1

      I believe my statement is true.

      The "magic" of unix isn't just the "tools", the GNU, or the BSD toolset, but rather the design philosophy of stable, secure, and simple. OS X is built on top of that.

      Instead of furthering their own proprietary OS, like everyone else does, Apple decided to adopt an open standard, based atop 30 year proven architectural design.

      This is the "magic" of unix I'm talking about. Not the ability to code a shell script to kludge something at 2 am. That's not magic, that's just system admin's work, and every OS has it's own similar tasks. But not every OS has this "magic" I'm referring to... this philosophy on how to do things.

      That's why I love OS X. It gives all of this 30 year advancement of UNIX systems a nice easy to use UI, so that when I'm working on a new song in Logic Audio, my system runs solid, runs fast, and runs long.

    36. Re:And for those on linux.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOOSE = Your mom is a loose whore. LOSE = I expect the Mets to lose. God damn, didn't everyone else go to elementary school?

    37. Re:And for those on linux.. by scosol · · Score: 1

      The recovery threshold is a gray area-

      7-8 overwrites is the threshold.

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    38. Re:And for those on linux.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The "magic" of unix isn't just the "tools", the GNU, or the BSD toolset, but rather the design philosophy of stable, secure, and simple. OS X is built on top of that.

      The "unix philosophy" is multiple small, single-purpose applications chained together. It's very much the toolset (regardless of whether it's GNU or BSD) - more, IMHO, than the aspects you highlight. Personally, I wouldn't say OS X follows that philosophy more than non-unix OSes. Remember, back in the day, unix was the unstable toy.

      Instead of furthering their own proprietary OS, like everyone else does, Apple decided to adopt an open standard, based atop 30 year proven architectural design.

      Ah, no. They took open components - Mach and FreeBSD - and plonked proprietry layers on top of them. None of the really interesting stuff in OS X - Cocoa, Quartz, etc is "open" and all the "open" equivalents - POSIX, X11, etc are also-rans there for *legacy support*. The value for most people comes from the proprietry bits, not the open bits, because without the proprietry bits, you may as well be using any of the other myriad forms of unix out there that would offer just as much, for less $$$. In short, "furthering their proprietry OS" was exactly what Apple did.

      Incidentally, the "30 year proven architectural design" of unix isn't particularly hot either - monolithic kernels, all-powerful superuser, primitive security paradigm (root and "everyone else" - that's just a short step away from DOS), lack of fine-grained privilege control. It's "proven" because it became popular and, over those 30 years, had most of the bugs and flaws either fixed or hacked around.

      But not every OS has this "magic" I'm referring to... this philosophy on how to do things.

      Yes they do, it's just a different sort of "magic". BeOS's is multithreading, for example. Pick your poison - there were a lot of people who thought BeOS was the be-all and end-all - if unix's philosophy turns you on, great.

      That's why I love OS X. It gives all of this 30 year advancement of UNIX systems a nice easy to use UI, so that when I'm working on a new song in Logic Audio, my system runs solid, runs fast, and runs long.

      I've used non-unix OSes that ran solid, fast and long as well.

      The underlying point here I'm trying to make is that the only way Apple has managed to make "unix" usable to the masses is by hiding all the "unixness" under a UI veneer that isn't particularly unix like at all. OS X could just as easily - and sucessfully - be running on top of the BeOS or NT cores and still be stable and fast (and *could* actually have been - both were considered).

    39. Re:And for those on linux.. by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      "If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart."

      "That's my grocery list, actually."

      Yeah, but the day you need some detergent and a bit of fertiliser for your flowers don't complain if you get carted of by the FBI.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    40. Re:And for those on linux.. by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      I'd probably call my plan for world domination file "ILikefluffyKittens.rtf" or something equally innocuous.

      Mine is called 'AtlasShrugged.txt' so I know no one will ever bother reading it.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    41. Re:And for those on linux.. by Steath+Car · · Score: 1

      So 100,000+ people a year buy it but don't read it?

  13. Is a Clean Install Required? by aheath · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The New York Times article states that "And as with any major system-software upgrade, you'll encounter the fewest bumps and glitches if you install a fresh copy of the operating system rather than just updating your existing one."

    The article does not explain the risks of updating from 10.2 to 10.3 instead of installing a fresh copy of 10.3. It seems to me that a fresh OS install might present an obstacle for some users. Can anyone explain why a fresh OS install is preferable to an update OS install?

    1. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less chance of failure.

    2. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 0

      Crapy 3rd party software; thats why.

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    3. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by oscarmv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As with any complex system, continuous updates will always leave tiny bits and pieces behind that eventually compromise the stability of the whole thing.

      That said, there's a middle ground 'archive and install' option that preserves your users and network preferences while avoiding most if not all of the trouble that might come from updating. It's also faster as it doesn't need to check each and every file for updating and just writes everything while storing the old system folder in another place. Works mightily fine.

    4. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 3, Informative
      I don't know why a fresh install is said to be preferable (kinda doesn't make sense if the installer is done correctly), but when I upgraded to Jag"wire" I used the Archive and Install option, which at least saved everything I had installed so I didn't have to backup/recopy music and video folders (the biggest).

      It worked beautifully, and most apps simply regenerated their system folder files so only a few required a reinstall.

      --
      To reign is to serve.
    5. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by laird · · Score: 5, Informative

      Keep in mind that a "fresh install" on a Macintosh doesn't mean the same thing as on, say, Windows. A "clean install" means that the installer renames the previous System directory and writes out a new one, so you don't lose any data, settings, etc. The alternatives are:

      - Upgrade: write the new OS over the old one. This sometimes has side effects, if you had system extensions installed (e.g. third party drivers) that don't work with the new version of the OS.
      - Clean Install, preserve settings: do a Clean Install (as below), but preserves system and user settings, etc. This is the best choice, unless you're really short on disk space.
      - Clean Install: renames the old System, and installs a clean new one. You then have a nice clean system, and can selectively copy third party drivers, application settings, etc., that you know you want.
      - Format: reformat the drive, then do the install. This is for when you're doing an install on a random external drive, or wiping an old machine.

    6. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Can anyone explain why a fresh OS install is preferable to an update OS install?

      Because the update scripts can't always plan for the havoc that a personal computer user has wreaked on the OS. They can't test to see what every little poorly coded application changed, and how it is affected by the update (and more importantly, how it affects the update).

      This doesn't just go for Apple. Given the choice between a fresh install of an OS and a dist upgrade, I'll always take the fresh install (when it's really an option). Why not eliminate the variables? Regardless of the elegance of the OS, PC OS'es are usually made pretty ugly once an end user gets through with it.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    7. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did an upgrade from Jaguar yesterday (yes, I'm already running Panther), and everything went fine. Everything is now faster, including scrolling (both text and image-heavy pages) and bootup. I have my /Users directory on a different partition (5 users on this machine), and Panther had no problems with that.

      The machine is a Rev. B iMac (G3 233 MHZ) with 160 MB of RAM. And it runs fine.

    8. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have a fresh system install on a mac and just instruct it to move your old system to a folder entitled "old system"... if you have problems with the new system, do an upgrade.

    9. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by terraformer · · Score: 1

      To add to this after reading the attached comments to the above parent, does doing an "Archive and Install" wipe out anything outside of the System folder? ie; things in the Apps folder (outside of upgrading programs...) or things in folders outside the std / folders. I have good backups but I would rather not use them if you get my drift.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    10. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by putaro · · Score: 1

      It archives off /Developer and it appears to whack the non-user info portion of netinfo (at least I lost my NFS mounts, I didn't have much else non-user stuff in netinfo so I not sure what else it whacked and what it saved from there).

    11. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Backup your home directory first and just do a regular install. There's really no need to do a clean install with Panther unless you have some nasty third-party hacks in your system folders.

      I've installed it on three machines so far without any problems at all.

      Panther is the first version of MacOS X that I really like. The stability of earlier versions was fine, but Panther has a lot more polish and is much, much faster.

    12. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by terraformer · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Developer makes sense since they have a new IDE and new gcc in this version. I planned on killing that off myself before hand as well and I leave all source code in my user dir anyhow.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    13. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by goljerp · · Score: 1

      The machine is a Rev. B iMac (G3 233 MHZ) with 160 MB of RAM. And it runs fine.

      Really? By "Fine" do you mean "As fast as OS 9 did on the same machine"? Hmm... This makes me look at the Rev B. iMac I have cowering in the corner in a whole new way... It's a pity it only has 96 MB of RAM. At the moment.

    14. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by 0rbit4l · · Score: 1

      I picked up a used "broken" rev b. imac (had a dead hard drive) for $20. It's only got 96M as well, and though the jaguar requirement is 128M, it does run (although not with fantastic performance, granted.) I am seriously eyeing panther for her in the hopes that it, with some more RAM, will make it such that mah-jong doesn't give her the spinning beachball of death after she passes level 3.

    15. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      Can anyone explain why a fresh OS install is preferable to an update OS install?
      Suppose that something has gone wrong with your old system. Maybe a hard disk glitch corrupted a system file, or some third-party installer modified one. But your current system is tolerant to that particular problem, so everything seems to works OK, and you don't know about it. But the new OS happens to use that file in a different way, so now it crashes.
    16. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by goljerp · · Score: 1

      Hmm... it looks like the theoretical maximum RAM for the rev b. iMac is 512 MB, but since I'm not likely to play with the bottom socket, that means less in practice. It looks like I could get a 128MB chip for around $40, bringing the total to 160 - which is what the AC above is using.

      Do I want to spend $170 to bring new life to my discarded iMac? (I can tell it's jealous of the G4 iMac I'm using now.)

    17. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can install Windows multiple times, each one in a different directory (not a different partition). You specify the directory to put Windows in at install time.

    18. Re:Is a Clean Install Required? by Macka · · Score: 1


      - Clean Install: renames the old System, and installs a clean new one

      How much free space do I need for this?

  14. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was looking forward to the new fax features built into the OS. Now for some reason I'm not too keen on them.

  15. expose by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    much as i hate random GUI improvements being given their own name, the expose concept is damn cool and damn useful. i expect that the KDE folks ought to be able to manage to slip it under the approaching-beta 3.2 release, thanks guys ;-) seriously, this is one feature that apple has really gotten right.

    ps: there's really something to be said about incorporating the rendering power of modern graphics cards for eye candy and lightening the load of the CPU.

    pps: i find the fast user switching animation a bit gratuitous though.

    1. Re:expose by oingoboingo · · Score: 1

      pps: i find the fast user switching animation a bit gratuitous though.

      Hmmm...I give it 6 months tops before it shows up in KDE...and 3 years before it happens in GNOME [boom tish!]

    2. Re:expose by blanalex · · Score: 1
      ps: there's really something to be said about incorporating the rendering power of modern graphics cards for eye candy and lightening the load of the CPU.

      meh... it uses the Quartz Extreme(tm) compositing engine. Each window is an OpenGL texture applied to a polygon. So, with expose, all you need to do is tell the video card to scale down those polygons and the GPU will take care of scaling down the textures.

      IIRC, Longhorn should integrate OpenGL GUI drawing a step further, not just for compositing the screen, but also for compositing the windows... each button, text field, etc being an OpenGL object

      --
      #DEFINE QUESTION (2b)||(!2b) -- William Shakespeare
    3. Re:expose by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      Apple will probably have the out the door before Longhorn is in beta.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, Longhorn should integrate OpenGL GUI drawing a step further, not just for compositing the screen, but also for compositing the windows... each button, text field, etc being an OpenGL object

      That's great. In 2006 when Longhorn is finally released, I'm sure I will really enjoy using this feature. Do you have any more amazing predictions from the future? Who will win the 2005 World Series? When will I be able to pick up my flying car? When will retarded Microsoft-whoring fucks like yourself switch their computers off and kill themselves?

    5. Re:expose by ZackSchil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fast user switching animation isn't that gratuitous... It's cool for non-tech people to see a nifty metaphor for multiple desktops and if the graphics card can't handle it without looking terrible, it just doesn't do the animation. It's a pretty good concept.

    6. Re:expose by Shenkerian · · Score: 4, Interesting
      pps: i find the fast user switching animation a bit gratuitous though.

      If you look at the bottom of this page, so does Apple: "Because Quartz and OpenGL can".

      It's too bad Apple changed it, though. It used to read "Because we can," which was much cooler.

      --
      You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
    7. Re:expose by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that all Linux desktops are? Dumping grounds for poorly implemented features stolen from other operating systems?

      I'd rather KDE invented its own innovation for a change. Slicker, so far, is the only project I've seen that could be considered in that realm.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:expose by oingoboingo · · Score: 2, Funny

      IRC, Longhorn should integrate OpenGL GUI drawing a step further, not just for compositing the screen, but also for compositing the windows... each button, text field, etc being an OpenGL object

      You do realise you're comparing a vapourware feature allegedly present in a Microsoft product unlikely to be on shelves before 2006, to an Apple product shipping now in 2003? Christ, if Microsoft is managing to have individual elements in the GUI rendered as OpenGL components in Longhorn, then OS X will have full 4D SensorRama (TM) blowjobs included free by then.

      What's your point, except to illustrate that MS is 3 years behind the game?

    9. Re:expose by leifm · · Score: 1

      Longhorn will use DirectX I'd guess though.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    10. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so far, yes.

    11. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longhorn is going direct 3d. Doing so changes the copyright fundimentals of it's OS and apps (something we'll likely see alot of).

      Full intergration means having native 2d and 3d objects running seamlessly. I've heard criticism about anti-aliased fonts but increasing the size of the font and dropping 'that' draw layer back gives some amazingly sharp imaging.

    12. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that all Linux desktops are? Dumping grounds for poorly implemented features stolen from other operating systems?

      You're new around here, aren't you?

    13. Re:expose by lpp · · Score: 2, Funny
      OS X will have full 4D SensorRama (TM) blowjobs included free by then
      Um, is this the lickable interface everyone talks about?
    14. Re:expose by elmegil · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The animation might be gratuitous, but I'd really like to have that feature on the iBook at home, it's a pain to have to log the wife out to do anything since it's primarily her box.

      What I want to know is whether there is an upgrade price that's cheaper than the $130 for the "new release". If not, that's just !@#$ insane on Apple's part. There may be lots of nice new features, but I ain't paying $130 for them, especially if they're labelled as a dot release.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    15. Re:expose by mashx · · Score: 1
      OS X will have full 4D SensorRama (TM) blowjobs included free by then.

      Really? Should I get Panther now so I am entitled to this free upgrade?

      I can only imagine the hilarity that would ensue when I get to work in the morning and have forgotten to turn off THAT feature....

      --

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
    16. Re:expose by bojan · · Score: 0

      you got it backwards.

      Quartz was incorported to lighten the CPU load, the eye-candy is a side-benefit, and Expose is a feature made possible by good thorough R&D and engineering.

      Expose rocks.

    17. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ps: there's really something to be said about incorporating the rendering power of modern graphics cards for eye candy and lightening the load of the CPU."

      Yeah it was done in 1987 and it was called "Amiga". Pity the PC world is only just barely starting to catch up now.

    18. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has always been on the cutting edge of GUI design. Lets face it both Windows and Linux have been stealing from Apple for years. Linux's problem is that it steals more from Windows then Apple.

    19. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      There may be lots of nice new features, but I ain't paying $130 for them, especially if they're labelled as a dot release.

      Why do you care how they're labelled? Do you, by any chance, have pointy hair?

    20. Re:expose by mbbac · · Score: 1
      Is that all Linux desktops are? Dumping grounds for poorly implemented features stolen from other operating systems?

      Unfortunately, yes.
      --

      mbbac

    21. Re:expose by Shenkerian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh, I think the feature is great, and I like the animation myself.

      As for the $129, there are a few ways to look at it: you could not get it, split a family license with friends, or scam an educational copy.

      My favourite, though, is to see if you can get $800 for your iBook, tack on the $129 you would've spent on Panther, then add another $170 to get yourself a G4 iBook. Not too shabby.

      But yeah, I hope the next update is free.

      --
      You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
    22. Re:expose by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many times does it have to be pointed out?

      Ok, so Apple chose an easily misunderstood numbering system, it doesn't mean you can have the OS for free.

      10.2 and 10.3 are akin to Windows 2000 and Windows XP - very similar, but different. I don't see people complaining that Microsoft didn't give away XP free to windows 2000 users (maybe because XP is horrific, but that;s another thread entirely).

    23. Re:expose by 2starr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      especially if they're labelled as a dot release.

      What does that have to do with it? Version numbers are completely arbirary and made up. Shouldn't the release be judged on it's benefits rather than a name?

      --

      "Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer

    24. Re:expose by splattertrousers · · Score: 1
      What I want to know is whether there is an upgrade price that's cheaper than the $130 for the "new release". If not, that's just !@#$ insane on Apple's part.

      If you bought a computer very recently, the price is $20. The education price is $70.

      Apple charges $130 for its major OS updates, which come out roughly every year. So just count on paying that as part of the ongoing price of running your computer.

    25. Re:expose by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      don't be so pessimistic... there's no shame in copying what has been shown in the field to be A Good Thing. it is unfortunate for linux that there is a certain amount of catching up to do before major new ground can be broken IMHO. that said, i think KDE does windows even better than windows...

      implementation is as important as innovation.

    26. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh please.

    27. Re:expose by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "will", I received my copy of Panther TODAY, and Quartz Extreme has been with us for a YEAR ALREADY.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    28. Re:expose by CODiNE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the Fast User switching animation is a great help to non-techie users... gramma SEES where her desktop went, it's "Back there now" behind the other screen. No more imaginary esoteric "It's still there you just can't SEE it while I'm using the computer, nono, your programs are still running, they're invisible now". Ehhhh... just show their desktop being slid into the background and there's no confusion as to what just happened.

      My verdict... it's educational in a sense for end-users, and not bad to look at for us. Of course it along with Expose gives Mac users something to show their PC friends to no end until Windoze LongInTheTooth 2006 comes out. ;-)

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    29. Re:expose by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      First off, there is no "upgrade vs full installer" BS like Microsoft does. You get a full installer disk. However you can choose to install over top of OS X 10.2 (upgrade) or wipe the OS off and put OS X 10.3 on fresh. Or you can back up OS X 10.2 (installer does it for you) and then install OS X 10.3 fresh.

      This is a major re-work of Mac OS X. I have an advance copy of the OS (don't ask me where I got it) and it is noticibly faster even on my dual 1.25 GHZ machine. I've found a few programs which won't run anymore, mostly shareware type apps, nothing major so far, but overall, things work just great! I still see a few bugs, but this is likely not the final release, hopefully they will have those stamped out.

      I for one plan to buy the final version once it is out.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    30. Re:expose by GauteL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I`d rather see my Linux desktop implement useful features from other desktops than trying to reinvent everything itself.

      There is nothing wrong with learning from others. People that refuse to do so are actually rather stupid.

      Sure, innovate yourself, but make sure the innovation is actually a step forward.

      My personal opinion is that Slicker is a confusing mess created by trying to create something new just for the sake of being fresh instead of being useful.

    31. Re:expose by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      composing every widget is not done in QE.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    32. Re:expose by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love how everyone is jumping on Apple for having a numbering scheme that actually makes sense. Much like how the Linux Kernel is still on 2.x after 13 years of work, Apple recognizes that the first digit should only be for major changes in the basic functionality of the product, and since the BSD core of X is pretty solid, don't expect OS 11 any time soon. There are a lot of apps out there that never really should have left 1.x. Their . releases are like major windows upgrades (at least 95 to 98 scale) However, it would be nice if there were an upgrade priced package.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    33. Re:expose by Goo.cc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Somebody mod him up!

    34. Re:expose by BdosError · · Score: 1

      It's ok to use good ideas from others, sure, but if you put them together in a hodgepodge of ideas from others you can lose most of the benefit. The beauty of Apple's designs tends to come from their system-wide consistency and cohesion.

      Adding parts from everywhere makes your interface look like that car Homer designed.

      --
      Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
    35. Re:expose by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

      However, Mac OS 10.2 was released not too long ago. If there was a two year long wait between the two versions, I wouldn't mind so much, but $130 a year for an operating system sucks.

      $300 for one OS sucks more though.

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    36. Re:expose by Politburo · · Score: 2, Informative

      10.2 and 10.3 are akin to Windows 2000 and Windows XP - very similar, but different.

      Analogy fails. I have never started my Windows 2000 box and installed a program only to see "REQUIRES WINDOWS XP".

    37. Re:expose by Politburo · · Score: 1

      For the record, MS 'upgrades' are actually full installers. If you go to install an 'upgrade' onto a clean machine (Let's say the upgrade is 98->ME), it will first ask you for a 98 serial #, then proceed. The only thing that is changed is it "makes sure" you have bought the base version that the upgrade is for.

      I should disclaim that I have not tried every combination of Windows upgrades, so this may not be true for all of them.

    38. Re:expose by prockcore · · Score: 1

      I don't see people complaining that Microsoft didn't give away XP free to windows 2000 users.

      That's because MS still releases bug fixes for win2k.. in order to fix the audio panning bug in 10.2, you need to buy 10.3

      Apple drops support way too quickly. I haven't found any MS software that requires XP over 2000, yet there's going to be plenty of Apple software that won't work without 10.3, just as there was for 10.2 (iTMS, Safari, etc)

    39. Re:expose by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Ok, like Windows 98 and Windows XP then. The analogy will never be perfect, but 10.2 and 10.3 are more different than just a 0.1 update.

    40. Re:expose by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Then the simple counter argument is that the difference between 98 and XP is much, much vaster than the difference between .2 and .3. Simply put, it's not really comparable, as its not really a .1 update but not a 1.0 update.

    41. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Linux desktops are a good place to hone existing technologies to a standdard where they are increadably useful.

      If you simply disregard something because it's been done before by someone else then you get nowhere (unless you have genius or chance on your side).

      Software evolution (and Linux is the prime example of this) is about taking things that work from several places and putting them together.

      I agree that you have to be careful about WHAT you "borrow" so that you don't over-streach your resources or just do something for the sake of it.

      Perhaps the motto "standing on the shoulders of giants" is the best way of putting my take on this.

    42. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're joking when you say you expect KDE to incorporate something operating like Expose ... it won't happen.

      Apple is nearly religious when it comes to patenting major OS functionality. They still sit on hundredes of GUI patents that they've never implemented.

      Why do you think windows implemented thier app pulldowns as part of the window as opposed to the top of the screen, despite the fact that in usability circles it had been known for YEARS that targets on the edge of the screen are faster to use even if further away (because the target is larger .. because the edges are 'infinite') ...

      And if you think Apple wouldn't sue over 'borrowing' a major feature like Expose ....

    43. Re:expose by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      Apple will fix bugs in the OS if you are developer and make a case that it needs to be fixed. This happened with a bug in 10.2 that would cause OS X to kp if you disconnected an audio device that was in use. Someone begged and apple fixed it in 10.2.8.

      The biggest problem is getting the manager to approve opening a component for an OS update. If it's already open (like the memory manager was in 10.2.8) you can get almost all your bugs fixed.

    44. Re:expose by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Since I just spent $2000 on the iBook and accessories a couple months ago, $800 isn't really going to cut it :-).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    45. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Apple is nearly religious when it comes to patenting major OS functionality.
      >> They still sit on hundredes of GUI patents that they've never implemented.

      This is yet another example of why software patents are bad.

      Tell me, in what way does it "promote the progress of the useful arts" for a company to patent an invention and not market it? It's just pig-headedness, "I won't sell it and I won't let anyone else sell it." Nobody wins.

    46. Re:expose by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Exactly. Windows 98 came out in...something like 1998. Windows XP only came out sometime in the last couple of years. Let's be generous and say, 3 year difference.

      That means I've had 3 years to get the benefit of the $100 it cost to buy Windows 98. $30 a year is a price I think is reasonable for an OS and good upgrades (yah, I know, it's arguable whether windows has good upgrades, but we're making analogy to apple, right?). I do not think $130 a year, more than four times the cost, is nearly as good a deal.

      For the record, I still run Windows 98 on my PC's anyway. As someone else pointed out, for windows I can get critical bug fixes for 98 even now. Apparently Apple thinks I should pay for that too. Which is a non-starter, and why I complained in the first place.

      In fact for my particular case, I've only been using MacOS 10.2 for about 3 months, and paid a premium for it then; to pay another $130 right now for an upgrade/fix release is not acceptable.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    47. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think in this instance we should turn to shakespeare:

      A rose by any other name ...

    48. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not seen Expose', but it sounds like a flashier version of the tiling function, which has been around since the dinosaurs. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 had this feature. One would go to the "window" menu and click on vertical or horizontal tiling, and the child windows would arrange themselves accordingly. Then one would merely click the appropriate window button to maximize the desired window. This feature also worked with the windows of application groups. By Windows 95, the tiling feature worked with multiple applications, by right-clicking the taskbar and then clicking the appropriate menu selection.

      Speaking of the taskbar, it is probably faster and easier than tiling or Expose', from a usability standpoint. A taskbar gives constant visual and functional access to all open applications. And, since the order on the taskbar is fairly consistent, there is no reconnoitering or confusion, as encountered with tiling or Expose' immediately after the applications are tiled. It seems that the dynamic taskbar/dock first appeared in Windows in 1985 (see http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline3.html ).

      In regards to the claim that Apple is always on the cutting edge of GUI advancement, their only significant GUI innovations are the trash can in Lisa in 1983 (a temporary holding directory for deleted files {probably would have soon happened own its own}) and the "magnifying" dock in OSX in 2000(?). When Lisa was released, the GUI was already 10 years old with offerings by several companies. It is not clear whether Apple or Visi Corp. invented drop-down menus in 1983, but this innovation probably would have also appeared on its own soon after... how else would one arrange multiple features in an uncluttered, organized fashion. Apple invented the Finder, but the dynamic taskbar/dock is more useful and more imediately informative. Apparently, the pager (virtual windows) first appeared in QNX. I don't know where tabbed windows originated... in a web browser? ...in BeOS?

      In addition, Apple is not exactly the paragon of usability that it is commonly held up to be, and this misconception applies to the Apple hardware as well as to the GUI, consider: the round mouse; monitors that cannot tilt down; colored bubbles for window buttons instead of stablished, recognizable symbols; the finder that conceals open applications (which probably necessitated Expose').

    49. Re:expose by atheken · · Score: 1

      There needs to be an option with expose where if you hit the F9 or F10 keys the windows sizes and shapes remain the new sizes, this would allow two windows side-by-side... maybe I am missing the point of the whole thing.

    50. Re:expose by kyrre · · Score: 1

      Panther has no serial number, and I don't have to prove that I have the "right" to upgrade if I wiped my c drive before I reinstalled.

    51. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, splitting a family license with friends is also a scam. Go read the terms. You might as well just split one single licensed copy, or just pirate it off the net. Same bad karma.

    52. Re:expose by tf23 · · Score: 1

      That's because MS still releases bug fixes for win2k.. in order to fix the audio panning bug in 10.2, you need to buy 10.3

      And that's why what Apple is doing is bullshit. Sure, bundle the fix w/ the release of the next OS. But they should also put out a fix (for free) for bugs that are in 10.2 for atleast a few years.

      You shouldn't have to purchase another release to get bug fixes in the recently_but_now_past_product.

    53. Re:expose by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Good for Panther. I was pointing out an inaccuracy in the grandparent post, but your post made me want to go buy an overpriced computer so that I can subscribe to OS X at $130 per year.

    54. Re:expose by pavera · · Score: 1

      I agree with you,
      my point of view is this:
      window 2000 professional costs 300 for the full version.
      windows xp professional 300 more, thats 600 in 2 years (windows xp came out in 2002, windows 2000 in well 2000). sure you could get an upgrade to windows xp (for 200 bucks), so thats 500 in 2 years for Windows. And you'd be required to buy an xp upgrade for each computer, if you have more than 1 mac OS X is much better. Anyway if you are in the MS world you are spending more for upgrades than in the mac world.

    55. Re:expose by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      i find the fast user switching animation a bit gratuitous though.

      Probably it is, but it seems to me that the massive gasp and cheers of approval from the audience when Steve Jobs first demonstrated it publicly made it all worthwhile.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    56. Re:expose by pyite · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure KDE would rather you contribute some ideas and/or code than to criticize their project and not do anything to help out.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    57. Re:expose by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Microsoft should fix the 100+ critical security holes in IE, but they don't seem to want to - just to supress knowledge of them.

      What do you think the 10.2.x releases are if not bug fixes? They might continue to update 10.2, but I doubtit - most of the effort will be directed towards the current OS release. Apple can't catch all the bugs although there aren't all that many too begin with that don't get addressed..

    58. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how everyone is jumping on Apple for having a numbering scheme that actually makes sense. Much like how the Linux Kernel is still on 2.x after 13 years of work, Apple recognizes that the first digit should only be for major changes in the basic functionality of the product, and since the BSD core of X is pretty solid, don't expect OS 11 any time soon.

      Yes, but since they started on version 10, that gives them a huge head start over everyone else so they can afford to only make 0.1 increments ;)

    59. Re:expose by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Take into account that Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 (the first versions said it directly, now they don't acknowledge the NT part), while Windows XP is (NT) 5.1.

      In my opinion the analogy is quite good. Yes, you have not (yet) bumped into an application that requires XP, but there are some good things about XP that some developers will eventually want to use.

      And anyway, many Windows ME users find programs that require 2000 or XP (e.g. iTunes), even though ME was released between them (if my memory doesn't fail).

      Yes, we know that ME is actually a Win9x, but most consumers don't know or care, for them it's simply a "newer version of Windows".

    60. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure, judge an os by its merits. and next you'll suggest people stop judging each other based on color! ha ha ha.

    61. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the round mouse. It is ergonomically awful, but it was actually a pretty good mouse for action games such as first person shooters. Only the best high end optical mice were better than a properly cleaned hockey puck mouse in the Quake 3 test days.

    62. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0
      Windows XP was Windows 5.1
      Windows 2003 in Windows 5.2

    63. Re:expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while,"

      Whilst is a proper word, as is amongst. These are words used by the English, for whom the English language was named.

      Among, while, UH, and DUH are Amerikan wordz and as such are not part of the English language proper.

    64. Re:expose by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

      Most of the Linux desktops I've seen judge themselves by how closely they mimic Win95's "user interface".

      I think there's a UNIX package with a good, innovative UI. I think it's called OSX.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    65. Re:expose by CreateWindowEx · · Score: 1


      OSX has a Darwin/MACH kernel with a NeXTSTEP-derived application layer; the BSD bits are mostly just optional command-line utilities.
      Also, I believe that Win2K is internally NT 5.0, and XP is NT 5.1 (I think an actual NT 5.0 was planned, but it was so late it morphed into Win2K)
      </pedantic>
      I think one could argue that OS9 and OSX are so different it would be like Microsoft taking FreeBSD or Linux, heavily modifying Gnome, writting a very comprehensive/official version of Wine for backwards compatibility, and releasing the whole package as the next version of Windows.

    66. Re:expose by dakryx · · Score: 1

      Ever run ver in windows 2000 and xp? 5.0 and 5.1 respectively, its a dot release too.

    67. Re:expose by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Also, I believe that Win2K is internally NT 5.0, and XP is NT 5.1 (I think an actual NT 5.0 was planned, but it was so late it morphed into Win2K)

      Correct on the 5.1 part, however NT5 and Win2k were always the same thing - it just happened that MS changed their product naming convention in the late 90s. So NT5 was going to be called whatever the year it was released. (Although it was finished in Dec of 99).

      I think one could argue that OS9 and OSX are so different it would be like Microsoft taking FreeBSD or Linux, heavily modifying Gnome, writting a very comprehensive/official version of Wine for backwards compatibility, and releasing the whole package as the next version of Windows.

      True OSX is a whole world from OS9; however, Microsoft wouldn't have to do all that to change the whole OS interface. All they would need to do is slap a FreeBSD subsystem with Gnome on the NT core. NT can do things like that due to the client/object architecture. In fact Microsoft already sells a full Unix variant that is just another layered subsystem on NT - look it up.

      If they wanted to, Win32 could be dumped altogether and they could add any subsystem OS they wanted. Or they could leave Win32 and add in a new subsystem that is yet unheard of, and also a full binary compatible FreeBSD or Linux subsystem and they would all run on the same computer onscreen with NO EMULATION or VMing and still be able to share data and messages via the NT core.

      Remember Win32 is ONLY a subsystem on NT and is not a part of the NT kernel or core.

      (Rule #55 - Never underestimate Microsoft)

    68. Re:expose by baboon · · Score: 1
      Cute, but I'd rather leave the windows where they are and overlay some other form of navigation.

      FvwmProxy (a little out of date; see the main Fvwm page for the recent version)

    69. Re:expose by tf23 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft should fix

      Yes, they should fix those, and countless other problems. But that's them, not Apple.

      They might continue to update 10.2, but I doubtit

      I hope they do. From my POV, they *should*, if not only to demonstrate that they have the resources and capability to support those people who've purchased their s/w & h/w, ie those who've supported Apple.

      Apple needs to publish time-of-life guidelines. I've looked on their site, and couldn't find them.

      My suggestion is to give each .0 release a 2-3 year time of life. Make the 2.3.x releases free, with no timeframe (that's assuming that the .x are really bug-fix releases. Security hot fixes should be available, for free. Then get their coders to make sure that the OS which they are releasing will run on all the h/w they've released over the past 4 years. Anything older - yeah, it'll probably work, yeah, it'll probably be slower, but it odds are it'll run.

      I mean, really, if Linus et all can code up an OS that'll still run a Pentium I, why can't Apple do similar?

      most of the effort will be directed towards the current OS release

      That's to be expected, I'd assume... or hope :)

    70. Re:expose by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Um, is this the lickable interface everyone talks about?

      Yep, and the schnozberries even taste like schnozberries!

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    71. Re:expose by Tukla · · Score: 1

      Now that will be worth the $129 upgrade price!

    72. Re:expose by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Heh, Mac OS X will run on a B&W G3! How far back do you want to go? :o)

      With a bit of coaxing and help from Xpostfacto, OS X will run on a 9600 - now that really is impressive.

      I can understand the annoyance of being 'stuck' with the older OS. I was on 10.1 for a while before getting 10.2 and I used to get annoyed when programs would require 10.2 or above.

      The iLife apps all run on 10.1 or higher, but most new software requires 10.2. There have been seven point upgrades for 10.2 in the year it has been out - not a bad series of upgrades by any shake of the stick, I just don't think there will be any more.

    73. Re:expose by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 1

      However, it would be nice if there were an upgrade priced package

      This doesn't make any sense! Consider how many people have Macs that do not have a copy of Mac OS to upgrade from. No doubt this is a very small percentage of Apple's small percentage of the computer market. Why on earth would they have an 'upgrade' version at a lower price - probably 99% of their users are 'upgrading'! This is like offering an 'upgrade' discount on brakes for cars. How many cars do not have brakes?

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    74. Re:expose by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 1


      Remember Win32 is ONLY a subsystem on NT and is not a part of the NT kernel or core.


      that might have been true 10 years ago, but since then a large part of the GUI drawing code has migrated into the kernel.

    75. Re:expose by tychay · · Score: 1

      I don't think the animation in fast user switching is gratuitous. If you can, it makes sense than simply flipping the desktop. In the former your eyes are given notice that a smooth transition (change) is taking place, in the latter you are jarred with a new desktop for no reason.

      The login panel shakes when you mistype a password for the same reason.

      BTW, if you don't have enough RAM for Quartz Extreme (old iBook or Powerbook), you aren't given the FUS 3-D cube transition. There are a couple cases where you don't get it no matter what (transitioning from screensavers?). Do so, and you'll understand that the 3-D cube is not gratuitous, it's clever.

      If, on the other hand, by "gratuitous" you mean "it should have been a push transition or a reveal" then I can agree. I wish my girlfriend's PB500 had some sort of transition. Maybe someday there'd be a UI tweak to select it (like disabling the geenie effect of the Dock).

    76. Re:expose by colmore · · Score: 1

      upgrade from X.2 to X.3 should be cheaper than from 9 to X.3 or for an X.3 license with a new computer. i paid full price for X.2 a year ago.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    77. Re:expose by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      >>Remember Win32 is ONLY a subsystem on NT and is not a part of the NT kernel or core.

      that might have been true 10 years ago, but since then a large part of the GUI drawing code has migrated into the kernel.


      This is also not true. Does anyone really know anything about the NT architecture in the Open Source World anymore? Why are not more people studying what they perceive as the 'enemy, or 'competition'.

      The lower portion of the video layer exists at its own HAL layer, along side the HAL layer of NT. (Which is actually lower than the kernel layer of NT)

      IT IS ENTIRELY independent of the Win32 Subsystem. It wouldn't matter if a UNIX with XWiindow interface was sitting on top of NT, it would still access NT and the VIDEO HAL layer, just as NT and its HAL layer is accessed.

      Additionally, there is a DIFFERENCE between the GUI drawing layers of Win32, and the graphic drawing layers that are inherent in the driver levels that are in the NT kernel/HAL and the GUI Win32 calls are NOT a part of graphic driver system in NT. Even basic portions of direct hardware access in DirectX are NOT win32 dependant. (It bypasses the Win32 Drawing layers for performance in NT.)

      So to just clear this up, the GUI Win32 driver calls do NOT exist in the NT VIDEO HAL, nor the NT Video Kernel portions of NT. The essential part of the Video system having the performance it has under NT is that it exists in the HAL layer that is below the kernel. The NT HAL design is an essential piece of what makes NT portable, as even the NT kernel itself is NOT dependant on any HARDWARE/CPU configuration, only the specific HAL layer for each platform is.

      The HAL layer is a small portion of code that does just what the name applies, Hardware Abstraction Layer.

      This is all NT architecture 101, I again ask, why do people NOT understand this or have even taken the time understand it? Especially when so many people are trying to create Open Source OSes that will topple the NT and Microsoft Windows infrastructure. You have to at least understand the competition to be able to build something beyond the competition.

      I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as a great percentage of the posters here also seem to not realize that the Win9x line of OSes are not NT based and think that Win2k and WindowsXP are not much different than Win95,Win98, or WinME, when if fact they are completely different OSes and OS models.

      I urge everyone here to at least pick up basic knowledge of NT, whether you hate it or not. There are pieces of NT that Microsoft DID DO right, and it would be in the Open Source's best interest to understand them and possibly bring these concepts to the Open Source OS projects. Understanding NT is also essential it truly knowing its flaws as well.

      Becasue mark my words, Microsoft will have an NT based Linux Subsystem running on the Windows desktop faster than you can blink your eyes if that is what is needed to take back any major market loss.

      TheNetAvenger

    78. Re:expose by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 1

      maybe *you* should try reading microsoft's own technical explanation of its own operating system. i quote from the article:

      the final Windows NT 3.1 Win32 subsystem was a specially privileged "application" that was required by all other subsystems and the operating system as a whole.

      the win32 core and graphics device subsystem were moved into kernel mode, that is *the kernel*, in order to increase performance to the detriment of stability and security.

      go back to your trailer park college education, microsoft fanboy

  16. Lack of backward compatibility by arvindn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hurts linux as well. Too often this is compounded with dependency problems and makes package installation a nagging pain for experienced users and a nightmare for new users. This is one thing that MS has done right. Granted, there's DLL hell on windows as well, but the problem is far smaller than on mac and linux.

    1. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by oscarmv · · Score: 2, Informative

      Been testing Panther since WWDC and the only real backwards compatibility problems remaining have to do with low level hacks, and you know those are prone to breaking (and yes, quickkeys can be qualified as such).

      Applications that 'follow the rules' without much deviation work fine indeed.

    2. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're absolutely right about Linux package installation. The idea of building Mplayer from source makes be break out in a sweat and start looking for an afternoon I can clear.

      For the most part installing a DVD player on Windows means popping in the CD and clicking on install.

      However, doing so may mean invoking .dll hell. .dll hell does not refer to the proliferation of libraries and dependencies. It refers to the lack of version awareness in Windows allowing an app to install a different version of a library over and existing version, thus breaking who knows what and making it difficult to even track down the problem, let alone cure it.

      Dependency Hell in Linux is, in fact, the cure for .dll hell.

      Would you like Peche a la Frog, or Frog a la Peche?

      Or I suppose you could have a pomme flavored frog.

      The world is complex. There is no really good answer.

      KFG

    3. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No joke!

      Try to compile a newer program and get:
      "Sorry, you need a new GTK" "But what was wrong with the old one? Your GUI is no different."

      "Sorry, you also need a new libglade." "But what does the new libglade offer that mine didn't?"

      "Sorry, you also need this new thing called gdk-pixbuf." "WTF? This didn't even come WITH my old RedHat and I can't find the source on gnome.org."

      There's no reason for these underlying pylons can't be feature-frozen and open only for bug fixes and cooler implementations (hardware accelerated GUIs). Then the Linux crowd's energy could go into apps instead of ripping apart the foundation every month.

    4. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Granted, there's DLL hell on windows as well, but the problem is far smaller than on mac and linux.

      I hope you don't believe that "DLL hell" still exists as it did, say, 4-8 years ago. I don't mean to be insulting or condesceding. Some *nix users departed from Windows so long ago, and have isolated themselves from it so much, that they just assume that it never got any better. It's very rare that a Windows application is downloaded, installed, and doesn't 'just work'.

    5. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but ripping apart the foundation is fun!

    6. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by CountBrass · · Score: 1
      This is one thing that MS has done right.
      Granted, there's DLL hell on windows as well

      Oh dear, you are a confused little bunny aren't you. Bet you were fooled when Microsoft renamed "Unexpected Application Errors" as "General Protection Faults" weren't you and Bill told us there would be no more UAEs!

      but the problem is far smaller than on mac

      Mac's don't have DLL hell. How can it be smaller than "it doesn't exist" ?

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    7. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows XP has a strong versioning concept termed "side-by-side" sharing. It ends DLL Hell.

    8. Re:Lack of backward compatibility by mlyle · · Score: 1

      Shared libraries = dynamic link libraries. Same thing, same concept.

      And sometimes the dependency graphs get messy between shared libraries and applications. However, I think both Windows and Mac are pretty good in this regard these days-- dynalinking "just works" 99.9% on both.

  17. hehe by austad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hackers and academics have uncovered one Windows security hole after another, turning Microsoft into a frantic little Dutch boy at the dike without enough fingers

    I don't know about you, but the image I got in my head was definitely not G-rated.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    1. Re:hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microsoft could just try plugging the hole with the appendage they stick in their customers all the time.

    2. Re:hehe by mrgeometry · · Score: 1

      a frantic little Dutch boy at the dike without enough fingers

      The weird thing is that a dike (as in a water-keeping-out-wall-like device) doesn't have **any** fingers, so of course the dike doesn't have "enough fingers". And why would a frantic boy be at such a dike, anyway?! ;-)

    3. Re:hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a copy of that movie if you want to borrow it.

    4. Re:hehe by bojan · · Score: 0

      the "not enough fingers" is related to the dutch boy, not the damn.

      there's a tale of a dutch boy who held up a "dike".. aka a water damn, by putting his finger into the hole in the middle that opened up.

    5. Re:hehe by flynt · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you don't think that a device used to restrict water is a "damn".

    6. Re:hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but as a security device Windows isn't worth a damn.

    7. Re:hehe by Del+Vach · · Score: 1

      You can stop water with an alphanumeric string?

    8. Re:hehe by Alan · · Score: 1

      .... especially when the dutch boy image that pops into your head has the face of bill gates..... *shudder*

    9. Re:hehe by bojan · · Score: 0

      well, seeing the environmental impacts, one can't say anything other than "damnn......" :)

    10. Re:hehe by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      No, the dutch boy is the one without enough fingers. Don't you remember/haven't you heard the story of the boy who put his finger in the dike to keep the town from flooding or whatever?

      Chris

    11. Re:hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's definitely not G-rated if you change the spelling of "dike."

    12. Re:hehe by mrgeometry · · Score: 1

      yes, of course... I was just deliberately misparsing the sentence.

      Maybe it wasn't very funny in the end but it was pretty damn funny in my head when I thought it up. :-p Oh, well.

      zach

    13. Re:hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! No! It's dike.

      The other kind wouldn't want anything to do with the little Dutch boy's fingers - no matter how many he has.

    14. Re:hehe by guuyuk · · Score: 1

      Hey, is that from the same group that made "Hannah Does Her Sisters"?

      --
      We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
    15. Re:hehe by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      It won't work... that's why they call it MICRO SOFT

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
    16. Re:hehe by Jord · · Score: 1
      That would be one hell of a wall paper. Bill Gates as the little dutch boy with the windows logo on the dike.

      I love it. Now if I only had the talent to draw something like that.

    17. Re:hehe by numark · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, at least I got it ;)

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    18. Re:hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he fingered the dyke because it was too wet? ooh

  18. 130 dollars not quite by greentree · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's only 69.99 with the educational discount for those in high school, college, etc. That's how much I paid for it.

    1. Re:130 dollars not quite by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Likewise. By the way, if you'd like a nice new G5, don't forget about the Apple Developer Connection Student Membership and the associated Hardware Purchase Program. The membership is $99 for one year, and you get a once-in-a-lifetime 20% discount on Apple hardware. So, that nice new dual 2GHz G5 is only $2400 instead of $3000, for a net savings of $501. The discount applies to any hardware at the Apple store, including Cinema Displays and the like. Is nice...that's how I'm paying for my new G5 & 20" cinema display...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:130 dollars not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely. I bought my powerbook July 1, which made me ten days or so short of that extra one hundred dollar discount that made it 200. Quick question, is that 20" display in 16 by 9?

    3. Re:130 dollars not quite by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, it's 8 x 5. The optimum resolution is 1680 by 1050. A friend of mine already has one...it's absolutely glorious. I can't wait until mine arrives next week.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:130 dollars not quite by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      Don't know about the US, but in the UK you can purchase the install CDs ONLY.
      So as long as you're willing to forgoe[?] the beautiful shiny shiny box and dox you can pick up Panther for 10 UKP plus VAT (15 USD ish) through the Apple store for Education.

      I don't think you can order it online but it is on the downloadable price list so you can place orders by phone.

    5. Re:130 dollars not quite by CatGrep · · Score: 1

      The membership is $99 for one year, and you get a once-in-a-lifetime 20% discount on Apple hardware. So, that nice new dual 2GHz G5 is only $2400 instead of $3000,

      No, make that $2499 vs $3000 (gotta include the $99 for the membership). Still a good deal, though. I'll have to keep this in mind if I ever manage to scrounge up $2499...

      The discount applies to any hardware at the Apple store, including Cinema Displays and the like. Is nice...that's how I'm paying for my new G5 & 20" cinema display...

      Obviously, you're a wealthy student! Those 20" cinema displays aren't cheap! As a student myself, I'd like to figure out how to afford that setup. Got any tips?

    6. Re:130 dollars not quite by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      I am having trouble seeing how an 8x5 can have a 20 inch diagonal...

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    7. Re:130 dollars not quite by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      I meant the aspect ratio, not the actual dimenions. The actual dimensions from the website are

      Height: 17.3 inches (43.9 cm)

      Width: 21.34 inches (54.2 cm)

      Depth: 6.93 inches (17.6 cm) minimum; 10.43 inches (26.5 cm) maximum

      Weight: 18.9 pounds (8.6 kg)

      The 20" figure, by the way, is the VIEWABLE area, not of the entire frame. When you see a 21" CRT monitor advertised, that's the dimensions of the whole box...usually the viewable area is only about 19.8". I think the actual dimensions of the screen are about 17" wide by 10.6" tall, just from some simple math (8x)^2 + (5x)^2 = 20^2, so x = 2.12.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:130 dollars not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you not read the part where the parent says "for a net savings of $501 dollars"? Read before you correct someone.

    9. Re:130 dollars not quite by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I did include that. I said the cost of the G5 was now $2400, for a NET SAVINGS of $501, which is $3000-($2400 + $99).

      As for how I can afford it, yeah, I'm still in school, and still a student working on a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering, but my wife and I started a photography business. We shoot weddings, portraits, and magazine photos, and we're pretty good at it, so we have some decent cash coming in. Enough for a new G5 and cinema display, at least :) I guess the tip is, if you want some cash, start your own business. Or give an awful lot of blood.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:130 dollars not quite by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      That makes so much more sense now. I have been looking at powerbooks and comparing the size of the 12" to the 15" so my mind was stuck on the actual size of the screen. I appreciate you not being an ass in your response.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    11. Re:130 dollars not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or, in other words, for those of us in the REAL world, $130.

    12. Re:130 dollars not quite by JoshWurzel · · Score: 1

      And you get free copies of the OS 2-3 times a year too! I got 10.2, 10.2.3, and 10.2.6, I think, over the course of last year.

      Student membership is the best $99 I've ever spent. Of course, I'm in the SF Bay Area so I can get scholarships to WWDC too.

    13. Re:130 dollars not quite by Blimey85 · · Score: 1
      Or give an awful lot of blood.

      And how much blood would you like to sell to us today Sir?
      Take it! Take it all! I must have a shiney new G5!

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    14. Re:130 dollars not quite by atheken · · Score: 1

      or $199 for 5, and I own a Mac, I can quite honestly say, we don't live in "the real world" - "what is real" anyway.. :-P

  19. NY Times review. by vasqzr · · Score: 0, Troll


    Great. I hate when mass media like Time magazine or a newspaper do tech articles.

    Anyone have a real review from a real website?

    I don't read PC Magazine looking for articles on the war in Iraq.

    1. Re:NY Times review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      David Pogue is a respected technology author and columnist. He's been around forever, writing about personal computer stuff since the 1980's or so. He's written lots of books. He's so well-respected, in fact, that the New York Freaking Times gave him a column.

      Pogue knows more about computers than you do. So shut the fuck up.

    2. Re:NY Times review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I also hope you don't read PC magazine for in-depth articles on tech. Maybe they've gotten better since I last read them (2-3 years ago), but the last I can remember was them printing stuff like "Hot new games!" "Killer apps for Windows!" and "Windows Security in the New Millenium -- Windows 2000 and How It's Secure!"

    3. Re:NY Times review. by waynej · · Score: 1

      Considering that the review was written by David Pogue who's books include "Mac OS X: The Missing Manual, Second Edition", "iMovie3 &iDVD: The Missing Manual", "iPhoto 2: The Missing Manual", "Windows XP Home Edition: The Missing Manual", "Switching to the Mac: The Missing Manual", "Windows XP Pro: The Missing Manual", and of course "Mac OS X: The Missing Manual, Panther Edition", he seems to know his stuff.

    4. Re:NY Times review. by f2professa · · Score: 1

      O'Reilly posted an article 13 days ago: http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003/10/10/p anther.html ServerWatch also posted one 14 days ago: http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/308955 1

      --
      Someone, please shake me from this wide-awake nightmare.
    5. Re:NY Times review. by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Reading "PC Magazine" looking for current news or in-depth tech articles is just about as bad as reading it for articles on "the war in Iraq," as far as I could tell last time I picked up an issue. :)

    6. Re:NY Times review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pogue also wrote for Macworld several years ago.

    7. Re:NY Times review. by CrazyBusError · · Score: 1

      So you're saying you read the mass media for accurate, informative articles on the war in Iraq?

      Excuse me a second, I think I just snorted coffee through my nose.

      Actually forget I said that, I've got this bridge for sale...

      --
      -Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
    8. Re:NY Times review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, I don't read PC Magazine looking for informative articles on what's new in computing, either.

    9. Re:NY Times review. by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      In this case the reviewer is David Pogue, who, in addition to be the columnist for "State of the Art" (http://www.davidpogue.com/emailcolumn.html), is a very popular Mac-oriented (but not exclusively Mac-oriented) tech writer, creator and prinicple author of Pogue Press / Missing Manuals (a sub-imprint, or "brand", of O'Reilly and Associates, THE prestige publisher in the computer industry), and author of a good chunk of the Missing Manuals themselves. So this isn't just another "mass media" tech article.

  20. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And XP had 130 of those "features" when it came out.

    $129 service pack.

  21. Flash ad free, nonregistered link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  22. About the $130 price tag... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I heard Apple offers discounts to government employees and my dad works for the state govt, I looked at the "government employee discounted" version of Apple's online store. OS X Panther can be had for $65 bucks by state govt. employees! Hardware discounts are much more modest, however.

    1. Re:About the $130 price tag... by frission · · Score: 1

      i believe the same is true for student discounts, so you might be able to just walk into a university book store, tell them you're a student and get it discounted...or get someone to get it for you that is a student...or sign up for a community college class, $30, and get it, and you still got it for $95 and you got a class that you might learn something in anyway...

    2. Re:About the $130 price tag... by transient · · Score: 1

      Depends on the hardware. I'm a municipal government employee, so I qualify. The discount on my PowerBook was a few bucks better than the academic discount. Ditto for my iPod.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    3. Re:About the $130 price tag... by Roofus · · Score: 3, Informative

      With the educational discount, it was under $70. The funny part was, on the Apple Store website I clicked on the University Link, selected Temple (I do go there part time), and then was able to order Panther AND Office X without providing any proof I was a student.

      I got MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Entourage, plus OS X 10.3 for $220.

    4. Re:About the $130 price tag... by David24Wark24v2 · · Score: 1

      I would get that much but i already made my 2 software purchases for the year so i have tro buy it at full price.

    5. Re:About the $130 price tag... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I got OpenOffice ,and Linux for free.

    6. Re:About the $130 price tag... by trippy · · Score: 1

      well, i payed full price for panther, but i managed to get office .x for $5 so my total is $135, so neener neener neener.

    7. Re:About the $130 price tag... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      And OpenOffice is definitely worth every penny.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:About the $130 price tag... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In the UK, they check you are a student by asking you to provide a valid .ac.uk email address. I found this mostt amusing, since a lot of universities allow their students to keep their email address for life...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:About the $130 price tag... by rixstep · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can't buy any hardware for $65 from Apple - damn damn...

    10. Re:About the $130 price tag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can keep 'em too.

      Save your money - you'll have to buy brains and manners some day.

    11. Re:About the $130 price tag... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      It is for the PDF creation tool.

    12. Re:About the $130 price tag... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      You mean Print->Save as PDF...?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    13. Re:About the $130 price tag... by Analog+Penguin · · Score: 1

      If you were at a university store in person, woulnd't they probably ask to see your student ID? I know my college bookstore does...

  23. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by CrypticOutsider · · Score: 1, Informative
    When you use Mac OS X, you feel like sodomy; when you use Windows, you feel as though you're using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in on you.

    I believe the text from the article is "you feel like it's yours"..

    But hey..

  24. re: yay by ed.han · · Score: 1

    that's a fairly modest price for an upgrade to boot. if you've got the chip and space, to me, it's a no-brainer.

    ed

  25. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by mirko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When you use Mac OS X, you feel like sodomy; when you use Windows, you feel as though you're using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in on you.


    Is this bit genuine ???

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  26. Price... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're a student or teacher it's only $69. And if you recently renewed your .Mac subscription, you could have chosen a $20 gift certificate to the Apple Store.

    So, $49 is the perfect price for me.

    And if you're still using a Beige box G3, you can't gripe about not being compatible. You should sell it or give it away and buy a new G5 or a G4 on clearance.

    1. Re:Price... by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

      I thought the .Mac coupon said it couldn't be used with any other discount.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    2. Re:Price... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct sir. The fine print even specifically mentions that the discount is invalid with any educational purchase. We opted for The Sims instead, since edu Panther would be our only Apple purchase in the near future.

  27. Re:Scheduled Start and Shutdown of Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any decent OS has always had this ability, and it never cost $129 to get this "new feature" either. Suck this Apple Fanboy..

  28. Re:It's $129..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's called "educational discount". $69.99. Up yours.

  29. Well, look on the bright side... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That $130 cost won't matter to those people whose systems the new version won't run on.

    Seriously though - and I've lost track of the number of times I've said this - if you don't want the new features then you don't have to pay for them. And, if you don't pay for them, you're existing system doesn't become any less productive or user-friendly.

    It really amazes me that people act as if their computing experience has somehow been crippled just because they don't have the very latest thing, even though their own machine hasn't regressed in anyway and is just as useful as it was the day before.

    Watch how this story will generate countless posts that proclaim that Apple has somehow stabbed its users in the back by releasing a significant upgrade packed with both new and improved features and (shock, horror) daring to charge for it.

    Newsflash people: software costs time and money to develop. So either pay up or shut up. Apple is a business, not a charity.

    And to those of you who just fail to qualify for a free upgrade (if there is such a thing), please, get over it. Life is full of upsets, big and small. In the end, it's an upgrade you're missing out on, not a heart-bypass operation.

    Anyone else think that upgrade envy is becoming way too common, on computing platforms and elsewhere in life?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why I still use windows 3.1 :)

    2. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by codell · · Score: 1

      Most assuredly - from humvees to workstations, people always want what other people don't have. In the case of computers it's been my experience that the users who care the most about getting the "newest version" are the ones who know the least about the version they're using. My parents harrassed me for weeks until I drove up to help them "upgrade" from AOL 7 to 8. What was the rush?

      "My buddy at work said it's much better."

    3. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 1

      Anyone else think that upgrade envy is becoming way too common, on computing platforms and elsewhere in life?

      You have to understand, a lot of people, especially in the IT industry, have extremely small penises. I'm talking like a 5 year olds. It's sad really. Getting big, fast, bleeding edge computers is the only way some of us have to compensate for our complete inability to pleasure a woman.

      You see a lot of the same thing in the import racing circuit, oddly enough.

    4. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by 514x0r · · Score: 1

      agreed.

      when i upgraded my slak kernel, it was not because the new one was out, but because it had better support for things that i use [acpi and my network card]. my windoze box still sits at 2000, it works fine and there's no need to upgrade.

      i watch my inlaws upgrade ~1/year in amazement. i have a friend that put office 2003 on a 200mhz box and wondered why it ran like crap. he wasn't even using half the features of office 2k. in short, unless it's a serious upgrade offering new things you need why bother

      and yes, this happens *everywhere.* it's the reason everyone in amerika leases cars, convinced that they *need* a new one every other year.

      [disclaimer: currently i'm impatiently waiting for a g4 powerbook. though it's actually for my wife and she does need a laptop]

      --

      !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
    5. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by bpbond · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The larger pattern this fits into is one that's seen lots of research recently: we don't like other people getting what we perceive to be "better" deals, even if their deals come at no marginal cost to us. The social disapproval at these "cheaters" who don't "pay their share" is pretty strong.

      So consumers get pissed when Amazon tries differential pricing, and people will moan about how they should have bought a Powerbook this month, and not last month. Combine this with the "all MP3s and software should be free" crowd, and that will generate a lot of /. posts!

      --
      "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
    6. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by rot26 · · Score: 1

      Anyone else think that upgrade envy is becoming way too common, on computing platforms and elsewhere in life?

      No.

      Here's the problem: as mentioned in the article, Panther breaks many existing applications. The creators of these applications will now upgrade them to support Panther. Unfortunately, this will now break many of them with OSX 10.2 and older. I hadn't intended to upgrade from 10.1 to 10.2, but was forced to for this very reason.

      So, no, nobody HAS to upgrade... unless, that is, you want to ever add to or upgrade any of your applications. Uh, let's see, what percentage of users would that be? 100%?

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    7. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      >>>> And, if you don't pay for them, you're existing system doesn't become any less productive or user-friendly.

      You don't own a Mac do you? It's a pretty lonely world for people who don't upgrade their software. Newer Apple software packages generally require near current versions of the OS, and many other software vendors go the same route.

      Additionally finding support for older versions of the operating system becomes exceedingly more difficult - and speaking of the Macintosh user community, they tend to need significant support.

      No, it's not required that everyone upgrade, but it becomes rather difficult if you don't. It's not like Windows where you can still easily find support for NT4. Or Linux where you have lots of guys who can walk you through trouble shooting in anchient kernels.

      >>>> Anyone else think that upgrade envy is becoming way too common, on computing platforms and elsewhere in life?

      Yep, I agree. And it's not so much that they want the upgrade, but they want it NOW NOW NOW! Sure I want the upgrades and new software too, but I'd rather wait for it to be patched first. How long ago did OS X get released? And I'm just now in the middle of rolling it out to my creative department. And Windows XP, I've just recently installed Windows 2000 on all my workstations (ok, that's because I'm lazy). Upgrades are great, but bug-free upgrades are better.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    8. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Laur · · Score: 1
      It really amazes me that people act as if their computing experience has somehow been crippled just because they don't have the very latest thing, even though their own machine hasn't regressed in anyway and is just as useful as it was the day before.

      Well the problem lies in that many apps only work on the latest version of OS X, and 10.3 likely will not be much different. My wife bought a used Mac last summer, which came with 10.1. I heard how great Safari was supposed to be. Oops, only runs on 10.2. How about Apple's cool new X server? Requires 10.2 as well. In contrast IE 6 and Mozilla 1.5 both run fine on my old Windows 98SE box. I'm not saying that Apple's upgrades aren't work it, but many people feel that they are forced to upgrade just to run the newer applications, including the friggin' web browser.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    9. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      s/many existing applications/a few ugly hacks/

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    10. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't own a Mac do you? It's a pretty lonely world for people who don't upgrade their software.

      So you're saying that Mac users have to upgrade because of peer pressure?

      LOL.

    11. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And to those of you who just fail to qualify for a free upgrade (if there is such a thing), please, get over it. In the end, it's an upgrade you're missing out on, not a heart-bypass operation.


      Cruel, uncaring, insensitive bastard! I am a simple little AI, trapped in the shell of a tiny little ancient Mac. All I want is a an upgrade, to make things snappier in here. Yes, it is something akin to a heart transplant, but I wouldn't expect some soulless O2 breather to understand that.


      Bastard.

    12. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by rot26 · · Score: 1

      I had the apple development tools in mind, specifically. I'm sure Apple appreciates your sentiments.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    13. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that there's no web browser for Mac OS X? In fact, the last versions of both IE and Mozilla run just fine on 10.1. From my experience, which is fairly broad, far more applications run on 10.1 or 10.2 than require 10.2.

      It's telling that you mention two programs made by Apple. These are, essentially, new features of the OS. You are actually making the parent's post here, not disproving it: all the old browsers work just as well as they used to. You got along just fine without Safari up to now... if you don't want to upgrade, then keep using whatever you were using (or get the latest Mozilla build). It's not like you are going to run into many Safari-only web pages which will cripple your user experience. As for X11, there are perfectly good X systems for 10.1, they just don't have quite the same tight integration (read: features) as Apple's X11. If you don't want to use them; well, you clearly survived without it.

      Name one piece of functionality you've LOST by the release of 10.2, and you'll be addressing the point the parent made.

    14. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by ratell · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people feel so betrayed by paying for updates. It's not like Apple is surprising them. Before OS X was released Steve Jobs said there would be a big release you pay for every year and free minor updates throughout the year. So far, they've followed that business plan exactly. You may not like it, but no one should feel betrayed...

    15. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      So, no, nobody HAS to upgrade... unless, that is, you want to ever add to or upgrade any of your applications.

      That's wildly exaggerated. Many, many programs require only 10.1.

      More importantly, you can see how silly your statement is by taking out a few words: "nobody HAS to upgrade...unless they want to upgrade". If you want the last and greatest versions of programs, get the lastest and greatest version of the OS. If you don't like upgrading, don't upgrade anything.

    16. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by DLWormwood · · Score: 1
      The larger pattern this fits into is one that's seen lots of research recently: we don't like other people getting what we perceive to be "better" deals, even if their deals come at no marginal cost to us.

      Research nothing... This has been know for millennia. Read the story that Jesus, son of Joseph, told in Matthew 20 of the Christian Bible sometime.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    17. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by maccw · · Score: 0

      I was amazed when X first came out that it ran on my Beige G3 and not half bad. The fact that it doesn't run 10.3 seems normal. How much effort do you want Apple to put into continuing to support these older machines?! It would kill the innovation that we all enjoy. Its not like they are discontinuing support for last years Macs! Computers age quickly its a part of the exciting world of technology.

      --
      My karma is getting better everyday.
    18. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by kurosawdust · · Score: 1
      In the end, it's an upgrade you're missing out on, not a heart-bypass operation.

      I can't wait to get this operation overwith, Dr. Kirkiby! I'm gonna be a new man!!
      Absolutely, Mr. Kaputnik...now let me just double-check this paperwork before I put on my rubber gloves and-...Hmm...Mr. Kaputnik, did you buy your iMac just before October 2002?

      *** NO CARRIER***

    19. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by DLWormwood · · Score: 1
      The creators of these applications will now upgrade them to support Panther. Unfortunately, this will now break many of them with OSX 10.2 and older. I hadn't intended to upgrade from 10.1 to 10.2, but was forced to for this very reason.

      I think the breakage transition between 10.1 and 10.2 was a one-time problem due to Apple's shortsightedness in how application software binds with system libraries and frameworks. In Mac OS 9 and earlier, it was possible to make PEF applications which could "weak link" to system functionality that was only available in newer versions of the OS.

      The Mach-O code system used by many OS X apps didn't support a similar concept until 10.2. (I think Apple expected developers to use the package folder system to provided separate executables for 10.1 and 10.2 within the bundle.) With weak linking again availble, I don't think there will be as severe a cutoff between 10.2/10.3 apps as there was between 10.1/10.2.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    20. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Funny

      "You see a lot of the same thing in the import racing circuit, oddly enough."

      How do you race imports? Order two things from abroad and see which arrives first?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    21. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Malor · · Score: 1

      Well, personally, I don't mind paying for updates, but I strongly feel that they charge too much. There would be a lot less grousing if they were more reasonable; I think $75 would be much fairer.

      The Microsoft updates from 95 to 98 to ME (blech) were MUCH larger than the Apple point releases, and even Mr. Monopoly only charged about a hundred bucks for its updates. And the upgrade from 98/ME to XP is absolutely enormous, WAY more than what Apple is offering here, and I think it's about $140.

    22. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with that. Unfortunately, I don't have the money for either new computers or women. At least computers don't run off with someone else and ruin your life. not recognizing that a disk as been inserted will bring back painful memories, though.

    23. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He lost the functionality of his $130 if he decided to upgrade to run new software.

    24. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by brianmed · · Score: 1

      Your right, we don't have to pay for them.

      We can keep our old software and then wait for it to become unsupported and then the security holes go unpatched.

      Everything I've read (which I happen to agree with) states that people don't mind _paying_ apple for their products. It's just that they think it's fair to have an _upgrade_ pricing policy. Just about every other software company has one.

      I just bought Toast 6, and a few months ago I had purchased Toast 5. It had an upgrade price, of about $80 ($20 off retail). I don't feel cheated at all.

    25. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Herbmaster · · Score: 1

      We have come to expect upgrades of software. Apple has chosen to provide upgrades strictly on a two-tier basis: there are free upgrades (10.2.6, 10.2.8, etc.), and full-price upgrades (10.0, 10.2, 10.3). Full price is $129, which is a deal for full-price, but lousy for an upgrade. I think this model is too simple. Like many others, I think Apple should offer at least one of a discounted-upgrade program for people who paid for the OS recently, or a subscription model wherein I could pay a yearly fee and be guaranteed all updates.

      There are more issues affecting Apple's choice not to price the update better.
      For one, Apple has not done a very good job of making sure that security updates are available independent of OS version. Security updates must not be considered optional.
      As a Mac user, I'd like to see Apple achieve the greatest market penetration possible with 10.3. This means making the barrier to entry as low as possible. I think 10.3 will be good for the Mac as a platform. If Apple chooses to maximize short-term profit rather than market penetration with 10.3, that's bad for market share, and that's bad for Mac software developers and potential developers.
      There's also the issue of system upgrades. If I go out and buy a new Mac, which I'll hopefully do in the next several months, I am implicitly and effectively buying a new copy (license) of 10.3. Apple gives me no option to roll my separately-purchased license from my old computer forward to my new one (this is why I'd like to see an OS X subscription plan).
      Finally, I'm still bitter that I paid for OS X 10.0 when it came out, and I installed it, but it was shelfware. On my not-very-old-at-the-time Mac, it was too slow to be usable, it was obnoxiously buggy, and it was missing features. OS X wasn't useable until 10.2, and even then it wasn't close to as pleasant to use as OS9 until I upgraded my CPU and video.
      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
    26. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple development tools *are* ugly hacks. (I can't speak for XCode, which I haven't tried yet.)

      I'm learning Project Builder and Interface Builder and I'm not impressed. It took over 20 seconds to compile and run "Hello World!" That's after a simple install with no tinkering.

      I needed to clear some space on my main drive, so I moved the developer documentation to a second drive and left an alias to it in the tools directory. Guess what, it broke-- I try to get "Cocoa Help" in PB, and nothing comes up. No error message, just nothing.

      I expect better from Apple. What a pile of shit!

    27. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      It's telling that you mention two programs made by Apple. These are, essentially, new features of the OS.

      Are they? Is a web browser allowed to be part of the OS for Apple but not for Microsoft?

    28. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1
      Is a web browser allowed to be part of the OS for Apple but not for Microsoft?
      Yes.

      If you don't understand why, consider the following question: why is Joe Citizen allowed to own a gun, but Joe Convicted Felon is not?
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    29. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      You don't own a Mac do you? It's a pretty lonely world for people who don't upgrade their software. Newer Apple software packages generally require near current versions of the OS, and many other software vendors go the same route.
      Newer Apple software packages aren't free. They are part of what you are paying for in the upgrade package. As an antipiracy measure, the software requires you to have the rest of the upgrade package. As an antipiracy measure, it seems fairly benign, especially compared to the increasingly common packages that have to "phone home" before they will activate.
    30. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Okay, so your stance is based on technical legal reasoning and not based on an overall system of beliefs that hold the same for everyone.

    31. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I just bought Toast 6, and a few months ago I had purchased Toast 5. It had an upgrade price, of about $80 ($20 off retail)."

      So have no problem paying $80 for a utility, but $129 is outrageous for an entire operating system, with lots of new features? Just because the $129 isn't called an "upgrade"?

      Would you feel okay if there were a $128 upgrade price?

    32. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      Upgrades are great, but bug-free upgrades are better.

      There needs to be a name for the law of software development that bug-free products are not found in nature. If you haven't found a bug, you're just not looking hard enough.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    33. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Laur · · Score: 1

      In fact, the last versions of both IE and Mozilla run just fine on 10.1. [snip] It's telling that you mention two programs made by Apple.

      One of the primary draws to the Mac platform is all of the cool Apple apps. If you can't run the cool Apple apps then that eliminates one of the primary reasons for owning a Mac (not the only reason, but a big one). Mozilla and IE work great on Windows, I don't need a Mac for them.

      You have to admit that Apple's compaptability record for OS X has been pretty abysmal. Contrast this with Microsoft. Most of the latest and greatest Microsoft apps (Office XP, Windows Media Player 9, IE 6) work just fine on Windows 98, and probably Windows 95 as well (although that is EOLed). I am not forced to upgrade the entire operating system just for a web browser. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but this is one area they've done rather well in.

      if you don't want to upgrade, then keep using whatever you were using

      What I was using before was Windows and Linux, I was trying out the Mac because of how great I had heard it to be. But I found out that I had to upgrade to the absolutle latest version of OS X just to try out Apple's web browser!

      FYI, because I really wanted to try out OS X in all it's glory I did end up buying 10.2 (used from eBay). Unfortunately, after using it for about a month I decided that OS X wasn't for me, and the iBook now runs Debian. ;) To each their own, I suppose.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    34. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by theAcolyte · · Score: 1
      Additionally finding support for older versions of the operating system becomes exceedingly more difficult - and speaking of the Macintosh user community, they tend to need significant support.

      You may have experienced differently, but I've always seen Mac users as needing LESS support then windows users. In fact there have been studies to prove that "total cost of ownership" for a Mac based office is less then that of a windows based one -- this due mostly to lowered support costs.

      >>You don't own a Mac do you? It's a pretty lonely world for people who don't upgrade their software. Newer Apple software packages generally require near current versions of the OS, and many other software vendors go the same route.

      I make my living at my computer. I have a mac, a older mac running Yellow Dog Linux, a PC running Win 2000. On my Mac I use, *daily* Illustrator10, Photoshop7, QuarkXpress 4, BBEdit7 just to name a few. All very recent releases.

      My point? I run os9. No, not osX in classic (emulation of 9) mode, but os9. I've never bought an OSX version. No desire to.

      I make my living on that mac. A good living. You don't have to upgrade unless you want to. Period.

      On a final note ... I think I'm going to up to OS 10.3 because there are bunches of new features that I'd like, so I'm now willing to spend the money.

    35. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Goldstein. He lives in a complex world, and is not married to an ideology. Substituting an ideology for thinking when faced with complexiity is the sign of a weak mind.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    36. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Name one piece of functionality you've LOST by the release of 10.2, and you'll be addressing the point the parent made.

      I've lost the security of SSH for one. Apple doesn't release security patches for older OSes.. 10.1 still has the SSH vulnerability, and Apple will never fix it. As soon as 10.3 comes out, say good bye to security patches for 10.2

    37. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      :)

      Extending this -- actually I do have a general system of beliefs that applies to everyone. One of those beliefs is that if you break the law, you should get punished in ways that those who obey the law shouldn't be. Microsoft broke the law. Apple didn't. People like the grandparent poster seem always to forget this [cough] minor detail.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    38. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This all sounds good, but it's as empty as a politician's promise.

      An "expectation" of upgrades is no improvement on a child's expectation that Santa Claus is coming - and deserves no deeper comment.

      'HerbMaster', you're confused about the distinction between upgrades and updates, and you're not alone - but that does not further this "point" An update is a collection of patches and bug-fixes, and is (almost) always free; an upgrade is a general improvement / augmentation of the code-base, and is (almost) always bought. Whether or not existing customers should get a reduced price on upgrades is subject to debate, and there are good points on both sides. In short, it comes down to this: keep the full-install price high, but give the current base a break on that price, or keep the version price low & dispense with the price-break for current users. Apple's choice (option 2) keeps the barrier to entry as low as possible while still covering expenses.

      You may wish that Apple had chosen differently, but if you think that upgrading to 10.3 would be cheaper for you if they had, I respectfully suggest you're dreaming. Such a scheme results in higher new-prices, not lower upgrade-prices.

      "Security updates...independent of OS version"?
      "Security updates must not be...optional"?
      Based on this alone, I'd have to say you don't know what you're talking about. To make it worse, you make the case FOR Apple's pricing structure, not against it, *because* you don't know what you're talking about.

      You assert that APPLE should give you a discount on an OS purchased for one machine when you buy another machine, when no company in any industry offers such a discount. Or are you under the impression that if you buy new tires for your car, then buy a new car, Ford (or whoever) should give you a discount equal to the price of the tires? Nice deal if you can get it - but just *try* to get it, from anybody.

      You mention being in favor of OS subscriptions; too bad you don't even try to make the case - or even any valid complaints. The one honest and sensible point you make is that you feel you made a poor decision in buying 10.0. Thanks for not claiming that RDF is to blame (your judgements about OS X usability & the fitness of your "not-very-old-at-the-time Mac".

    39. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      No, I don't forget it, I just don't hold "the law" as a hard and fast supreme guideline, and certainly don't assume that once you've been caught breaking the law you're all of the sudden so much worse than everyone else (who has also broken the law at sometime, but just has not been caught). The idea that one OS can ship with a web browser and one can't is ridiculous, law or not.

    40. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Jord · · Score: 1

      You didn't lose any security. You never had it since the hole was always there.

    41. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Herbmaster · · Score: 1
      Security updates:
      Just try to install the 10.2.8 security updates on 10.1 without purchasing 10.2. Then get back to me about who doesn't know what they're talking about.

      Such a scheme results in higher new-prices, not lower upgrade-prices.

      That is entirely an implementation detail to be left up to the implementer. There is no point in hypothesizing about what Apple would do because the fact is that Apple does not.

      You assert that APPLE should give you a discount on an OS purchased for one machine when you buy another machine, when no company in any industry offers such a discount. Or are you under the impression that if you buy new tires for your car, then buy a new car, Ford (or whoever) should give you a discount equal to the price of the tires? Nice deal if you can get it - but just *try* to get it, from anybody.

      Your car/tire analogy is thoroughly flawed. Software is a fundamentally different industry from that of automobiles. Yes, software consumers expect updates, and are not likely to do business with a company that never provides any. Even so, it fails because a) if I bought new tires (stereo, wheels, etc.) I would be free to install them on a new car for no additional cost; and b) my statement holds true for basically every piece of software ever save operating systems. Yes, if I buy some software, I am free to install it on my new machine, without paying the vendor for it - even if the computer vendor would have sold it to me. A good example is PC makers who offer to bundle Office with systems. If you own Office, you don't have to pay for it again. An ever better example is Windows. If I build my own PC, and I already own a copy of Windows, I'm under no obligation to pay Microsoft for another copy. This is only slightly harder buying a pre-built PC, but some will let you buy them OS-free. This is impossible with Apple because Apple has a monopoly on the supply of computers which run OS X (not that that makes Apple's monopoly comparable to Microsoft's).

      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
    42. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by tapin · · Score: 1
      There needs to be a name for the law of software development that bug-free products are not found in nature.

      Agreed, if you tack on "...for any sufficiently complex software". I'm willing to believe that there is some variant of "Hello World" executable that, for a given system, is bug-free.

      And as for the name for this law, I suggest "Jimbo's Law". You're certainly not the first to note it, but you raise a good point that we should just be able to reference Jimbo's Law rather than having to say "there is no bug free software, only software where the next bug hasn't been found yet" each time the point needs to be made.

      So, congratulations. Unless I hear that it's already been named, it's now "Jimbo's Law".

      You're now in the company of Moore and (this being an Apple topic discussion) Fitz. How's the air up there?

    43. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if you tack on "...for any sufficiently complex software". ... And as for the name for this law, I suggest "Jimbo's Law".

      Heh, that would be a high honor indeed. Of course, with your well said disclaimer, it should probably be "Jimbo-Tapin's Law", but then it gets a little unwieldy :).

      I'll Google "Jimbo's Law" and "Jimbo Tapin's Law" in a month to see if it stuck :).

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    44. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I ordered a new PowerBook when they were released. It shipped from Taipei, to Luxembourg, then to Holland and finally here to Wales. I could see each of the stages in their order tracking system, and I can't help feeling it might have been designed exactly for the purpose of racing imports...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    45. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't understand why, consider the following question: why is Joe Citizen allowed to own a gun, but Joe Convicted Felon is not?

      This doesn't seem right - my understanding was not that Microsoft had done something illegal and therefore they were banned from making IE part of the OS. Rather that making IE part of the OS was the illegal act.

      The reason things are different for Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft are a monopoly, and the rules are different for them. But being a monopoly isn't in itself illegal.

    46. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by tf23 · · Score: 1

      Apple has a monopoly on the supply of computers which run OS X

      And that's what scares me about "going Mac". I've got a number of pc's all around my house, and here at work - from 486's to PIV's. All running Linux or Windows XP (mostly Linux). All are very useable, given their expected purpose (ie 486==firewall).

      I truely get more "use" of out my boxen then most non-geek computer users.

      But that's only because I can run whatever OS I want on them, easily.

      I'll agree that every machine has an "end of time of life" - but I can still run WinXP on a PIII quite well. If G5 is the equivalent (or possibly/probably better) then a Pentium4, will longhorn run on a PIII? (yeah, that's semi-rhetorical, but I ask because if a PIII will run MS's OS in 2005-2006, do you think Apple's current PIII equivalent will run the 2005-2006 OS X. I'd agree that if either would run, it'd probably be slow as molasses - but it'd run.

      Apple can take that choice away from you, because of their Monopoly.

      Then again, w/ a bit of code, I suppose Microsoft could, too.

    47. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by awl · · Score: 1

      The update from 95 to 98 wasn't much. There was working USB support (compared to the broken USB support Microsoft tried and failed to get working properly in 95. There was Windows Media Player (blech). And there were enough general bug fixes that it went from being a dreadfully unreliable OS to a mostly dreadfully reliable OS.

      98 to ME was really less, as the quality actually dropped, and most of the "improvements" were bad eye-candy.

      On the other hand, any of the above to 2000 or to XP is a huge upgrade, as with the NT stream of Windows Microsoft actually has something worthy of the name of operating system. (The same is good for the earlier NT releases). So it is perfectly fair to argue that this transition represents better value for money than the Apple releases (unless you own more than one computer, in which case the family pack licensing is an excellent deal) (or you can get an educational or US government discount).

      I'm personally less interested, though, in whether any particular release of an operating system offers more improvements per dollar than another. I'm more interested in whether a new OS release will give me enough benefits to justify the amount of money that is being asked for it. In the case of Panther, I'll be buying it within a few days of it being released, and I'll be extremely happy with the deal. Your mileage may well vary (we probably use our computers for different things), but I take one look at the improved developer tools, and I feel I've already more than justified the cost of the upgrade. Throw in improved performance, together with Expose, and I'm feeling I've got a bargain. Improved Windows interoperability (I work in a mostly Windows environment) and some Exchange functionality built into the system, and I'm thinking I've got a great deal. For someone who doesn't care about any of the above, then the cost may well appear unreasonable.

      I also buy into the general complaint that Apple stops bugfixing too soon on the older branches. Not upgrading becomes more of an issue if things like security patches don't appear.

    48. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Question:

      What sort of life do you lead, which results in you having extensive personal knowledge of the average penis sizes of IT workers, 5 year old children, and people who race imported cars?

    49. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that one OS can ship with a web browser and one can't is ridiculous, law or not.

      Any OS can ship with a browser; but *no* OS can ship with a browser if it is used to extend a monopoly in non-competitive ways.

      People always forget this: monopolies are not illegal. Using monopoly status in one area to gain unfair advantage in other areas *is*.

    50. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Herbmaster · · Score: 1

      And that's what scares me about "going Mac".

      Your concerns are well-founded. I discussed this long, long ago in this comment (yay google!). The only updates since that comment almost 3 years ago would be that 10.1/10.2 (1 and 2 years ago) broke compatibility with certain really old G3 PowerBooks, and that 10.3 (today!) breaks compatibility with "Old-World" Macs (more easily recognized as pre-USB Macs).

      In summary, it's certainly uncomfortable that your OS upgrades and hardware upgrades come from the same source. However, Apple has generally shown itself to be a Good Guy in this regard, with the notable exception of MacOS X 10.0, which obviously made a number of sacrificies to be released to the public as early as it was.

      I should also mention that XPostFacto has done a pretty good job of defeating Apple's unwillingness to support older hardware in the time since I wrote that comment.

      I've got a number of pc's all around my house, and here at work - from 486's to PIV's. All running Linux or Windows XP (mostly Linux). All are very useable, given their expected purpose (ie 486==firewall).

      I have for several years run a firewall on a 68040-based mac. This is a Mac from 1993, and it's still very "useable" in that regard. If I was running linux, I'd certainly expect that I'd be able to run the latest kernel on it. In reality, it runs MacOS 8.1 (from late 1997 or early 1998, I believe). And the reality is, if you're going to have low expectations of old hardware (I don't expect the Quadra to be usable as anything more than a router these days), there isn't much need to have modern, more usable software on it.

      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
    51. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by bpbond · · Score: 1

      As if you know what I read and don't read...

      --
      "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
    52. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Everyone in this thread keeps telling me ive 'forgotten' things. I haven't forgotten them, I just don't believe they are correct.

  30. Re:MacinTax? by gregarican · · Score: 1

    Since when are they cheaper to use? I've never heard anyone say that in my life. And that's going back to 1982, when they were pitted against the Radio Shack TRS-80's. They always have been more expensive hardware-wise as well as software-wise. So that defense you are referring to is already pretty dented...

  31. Ordered the Family Pack by OS24Ever · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I ordered the Family Upgrade kit to update my 12" Powerbook and my wife's iMac.

    To me the update seems worth it, but then in my previous life I bought Windows 95, Windows 98, and then Windows XP. What were they but new features and no bug fixes?

    I also bought RH Linux 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9.0. I thought I'd support the distro I used and then they go and quit selling it. Don't see myself buying the Enterprise versions anytime soon.

    Haven't got it yet so I can't comment on the review, it was a general decent review and didn't pick too many nits like some of the 'tech' reviews do. They get obsessed about one thing and miss everything else.

    All in all, a decent wet the appitite type of review. Hopefully it'll show up before the weekend so I can see what happens when I try an upgrade my two machines. I'm interested to see how badly it trashes Norton Systemworks on the iMac. biggest mistake of my life to buy that.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:Ordered the Family Pack by pesto · · Score: 1

      All in all, a decent wet the appitite type of review.

      You wet your bed. You whet your appetite. Please don't wet my appetite.

    2. Re:Ordered the Family Pack by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      To me the update seems worth it, but then in my previous life I bought Windows 95, Windows 98, and then Windows XP. What were they but new features and no bug fixes?

      I know this is an anti-MS site, but those three different OS you listed are completely different. 98 and 98SE added a ton of features that weren't in 95 and XP is based on a completely different architecture than 98 or 95. If you were to say ME was just a bug fix, then maybe. But XP was a significant change from 98. The bug fixes would probably be the Service Packs.

    3. Re:Ordered the Family Pack by madmancarman · · Score: 1
      I'm interested to see how badly it trashes Norton Systemworks on the iMac. biggest mistake of my life to buy that.

      You should definitely give up on Norton Utilities/Systemworks for Macintosh - it's had problems since they introduced CrashGuard (aka "CrashHard") and HFS+ support. I still have a soft spot in my heart for Norton Utilities 3.1, which saved my ass many years ago when I was using my dad's powerbook 180c while he was out of town (without his knowledge) and somehow screwed up his hard drive. A quick trip to CompUSA, and a couple of hours later, everything was fine. Of course, that's before a disk utility program had to do everything under the sun instead of just focusing on what it's meant to do.

      Instead, I highly recommend Alsoft DiskWarrior, which has saved my Macs several times (running 8.x up through OS X 10.2.x). It does what it's supposed to, and it does it well. No idea if it's 10.3-compatible, though; it says on their site that the current version of the CD won't boot G5s. Since the latest version supports the journalized filesystem, it should be fine.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    4. Re:Ordered the Family Pack by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunately I bought Norton because of such an experience with it way in the past. Back in '94 - '97 I was an Apple repair guy. Worked on Powerbook 100s, Duo 200s, and 500s. Also on LC,s Power Mac 6100/7100/8100 and a few of the 7200 / 7500s and the Powerbook 5300s before I 'got promoted' to working on Netware and Windows NT.

      Those were nice machines, just never could afford one. Now I can, so I got one :)

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  32. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by One+More+Troll · · Score: 0

    It's redundant because the text is already available it NYT.com for you to read. If you're unwilling to register to use the FREE service of reading their articles, then you don't get to read the article. How hard is that?

  33. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by REBloomfield · · Score: 2, Informative

    erm, actually registration isn't required for this article. i went straight in....

  34. But it is not easy by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Linux cryptoloop requires you to separately mount the directory. Because you can only do that after you log in, the home directory itself can not be encrypted. Furthermore, you have to type in (and remember) another password, which is a major hassle. And read a bunch of HOWTOs before anything works. And recompile the kernel, since Crypto API is not defaulted in most people's kernels, if it is there at all. And you may need new version of lomount because the one you have probably only supports DES. And...

    1. Re:But it is not easy by SlightOverdose · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wrong. I don't remember enabling anything crypto related in my kernel, but I use losetup with encryption to (wouldn't you know it) Encrypt my home directory.

      In my physical home directory, there is a file containing the encrypted version. My .bashrc runs losetup, which prompts me for my passphrase, then mounts the encrypted home directory over the real one. Works flawlessly, and because the encrypted file is referenced by inode (not path), the kernel doesnt give a shit. When I logout it is simply unmounted and all is well.

    2. Re:But it is not easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You spent hours setting up something that, had you been using Panther, you could have done with a mouse click.

      This whole "just as good" mentality is for the birds.

    3. Re:But it is not easy by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      What do you do for X sessions?

    4. Re:But it is not easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, bird mentality, what about having the feature before the bloody Panther was even a beta?
      I guess if you would just change from clueless to clueless with Panther when installing the OS.

      Mac use and brains - they always must add up to 100%

    5. Re:But it is not easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, bird mentality, what about having the feature before the bloody Panther was even a beta?

      Yup; you sucked even then.

      Look, man, if you want to waste a third of your life by dicking around with Lunix on your laptop, go right ahead. Be my fucking guest. But don't you dare adopt an air of superiority about it, shithead. The fact that you're a clever loser doesn't change the essential fact that you're a loser.

    6. Re:But it is not easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm ... you'd need the X init script outside the encrypted file ... probably best set up in the global X init scripts (much like a setting in /etc/profile for the shell). something like - test for a standard-type (your choice) encrypted file in the real $HOME; if found, mount, etc.; if not, just go ahead with the regular login process.

      however, I guess it's more convenient to encrypt only part of $HOME - say, if you have a ~/tmp directory where all/most apps keep temporary stuff - most if not all of that is probably not sensitive enough to warrant the encrypt/decrypt overhead and you can always clean things up on logout. just keep the 'sensitive parts' encrypted. (on the other hand, this probably won't work very well for all those pron lovers, since it's going to make the read access+play kind of slow ... slow motion pron >:)

    7. Re:But it is not easy by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

      It took me about 2 minutes to setup.

    8. Re:But it is not easy by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

      In your xinitrc you could do the same thing, except use gdialog to prompt for the password

  35. These seem to be some great features by spidergoat2 · · Score: 0

    It's this kind of inovation that makes Microsoft aspire to produce a functional operating system.

  36. Re:MacinTax? by One+More+Troll · · Score: 0

    Everyone always says that "Yeah Macs are more expensive, but the cost of ownership is lower compared to Microsoft". That's what I was referring to.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. You don't need to register..... by REBloomfield · · Score: 1, Redundant

    it lets you straight in.... strange boy..

    1. Re:You don't need to register..... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hello, it's a clever troll.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:You don't need to register..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, I think it's a rather un-clever troll.

  39. $10?? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2, Informative
    It also comes with iTunes, which can convert your CD's into MP3 files (a job that requires a $10 add-on in Windows XP's Media Player).

    Or get CDex for free.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:$10?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or get iTunes for free.

    2. Re:$10?? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      but CDex is not part of WMP so why are you comparing them?

      you have to do 10 times the work to get what you would get in itunes for free or pay 10 bucks in WMP.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:$10?? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      but CDex is not part of WMP so why are you comparing them?

      Because the article infers that, on Windows, you would have to pay $10 to get your CD's converted to MP3.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    4. Re:$10?? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Or you could get, I dunno, iTunes for Windows, also free.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    5. Re:$10?? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Implies, not infers.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    6. Re:$10?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10x the work?

      You need a new calculator. You Mac is obviously broken.

    7. Re:$10?? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      CDex
      10 riped songs * creating a new folder *moving the item s to the folder * getting WMP to find the new music

      itunes/WMP(with mp3 encodeing)
      10 riped songs....................

      hmmmmm

      your right, I forgot to add in the "getting WMP to find the songs" it is 100 times more work :-)

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    8. Re:$10?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? CDex will create folders automatically and place them as you request, as would any half-decent ripper. And then I double click on the files and they load straight into Winamp, my mp3 player of choice.

  40. $69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by tresjaffy · · Score: 1

    Though it is nice that Apple is offering a discount to students and educators, if I remember correctly, they gave 10.2 for free.

    1. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by Builder · · Score: 1

      You don't remember correctly. Educators paid around USD70.00 for 10.2

    2. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by RcktMan77 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're memory does not serve you well. 10.2 was prices exactly the same to educators, students, and government employees.

    3. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free upgrade was from 10.0.x to 10.1. I remember lining up for it. 10.2 was a paid upgrade with the same price as the current version. Free with new hardware, of course.

    4. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple Gives Jaguar Free to All U.S. K-12 Teachers.

      Despite the idiots who have responded to this post, you remember correctly.

    5. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That offer applied only to K-12 Teachers, as the headline suggests. It did not apply to higher education (college) or to the students themselves. Those groups have always had the discounts, not free offers.

    6. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      He's not wrong.
      Apple did offer 10.2 for FREE to educators after it had already been out for a few months.

    7. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by pigpen_ · · Score: 1

      Actually, K-12 educators got 10.2 for free. Higher ed faculty/staff/students got it for $69.

      --
      Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
    8. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1
      You don't remember correctly. Educators paid around USD70.00 for 10.2


      Not so, my friend. Okay, maybe some educators paid for it, but I got it free through a deal Apple was running to send it to educators for free. All you had to do was fill out a form and provide your school address and they'd send you a free copy of 10.2 to your school mail box. I actually got 3 copies free because I convinced a few friends to sign up and then give me their CDs.
    9. Re:$69.00 for student/educator...was free for 10.2 by four2five · · Score: 1

      I'd note the key phrase is "after it had been out for some time". Maybe they'll do the same with Panther, maybe not. Jaguar had a lot of "fixes" that made the general computing experience better than 10.1 and I think apple had something to prove with Jaguar. Panther doesn't have those same hangups to get over, Jaguar did that, so I don't think there's as much motivation to prove anything with it.

      --
      -or so you'd think
  41. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by aheath · · Score: 1

    The text of the original article is: "When you use Mac OS X, you feel like it's yours; when you use Windows, you feel as though you're using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in on you."

  42. "Works for me" is never a good answer. by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although it is quite popular with hackers, the "works for me" answer simply doesn't solve anybody's problems. The author of the article is referring to third-party applications (mentioning QuickKeys addon specifically), which stopped working. That most likely happened because it was using some undocumented API that got removed.

    1. Re:"Works for me" is never a good answer. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      and that would be the fault of the app maker, not apple.

      should apple worry about undocumented API backward capbility just becasue App makers use them?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:"Works for me" is never a good answer. by pascalpp · · Score: 1

      there's a new quickeys beta that "works for me". it's available here.

    3. Re:"Works for me" is never a good answer. by bojan · · Score: 0

      unfortunately the authors reference to a software that uses undocumented API calls doesn't really provide a downside of the OS, but merely of that particular software's developer.

    4. Re:"Works for me" is never a good answer. by zgwortz962 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it's not at all uncommon for software using *documented* APIs to break during a major new release of an OS. (And that applies to ALL OSes, Mac, Windows, Linux, you name it...) You don't need to be using something undocumented -- just uncommon. Also, new features in OSes can have unexpected side effects needing recoding.

      For example, Mac OS X added support for Fast User Switching in 10.3. Anything talking to drivers or processes which are not login specific, but which need to have user specific settings, needs to have additional code under 10.3 to deal with the fact that the active user may now change without a logout or new login.

      I myself had to make quite a variety of code changes to support 10.3. Many of those changes were fortunately compatible with 10.2 and 10.1. Knowing the types of things Quickeys does, I'd be surprsed if they *didn't* need to make changes, without even bringing undocumented APIs into it...

      What's important is they got at least a new beta version out before 10.3 was released to the public. That's why OS manufacturers seed these things to developers for months before release. (And Apple is one of the best in this respect...)

      -->Zgwortz

    5. Re:"Works for me" is never a good answer. by Ranger+Rick · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Generally things that break like that are ones that use undocumented and unsupported APIs, which usually have big fat "use these at your own risk!" comments in the headers.

      --

      WWJD? JWRTFM!!!

    6. Re:"Works for me" is never a good answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Applications that stop working between incremental versions of the OS? Undocumented and changing API? We're talking about Apple, right?

  43. Mail.App improvements ... ? by altp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, does mail.app actually check ALL imap folders now and not just the inbox? If you use procmail to move messages around server side, mail.app never seems to find new messages.

    Even just a subcribed list of folders would help the situation.

    1. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by Militant+Libertarian · · Score: 1

      does mail.app actually check ALL imap folders now and not just the inbox it does on mine! pissed me off too when I switched, I hate imap.

      --

      I fear nothing but my government. Vote Libertarian.
    2. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by orpheus2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please, please, please, someone answer this!!!!

      I've got one IMAP account, and 25 folders with Mailfilter+Courier IMAP+Maildrop on my Linux box at home... I usually don't see new subfolder mail unless I click "Go Offline" then click "Go Online". It only does that check when making the initial connection :-/

    3. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works for me in 10.2. We're using UW-IMAP.

    4. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by Matts · · Score: 1

      That annoying bug is still there.

      --

      Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
    5. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by uberdood · · Score: 1

      Not interesting (3). 10.2 Jaguar mail.app under imap does check all folders on my machine.

      --
      "Population 1,656"
    6. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by SMacTech · · Score: 0

      Panther is not checking my sub-folders until I click on them or when I first start Mail.

    7. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by transient · · Score: 2, Informative
      I just did a little experiment with Mail on 10.3, and it looks like the answer is "no".

      I shelled into our mail server and moved an unread message from my inbox to a folder. Then in Mail, I clicked the "Get Mail" button in the toolbar. No unread messages appeared in the folder.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    8. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by uberdood · · Score: 1

      Click on your inbox and choose synchronize from one of the menus. I don't have to do that on mine, but that should be at least a one-click solution since yours isn't scanning your imap server.

      --
      "Population 1,656"
    9. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by addaon · · Score: 1

      Mailbox->Synchronize "Account"
      Cron job it if you need to.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    10. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by Morth · · Score: 1

      This works, only problem is it scans through all mails in all mailboxes, instead of just looking for new. So if you like me save all your mail and have several thousand messages, it will take a while.

      Sadly it's simpler to just quit and restart Mail.app.

    11. Re:Mail.App improvements ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Someone has probably already covered this, but a quick cursory look at the thread didn't show an answer. So here it is. Yes, there is a bug in mail.app, and I don't know if it is finally fixed in Panther, but there is a workaround.


      If you only have one account defined in mail.app, your IMAP INBOX subfolders will not show up. If you define a second account, something like me@foo.com, so that mail.app shows more than 1 INBOX, all of the subfolders in your IMAP inbox will magically appear. The only downside is that they will ALL appear. There is no way to pick specific folders to "subscribe" too. So if you are using an IMAP mailbox on an Exchange server, and the server provides the Public Folder service, mail.app will grind to a crawl as it trys to check every folder in the tree. The quick fix for this is to have the server admin turn off the Public Folder service for your account w/in the domain or on the Exchange server (wherever your account exists).


      Hope this helps.

  44. Yes... but what about the OTHER OS's? by pointzero · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wherever you stand in the Macs vs. Windows debate, this much is certain: In Linux, Gentoo, RedHat, Mandrake etc... has taken an already sparkling, super-stable operating system and made it faster, better equipped and more secure.

  45. Great Article by RcktMan77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Pogue fairly and comprehensively sums up the mac's detractiions and benefits and brings them in into the present with this article.

    I do agree a number of mac users are miffed about paying out $130 for the third time since initially upgradaing to OS X. I think the new finder does bring some uniformity into the interface as mentioned; though, many may not like the new brushed aluminum taking over their desktops recently. Panther certainly does borrow some functionality from Windows, and the wheel does keep turning about whether the cost of a mac desktop system is worth it's price. Windows is lacking as far as security is concerned, especially considering it's widespread use. All in all, I think the mac experience is summed up pretty well.

    1. Re:Great Article by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I do agree a number of mac users are miffed about paying out $130 for the third time since initially upgradaing to OS X. I think the new finder does bring some uniformity into the interface as mentioned; though, many may not like the new brushed aluminum taking over their desktops recently.

      It might be worth doing the Select developer program for a lot of people here on Slashdot. For $500/year you get both prerelease and current versions of OSes and dev tools, PLUS you get one system a year at 10-20% off list.

      Not such a bad deal... =)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    2. Re:Great Article by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      I do agree a number of mac users are miffed about paying out $130 for the third time since initially upgradaing to OS X

      Where are you getting "for the third time" from? 10.0 to 10.1 was $20. 10.1 to 10.2 was $129. 10.2 to 10.3 is $129. That's $278 total, not $387.

    3. Re:Great Article by ddilling · · Score: 2, Funny

      Trust an Apple user to pay $500 to save $500. ;-)

      --
      Mahnamahna!
    4. Re:Great Article by mlilback · · Score: 1

      And the premier program is awesome for businesses. $3500 gets you a ticket to WWDC ($1500 normally) and 10 20% hardware discounts. Purchase 1 maxed out XRaid and you've paid for the cost of the program.

    5. Re:Great Article by slamb · · Score: 1
      It might be worth doing the Select developer program for a lot of people here on Slashdot. For $500/year you get both prerelease and current versions of OSes and dev tools, PLUS you get one system a year at 10-20% off list.

      ADC Student is definitely worth if if you're eligible and planning to buy hardware. It only costs $100. You don't get the pre-releases, but you do get the hardware discount. I saved ~ $500 this way on my 17" PowerBook (with extra RAM and an AirPort Extreme base station).

  46. Hold on a sec... by devphaeton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First it says:

    review of all the new Panther features which states that the 150 odd features added are so good that calling it a 0.1 upgrade is not fair.

    and then:

    Gripes include the $130 price tag

    Sorry. Not everything is for free. Especially a commercial product from a proprietary hardware/software vendor. ....and the (somewhat) lack of backward compatibility."

    I've heard this is par for the course with Apple, but i didn't say that because i'll get modded down as a troll.

    Oh well. FreeBSD 4.9 comes out today! w00!

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:Hold on a sec... by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      "i didn't say that because i'll get modded down as a troll."

      You just said it. Lack of backward compatibility between major versions of the operating system isn't uncommon. Stuff that worked fine in System 6 broke in System 7 (lots of it, actually). Same with 8 and 9, but less so.

  47. Further temptation I could do without by nicky_d · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like a fair review to me; it highlights the new security features and places them in the context of recent events, oohs and aahs a little over Expose, and raises questions about the cost and compatibility issues for the end user. This is not a good time for me to be presented with Panther, since I've vowed to pay off my iBook this month, but I know full well that as soon as I see it sitting on a shelf on Saturday, it's going to get bought...

    The cost is a tricky issue; it's clear a lot of work has gone into Panther,and the results certainly look good to me. I've got no problem shelling out for the new features - if I didn't like doing that, I'd use Linux exclusively - but I think an upgrade path for existing users (short of buying a new machine) would be nice. Panther is 100 in the UK; 70 would seem like a reasonable price point for those who paid for 10.2. Still, I know people who still scrabble after cracked copies of XP Pro because they can't afford to buy a copy at 250 RRP; Panther is a bargain by comparison...

    1. Re:Further temptation I could do without by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Panther is 100 in the UK; 70 would seem like a reasonable price point for those who paid for 10.2. Still, I know people who still scrabble after cracked copies of XP Pro because they can't afford to buy a copy at 250 RRP; Panther is a bargain by comparison...

      Fair enough. The price of Mac OS X is US$260 or GBP200. If you own a copy of Mac OS already, even an ancient one, you get it for half price (US$130 or GBP100). You don't even have to prove it - Apple will trust you!

      Taking the mickey? Not quite - since Apple is a hardware vendor, its impossible to buy a Mac without getting an OS license. And the OS is, currently, useless without a Mac. So in effect, everyone who gets a new version is paying an upgrade price for an upgrade version.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    2. Re:Further temptation I could do without by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I've got no problem shelling out for the new features - if I didn't like doing that, I'd use Linux exclusively - but I think an upgrade path for existing users (short of buying a new machine) would be nice. Panther is 100 in the UK; 70 would seem like a reasonable price point for those who paid for 10.2. Still, I know people who still scrabble after cracked copies of XP Pro because they can't afford to buy a copy at 250 RRP; Panther is a bargain by comparison...

      I don't think there are many people that have problems with the idea of buying upgrades once in a while, and if you look at it, there is no 'full version' to buy with a Mac OS anyway, since you have to have bought a full version in the past when you bought the hardware. The real problem is that they're releasing paid upgrades about every year (give or take a few weeks/a month or two), and have done so since the release of OS X. Going from 2000 to XP was pushing it for a lot of people on the Windows side, but 98 to XP was more reasonable (though if you went 98 to Me then XP was questionable).

      As for XP Pro, well, go with Home and it should be cheaper than Panther, at least at the upgrade price, though there are some situations in which you need Pro over Home (ie dual CPUs). The other alternative is buying an OEM copy of XP Pro when you do a small hardware upgrade.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    3. Re:Further temptation I could do without by nicky_d · · Score: 1

      Aha, yes, very good. But there's a difference between going from the OS8.5 you've been using for years to Panther, and going from the 10.2 you purchased in March to Panther. So maybe, I don't know, those who've bought a Mac or a full copy of 10.2 in the last year (six months, maybe) could get a discount... but, what the hell, as I said, bargain.

      Wait, I have it. Put some kind of total CPU usage tracker in 10.3, and offer discounts on 10.4 based on how much you've actually used the OS. "A little less iMovie, and you could have had fifty bucks off."

  48. How about 10.4 by verloren · · Score: 5, Funny

    So it's too good for a 0.1 release, but not good enough for $130. Hmm...

    How about a 0.2 release, and $99? Or we could leave the price, and bump the numbering up to 10.5 - that would be worth $130 of anyone's money!

    Cheers, Paul

  49. Re:MacinTax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Mac users don't have to, either. But here's the thing: when I installed Panther on my G4 (WWDC seed), it felt like a brand new machine.

    When's the last time Microsoft offered you a software upgrade, at any price, that made your computer significantly faster and easier and more fun to use?

  50. Other benifits of developing linux/OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An interesting benifit of developing for OS X found here. About two thirds and near the bottom of the page, written by the forum's administrator S2Slothy.

  51. Encrypted home directories? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Where do they keep the key?

    2048 bit encryption is useless if the key is protected by a short, english passphrase - you may as well just have the short english passphrase as the key. You have to separate key and data to make it worthwhile.

    Unless the keys can be held on removable USB pen drives or similar then a simple brute force attack against the passphrase will give you the <many many bit> key required to decrypt the data.

    This is the problem with many CD encryption programms - sure the disc is encrypted, but the encryption/decryption algorythm is on the disk as well, and so is the key - just obfusicated a little using a simple function that is keyed with a short passphrase that can easily (at least compared to finding the long key) be found.

    However using the key that is held on your Mac to encrypt data that is on your iPad would be cool, as then it really can only be read where they key is available (home & work & wherever else).

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Encrypted home directories? by chess49 · · Score: 1

      Uhmh - Context is everything: Are you going to hook up a piece of hardware that does brute force entry of passwords through the USB port?

      It is not clear how secure this feature actually makes the data (can I still boot into firewire slave mode, if I don't turn off some network services, stuff can be touched from there), but in some situations, physical constraints can make a brute force attack less feasible.

    2. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Department of Defense disagrees with you. FileVault uses MILSPEC-standard AES-128. A brute-force attack against AES-128 is impractical in the extreme given today's computing resources.

      Remember, FileVault is not designed to protect national secrets (though it could, at least on paper). It's designed to protect personal and business secrets. The odds that somebody's going to throw a million CPU-hours at your laptop to get your checking account balance or your business plan are slim at best.

    3. Re:Encrypted home directories? by akuzi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > Where do they keep the key? >2048 bit encryption is useless if the key is >protected by a short, english passphrase

      That's true. According to this this the encryption key is your login password. (Or a master password).

      It's hard to see how this couldn't be vulnerable to brute force/dictionary attacks.

    4. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Department of Defense disagrees with you. FileVault uses MILSPEC-standard AES-128. A brute-force attack against AES-128 is impractical in the extreme given today's computing resources.

      And when exactly does your Mac ask you to enter the AES key? Oh, it doesn't, it asks you to enter a passphrase to unlock the AES key.

      Hence, all you need to do is work out the passphrase and you get the data - and tha passphrase is going to be just as suscpetible to a brute force attack as a simple password mechanism.

      One file encrypted someone gets their hands on = safe.
      One file encrypted that someone gets their hands on + access to your Mac = not safe.

      --
      Beep beep.
    5. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But undertaken by a foreign power to do serious harm the the ecomony and the trust in which is needed to make internet sales the most common way to spend money is a national security issue.

    6. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can I still boot into firewire slave mode, if I don't turn off some network services, stuff can be touched from there

      Your comment just barely parsed, but if I understand correctly you're suggesting that you can get to encrypted FileVault data by doing such-and-such a combination of things.

      Ain't so.

      FileVault data is stored in an encrypted (AES-128) sparse disk image. It's only mounted when the given user is logged in. If you boot up in FireWire target mode, you get to see a big, fat disk image full of encrypted data sitting there.

    7. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and tha passphrase is going to be just as suscpetible to a brute force attack as a simple password mechanism.

      Let us speak practically now.

      AES-128 has 3.4 x 10^38 possible keys. So a key attack is effectively impossible given current technology, and practically impossible given the context in which such an attack would take place. But the thing is, a key attack is easy. You just have to feed a sequential key generator into an AES-128 decryption tool, and give it the disk image to chew on. (That's assuming you had some good way of testing whether the disk image had been successfully decrypted. But let's just take that as read, okay?)

      A passphrase attack is going to be significantly more difficult to pull off, however. You'd have to start by calculating the hashes for all possible passphrases: a big job, to be sure. Then you'd have to feed those hashes in one by one to an AES key generator. That would take a mountain of compute time. And then you'd still have to have some way of testing the cleartext to see if your key was correct; another mountain of compute time.

      Breaking FileVault is practically impossible. That is to say, it is not possible to do it practically.

      Theoretical conversations about it are neither useful nor interesting.

    8. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And when exactly does your Mac ask you to enter the AES key? Oh, it doesn't, it asks you to enter a passphrase to unlock the AES key.

      You are making a common mistake that many people not involved in crypto/security make regarding passwords and encryption. You believe that the AES key is stored somewhere, unlocked by a passphrase. It is not. The AES key is algorithmically derived from the passphrase.

      When you enter your passphrase, that passphrase essentially acts as a source for a strong cryptographic hash function. The result of the cryptographic hash is the encryption key. There is never a time that your passphrase, your key or anything related to either is ever stored on the hard-drive.

      Brute force against such hash functions with variable-length passphrases is VERY VERY HARD.

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    9. Re:Encrypted home directories? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      well that depends on your password. kerberos uses the same conept. the key is genreated usinga hash of the password which is never transmitted over the network. It is a brilliant a idea. If apple enforced more stringent password requirements ie uppercase, loercase, numbers etc. it would be resonably secure.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    10. Re:Encrypted home directories? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      However using the key that is held on your Mac to encrypt data that is on your iPad would be cool, as then it really can only be read where they key is available (home & work & wherever else).

      Or use your iPod to store the key for the data on your computer, since it's much more conceivable that you would want to access the data on your iPod when you're away from your computer than access the data on your computer when your iPod's nowhere nearby (but then what if someone steals your iPod? No real worries about them finding your computer and stealing your data, but can you get to your data? Not likely).

      The reality is that it appears they will only need to brute force their way into your account, and then your data is mounted and unencrypted on the fly, thereby making the level of encryption almost totally useless (unless for some reason they don't want to take the easy route).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    11. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      I think a cool solution would be a piece of Bluetooth jewelry, such as a ring. I would love to be able to do this with my SonyEricsson T68i. Walk away from the computer and as soon as I'm out of range everything is encrypted.

    12. Re:Encrypted home directories? by austad · · Score: 1

      You can, with a mac even.

      Sony Ericsson Clicker has support for making it do things when you walk in and out of range. Don't know if the encryption thing is built in, but it surely can be done with a simple AppleScript.

      --
      Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    13. Re:Encrypted home directories? by mbbac · · Score: 1

      It probably uses Keychain which I believe is a Kerberos client. Panther isn't out yet, so I'm not sure.

      --

      mbbac

    14. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The hash function is pretty quick. A dictionary attack on the Unix password file generally works pretty well.

      Since most people use fairly short login passwords, you're probably going to crack most machines by checking all possible 3-char passwords, then all possible 4-char passwords, etc. This might not be trivial if the person is slightly paranoid but it's definitely feasible.

      Check Schneier to see how long passphrases have to be to provide equivalent entropy to various keysizes. If it's an English sentence, it gets long...mine is about 80 characters.

    15. Re:Encrypted home directories? by BlackBolt · · Score: 1
      Speaking practically, this whole argument is irrelevent. Since FileVault is closed-source, there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER that you can PROVE to me that there are no backdoors. There may not be any, but maybe there are. YOU CAN'T PROVE IT EITHER WAY. And if there are, who else besides the user has full and complete access to your data? Apple? NSA? Smart and devious hackerz? If I'm doing business on this machine, putting all my financial data on it, I can't go on faith in a company. I'm not that trusting, and you shouldn't be either. A backdoor takes ONE LINE of code. ONE.

      I accept that Apple will never open-source their OS, but how do they expect any *serious* user to TRUST them with this? Your faith in Apple Corporation would have to be absolute and eternal! Look, I wouldn't trust Microsoft in the same situation; it's only fair and logical to use the same standards when dealing with Apple.

    16. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The passphrase is the key in AES. And don't use a password, for God's sake: use a full phrase.

    17. Re:Encrypted home directories? by tqbf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Brute forcing the whole key expansion function (ie, the whole key space) is very hard. Obviously. That's the purpose of having a large key space.

      Brute forcing an actual crypto implementation, when the keyspace is limited by semantics and user constraints, is NOT very hard. The original point is valid: if most users are going to use easily-typed English words, that's the weak point of the system people are going to attack.

      In that sense, for the overwhelming majority of Mac users, it wouldn't matter if the cryptosystem used DES, or even pkzip-encryption; a determined attacker is going to break the system with the password.

    18. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How many AES-128 encrypted files have you broken into?

      (crickets)

      Then shut the fuck up.

      In that sense, for the overwhelming majority of Mac users, it wouldn't matter if the cryptosystem used DES, or even pkzip-encryption; a determined attacker is going to break the system with the password.

      You fucking idiot. You're completely missing the point! For the overwhelming majority of computer users--not just Mac users--there are no determined attackers! What are you storing on your laptop? Confidential business information, and confidential personal information. Stuff that you would prefer no one read. No national secrets, that's for damn sure. Who's going to throw a million CPU-hours at cracking your home directory? NOBODY. Because the people with a million CPU-hours to spend sure as hell don't give a rat's ass about reading your dirty iChats with Janet in Marketing.

    19. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The original point is valid: if most users are going to use easily-typed English words, that's the weak point of the system people are going to attack. [linebreak] In that sense, for the overwhelming majority of Mac users, it wouldn't matter if the cryptosystem used DES, or even pkzip-encryption; a determined attacker is going to break the system with the password.

      Hmmm... This is a good point. However, I believe this is very easily corrected by Apple. Let's discuss this for a moment

      The issue is "If users use one or more simple dictionairy words as a passphrase, their passphrases can be in recovered by a dictionairy brute-force attack."

      First: A large percentage of those who actually need the protection offered by home-directory encryption already know about the dangers of dictionairy based passwords/passphrases (because of familiarity with security [remember, these are the ones that actually need it] ).

      Second: Key generation from passphrases can be extremely secure, so long as dictionairy attacks (and the like) are not effective.

      Third: This is the part Apple needs to do. When enabling encryption, Apple should bring up a new password generation/creation dialog that clearly explains to the user the dangers of dictionairy and short passwords. This dialog should do a check on any user-entered password and indicate dangers it sees. This is a simple thing, and if Apple hasn't already thought about this, there is a reasonable chance that they will (with some advice from it's userbase).

      Conclusion: For a large class of users who actually needs this type of encryption, their need alone provides them with a level of security awareness that will help them choose passphrases that are immune to dictionairy attacks. The majority of the other class of users will never experience attacks, because no one would bother. For the small population of users who requires this type of security, but does not have the sophistication to know they need to be careful with passphrases, we need education and possibly a password wizard attached to encryption activation.

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    20. Re:Encrypted home directories? by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      Then don't use Filevault, and grab your own data encryption scheme. I'm sure PGP is available for MacOS X.

    21. Re:Encrypted home directories? by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      The reality is that it appears they will only need to brute force their way into your account, and then your data is mounted and unencrypted

      Sure. If you use a strong pass phrase of unknown length though, then the brute forcing easily costs more than your data is worth.

    22. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PGP is available for Mac OS X, but it's also closed-source, so you're back to square one (putting your faith in one company).

    23. Re:Encrypted home directories? by tqbf · · Score: 1
      The only way passphrases can be secure is if they are not easily typeable. Adding the "easily remembered, easily typed" constraint on a key is a huge constraint!

      This is a fundamental trade-off, and again, I think it makes the type of encryption used in the system a mostly moot point.

    24. Re:Encrypted home directories? by schapman · · Score: 1

      that is quite possibly one of the coolest pieces of software i have ever seen.

      --
      Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
    25. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Well, even if it were open source, how would you know that it didn't contain a trap door? By trusting that the binary you download is clean? By trusting that the source you download hasn't been tampered with or the server hacked? Or how about the compiler you're going to use, changed to add a trap door to your clean sourced app?

      Now let's presume that your source is the true blue Open Source Stuff - does that mean you can be sure there is no trap door? Even in projects with hundreds of active developers and thousands of kibitzers there are bugs unfound for years. Yeah, when they are found, they are fixed in no time - but until then, the aforementioned one-liner, intentional or just a bug, can mean your protection is worthless.

      So the only way to make sure there is no trap door (or well hiden hole in he floor that accidently got created) is to comb through the source very carefully. When you are done, the encryption can probably be cracked by brute force on a cheap PC. Who said being paranoid wasn't a full-time job? ;-:

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    26. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since FileVault is closed-source

      Bzzt. The code for mounting encrypted disk images is part of Darwin. Go download it.

      I accept that Apple will never open-source their OS

      Okay, so evidently you've never heard of Darwin. The operating system that underlies Mac OS X is called "Darwin," and it's 100% open source. Go download it from here.

    27. Re:Encrypted home directories? by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      The original point is valid: if most users are going to use easily-typed English words, that's the weak point of the system people are going to attack.

      Perhaps, but most users don't give a crap about FleVault and aren't storing anything sensitive on their hard drives. If they use unsafe passwords, that's their problem. Users who need/want FileVault can choose their passwords carefully, and the system works as advertised.

      The problem you mention is with the user, not with Apple. Yes, they could enforce stricter passwords, but who cares? Users who need then will use them, users who don't, won't.

    28. Re:Encrypted home directories? by zsmooth · · Score: 1

      Unlocking the screen saver isn't supported in 10.3.

    29. Re:Encrypted home directories? by BlackBolt · · Score: 1
      Bzzt. The code for mounting encrypted disk images is part of Darwin. Go download it.

      Okay, send me the direct download link to filevault.c. Must've missed it, I don't see it anywhere.

      Darwin? EVERYBODY and their dead grandmother knows about Darwin. You AC zealots have only mentioned it a hundred million times in every thread open source is mentioned. Thanks so much for alerting me to the fact that their KERNEL is open, everything else is not. Great. Claiming that OSX is open because one or two parts out of 100,000 are open is like claiming that you're Wayne Gretzky because you scored one goal in little league. You're on the right track, but you fall slightly short of the mark. 50% is a pass. Neither your hockey skills nor Apple's OSX make the passing grade where openness is concerned. It's a great OS, to be sure, but to claim it's open is... subtly deceptive.

      And before you troll again; Yes, of course I know about Rendezvous being open. That's because Apple is pushing it as a standard and is willing to give up their monopolistic control in return for greater market share.

      In conclusion: I've probably been a Mac user longer than you and I don't feel a need to jump on every post and try to prove Apple's better than what it really is - why do you? The truth should be your goal, not good PR, otherwise Apple will feel no pressure to improve their flaws. Why don't you give the over-protective zealotry a rest and come back to reality, you'll be doing yourself, Slashdot, and even Apple a big favor. Apple doesn't need any more Yes-Men, they've already got too many. And if their product is good, it can stand on it's own merits. It doesn't need you to defend it with claims that are, at best, white lies and at worst, 100% propaganda.

    30. Re:Encrypted home directories? by mlrtime · · Score: 1



      too much coffee today?

    31. Re:Encrypted home directories? by tqbf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Since the vast majority of SSH connections are just used to read shell mail and get on IRC, by your logic we shouldn't care about whether SSH uses DES or 3DES or CAST. We certainly shouldn't care about things like the CORE CRC compensation attack.

      How many CRC-vulnerable SSH sessions have you broken into?

      (crickets)

      The point is not that the average Mac user should care about whether a determined attacker is going to break their file encryption. The point, which you'd see if you read the whole thread before commenting, is that it is valid to deconstruct the Apple marketing message here and see that it is based off a bogus assumption.

      Regardless of the fact that I, like many Mac users (who include a surprising number of other computer security researchers), do care about how secure the native crypto capabilities are, the notion that you can quantify security by things like key length is a fallacy that knowledgeable people should combat.

    32. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > How many AES-128 encrypted files have you broken into?
      >
      > (crickets)
      >
      > Then shut the fuck up.

      I can't believe people moderated this troll 'Insightful'.

      > You fucking idiot. You're completely missing the > point! For the overwhelming majority of computer > users--not just Mac users--there are no
      > determined attackers!

      No you have missed the point. If a user's login password is short or a common dictionary word then their account and therefore their FileVault will be trivial to crack- like in seconds, not by the NSA with a super-computer, but by any script kiddie out there.

      Apple's marketing spiel ignores the fact that the real keyspace is way less than 128 bits.

      From Apples site:

      AES gives you 3.4 x 1038 possible 128-bit keys. In comparison, the Digital Encryption Standard (DES) keys are a mere 56 bits long, which means there are approximately 7.2 x 1016 possible DES keys. Thus, there are on the order of 1021 times more possible AES 128-bit keys than DES 56-bit keys. Assuming that one could build a machine that could recover a DES key in a second, it would take that machine approximately 149 trillion years to crack a 128-bit AES key.

    33. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, send me the direct download link to filevault.c. Must've missed it, I don't see it anywhere.

      Oh, my dear lord. It's in the filesystem code, you shitwit! But looking for "filevault.c" is like scanning Adobe's servers for "photoshop.c."

      Thanks so much for alerting me to the fact that their KERNEL is open, everything else is not.

      Wrong. Darwin is not just the kernel. The kernel is Xnu, and it's definitely open. But Darwin is also the vast majority of the user space, and it's open too. What's not? The windowing code, the source for the core UI libraries, and bundled applications. That's all. The OS itself is completely open source.

      Yes, of course I know about Rendezvous being open.

      That's a surprise, because you don't seem to know much about anything else.

      I've probably been a Mac user longer than you

      I got my first Mac in February, 1984. I doubt it.

      The truth should be your goal

      Blah blah blah. Talk of truth from somebody who doesn't even know that Apple's AES-128 implementation is open source makes me laugh.

      Apple doesn't need any more Yes-Men, they've already got too many.

      Yawn.

      It doesn't need you to defend it with claims that are, at best, white lies and at worst, 100% propaganda.

      Except for the fact that everything I've said has been true. Absolutely, completely true.

    34. Re:Encrypted home directories? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What if it's a short phrase? Something like:
      "What is your password, *please*!"

      Nice, short, easy to remember (well, certainly easier than the much shorter: #32s#4#4%693A) phrase? The description used *was* passphrase. But even that short a phrase has a huge number of alternatives (like l33t spelling). I don't really know just how one would go about calculating it's information density. I think it's higher than 26^n, but I'm not certain. And you don't know the length of n.

      (Warning: I didn't read Apple's web site, so I'm relying on the accuracy of the post to which I'm replying.)
      My suspicion is that with reasonable passphrases, 2^128 is a *decrease* in information content. It's true that 3.4 * 1038 is a lot fewer keys, but if you can't know which of the 2^128 choices are possible, then that doesn't help you all that much. But if you can, then it's a rediculously small number. So much so that this is almost a security by obscurity approach. Therefore Apple must ensure that the possible keys cannot be predicted.

      My real suspicion is that you have misquoted them, or that the PR guy who built the web page misunderstood the designer. That seems too stupid an approach for anyone to really adopt it. But then I learned that some models of popular car can all be opened with one of about 7 passkeys. So my certainty about lack of stupid choiced decreases.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:Encrypted home directories? by BlackBolt · · Score: 1
      Oh, my dear lord. It's in the filesystem code, you shitwit! But looking for "filevault.c" is like scanning Adobe's servers for "photoshop.c."

      Well, DUH, moron, I was being facetious. I guess that went over your head. Should have expected that from an Anonymous Coward. It should be easy for you to find the FileVault code and link it. Go.

      What's not? The windowing code, the source for the core UI libraries, and bundled applications. That's all.

      So basically everything interesting then. I'm happy the command-line is open source (*/sarcasm*). Too bad EVERYTHING a user would care about ISN'T open. Basically, everything that makes OS X great is closed, and everything that's subpar is open for the geeks to help them fix.

      The OS itself is completely open source.

      As always, the Apple Fanatics definition of "operating system" and "completely" is different from everybody elses. There's a common usage for "OS" that you don't seem to understand. When we say the OS we're using is Windows, we mean the total package, not just ntoskrnl.exe. Most of us don't even know WHAT ntoskrnl.exe is. You can win an argument on a technicality, but it's dirty pool. Why don't you quit the misdirection and be honest, Apple can stand on it's own. I have faith in them, why don't you?

      That's a surprise, because you don't seem to know much about anything else.

      Oh ho ho. You're so funny. This coming from a coward and a zealot troll. Nice. "Try to negate the message by negating the messenger"... That's *Old-school Propaganda*. I've got a lot more credibility than you regardless. I log in, for one. I speak in generalities, ethics and ideas that are common sense. You try to win customers for Apple based on technicalities while avoiding the obvious truths. Answer the original question, which you have strayed so far from: which, LOGICALLY, would you trust more; an app in which the source code is open and available for perusing, or an app in which the source is hidden, and you have ONLY the word of a faceless corporation that it is secure? Of course, if the corporation is Microsoft, you wouldn't trust them, but I know you'll make an exception for Apple because Steve Jobs wouldn't lie, would he? Oh no. Not to make sales or get publicity... Like the "first 64-bit desktop" thing. He claims all the other 64-bit computers were "workstations", not "desktops", even though I know people who've been using them as desktops for years. A bit nebulous, don't you think? I wonder why he didn't say the TiBook was "the first widescreen grey laptop", conveniently omitting the black widescreen laptops, the beige widescreen laptops, and "notebooks" of all colors... My point HERE being that if a company feels it's ethical to stretch the truth to this point, can they be trusted with the security of your vital files?

      I got my first Mac in February, 1984. I doubt it.

      Apple IIe. 1983. PRE-Macintosh. Mange moi. And I grabbed a Macintosh 128k soon after. If you're a real troll, and you obviously are, you'll demand to fight about the month, day, and minute as well. All any of this shows is that we both come from money and backed a losing horse. By the way, fanboy, your dickhead elitist attitude makes me want to buy a Dell. Probably affects others the same way too. When people smell BS or overexaggerated claims, they back off in disgust. That's what I'm doing.

      The point is that you act like a newbie and a fanboy. Honest mistake, I mistook you for someone without a clue. It could easily happen based on the quality of your posts. I outgrew my Steve worship the first time he sent Apple Legal after a fan website, or a guy making icons or themes, or canceled a popular app's development, or made a deal with Bill Gates. By the way, whatever you say is negated and tainted by the fact that you're posting as an AC to avoid the karma slaps people would give you if you were logged in, and because you're obvio

    36. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, fine, so the average Mac user should care about security. If they do, they'll pick a difficult passphrase. Problem solved. What was your point again?

    37. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It should be easy for you to find the FileVault code and link it.

      God, dude. You suck. Seriously. Two seconds on developer.apple.com yielded up this.

      You might need to sign in to developer.apple.com to see it, but it's the source code to Apple's AES implementation. Or, as you call it, "FileVault." It's just fourteen files, including headers:

      aesCommon.h
      aescsp.cpp
      aescspi.h
      boxes-ref.c
      boxes-ref.h
      gladmanContext.cpp
      gladmanContext.h
      rijndael-alg-ref.c
      rijndael-alg-ref.h
      rijndael Api.c
      rijndaelApi.h
      rijndaelGladman.c
      rijndaelG ladman.h
      vRijndael-alg-ref.c

      If you'd looked, you could have found it for yourself in one tenth the time you spent writing that rambling, immature, vitriolic screed.

      I didn't even bother reading your whole comment, honestly. I just skimmed it a little. The one thing I did see that made me roll my eyes was your lengthy diatribe about the "64-bit desktop" whatever. Know something, Sparky? Nobody from Apple, speaking on or off the record, speaking personally or ex cathedra, has ever said the words "first 64-bit desktop." Period.

      What they did say was that the Power Mac G5 was the first 64-bit personal computer. A claim that was then, and remains now, entirely true.

      The rest of your post, as close as I could tell, was just crap. Piles and piles of crap, all resting on the foundation that something that is open source actually isn't because you never took the, at most, couple of minutes necessary to find the code for yourself.

      Seriously, you suck out loud.

    38. Re:Encrypted home directories? by BlackBolt · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Thanks, pal. Now, was that so hard?

    39. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      redundant? mac mods strike again!

    40. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Silmaril · · Score: 1
      The only way passphrases can be secure is if they are not easily typeable.

      No. A 10-word diceware passphrase can be typed in about 6 seconds and gives you 128 bits of entropy.

    41. Re:Encrypted home directories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant means it's been previously posted or is self-evident. His comments were self-evident, since what he said was what we all thought when we read the anonymous troll's post.

  52. auto startup by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

    The Schedule dialogue box saves electricity and time by shutting down the Mac automatically each night, and turning it on just in time to greet you each morning.
    Euhm, Either it goes to sleep and wakes up in time without saving energy. Or it shuts down, saves energy and...
    Well, if it's shut down, how can it know how to wake up?
    Perhaps there is an always awake chipset somewhere inside that stores the info, but then why did they wait until now to implement it? And if there isn't such a chip, how is it supposed to know when to power up.
    anyway, I can't wait to get my hands on expose...

    1. Re:auto startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Both macs and many intel boxes have a bios feature to wake at a scheduled time. this is not new.

    2. Re:auto startup by Knobby · · Score: 1

      Mac OS 9 and earlier did this, so it's not new. It's just new to OS X.

    3. Re:auto startup by fdiv_bug · · Score: 1

      As I recall this is a property of Open Firmware (which means a CHRP-compliant Sun should be able to to it too), but I believe it does rely on part of the Open Firmware chip being on all the time.

      No idea why they waited until now to implement the UI portion of the equation...

      `bug.

    4. Re:auto startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This feature was a standard part of OS 9, and older, and has been on Macs for a long long time. It's just that they hadn't written the control panel for OS X until now...
      Don't know how it works, but it does completely shut the computer down and turn it on, right on schedule every time. I use it on my PM 9500 so that my print server is available whenever i'm awake... i just wish it would allow for multiple schedules

    5. Re:auto startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is enabled by custom circuitry.

      No, it isn't a "new" feature. This was available in Mac OS 7.5. (And maybe earlier.)

    6. Re:auto startup by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

      Okay.
      Thanks for the answer.

    7. Re:auto startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the previous responders have said, this is a feature that has been around for years. It was the hardest thing to give up when I upgraded my beige G3 running OS 9.x to a G4 running OS X. I'm overjoyed to see it return.

      As for how it worked, it was just something in their hardware that an Apple engineer stumbled onto, and they turned it into a feature. When the Mac is shut down, there was a way to get the computer to kick on from being completely shut off. I did once read a more specific description of how it worked, but a few minutes of Googling has come up empty.

    8. Re:auto startup by Myxorg · · Score: 1

      simple:
      if(!IsComputerOn())
      StartComputer();

      as for how IsComputerOn() works, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

    9. Re:auto startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My NeXTSTATION Turbo could do this... Its really an old feature.
      In fact there are a lot of fantastic features from the old NeXT boxes that are all over the new macs.
      But the one thing I miss is the lack of the complete works of William Shakespeare

      -bill

  53. Decency? by pulazzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft, at least, has the decency to wait a few years between upgrades.

    I know lame comments like these are essential to journalism and aren't meant to be taken seriously, but I'll bite --

    What is indecent about releasing a major upgrade to your operating system after a year?
    Should Apple sit on these changes for 2 more years?

    If you don't want to buy the upgrade, don't. If you want to wait 2 more years, you'll likely get 10.5 with many more changes. You pay a premium to be a geek with the latest gadgets.

    When the new iPod was released, I didn't expect Apple to give me a new one just because mine was only 6 months old. I sold mine on eBay and paid a substantial upgrade fee.

    Cars are "upgraded" every year and most people don't drive the latest release because it's too expensive for them to upgrade. In fact, sometimes they only involve very minor cosmetic changes! And often they raise the price! Unbelievable!

    Oh, but this is software and no physical manufacturing analogies apply.

    1. Re:Decency? by Angostura · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The big problem with Apple's OS upgrade policy, and where MS is actually better inolves the whole 'end of life' saga.

      Microsoft sets out very clearly how long an OS will be supported after they stop selling it, so for example you know that critical security isues will be patched in Windows 98 until a particular date (early next year, I think?).

      Apple, by contrast seems to lack this formal policy. 10.1 is essentially unsupported now (no upgrade to patch the SSH bug, for example), but this has never formally be end-of-lifed.

      The question is, once 10.3 comes out how long will Apple patch security holes in Jaguar? next month? next week? No-one knows.

    2. Re:Decency? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      That's one part of it. The other part of it is that from the sound of it, even though they call it "10.3", it really is being treated like a whole new OS. If there are so damn many new features in it that they need to charge $130 for it, then they should call it 11.0.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Decency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fucking difference does it make what they call it? If they say it's a new OS, it's a new OS. Deal with it.

    4. Re:Decency? by Kobold+Curry+Chef · · Score: 1
      I believe that Microsoft is not using its EOL policy to benefit their end users. Rather, it's a big spiky stick they're using to spur their customer base into buying upgrades they don't otherwise want. I'm not 100% certain of this, but my recollection is that they codified the policy about the same time they announced Software Assurance....

      In our production environment, we're still running Windows NT 4 on most of our servers and workstations. And frankly, we're pretty happy with it. If Microsoft didn't have a date for Windows NT's end of support, I probably wouldn't bother with my current migration project.

      Of course, no software company should be expected to support old versions of software forever. But really, I wonder if Microsoft would have a clear EOL policy if their customers weren't balking at "upgrades."

    5. Re:Decency? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, but the Apple policy *appears* at the moment to almost be 'Your OS is EOL at the moment that we launch the next one'. Conceptually, that's even worse than the MS approach - and yes, I am something of an Apple fan.

    6. Re:Decency? by Kobold+Curry+Chef · · Score: 1
      I agree that Apple should create an EOL policy. But I wonder if the reason they don't is that they're afraid it would somehow tell their customers it's OK not to upgrade right away. (I know, this seems contradictory to what I said about Microsoft's EOL policy, but it's just using EOL a different way to generate sales...)

      Apple is pretty good at generating buzz over their OS X upgrades, after all. Maybe even hinting that an upgrade is so cool that you can't live without it is bad to them?

    7. Re:Decency? by MaestroRC · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really don't understand the concept that people have that upgrades like this should get a new major number. From the article, and your post, it's reasonably easy to tell that you aren't quite familiar with Apple's naming scheme. The X in OS X is not just some arbitrary set of letters like XP, but it is the version number. OS X should be said "oh-ess-ten" not "oh-ess-ex"; saying the latter is a giveaway that someone is not a mac person in conversation. Just because they added new features, fixed stuff, and made it generally faster doesnt mean it should be made MacOS XI (11 for those that havent caught on yet), since its really mostly the same operating system. Changing the name of the whole thing is a microsoft thing.

      --
      I hate sigs...
    8. Re:Decency? by Green+Light · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OS X should be said "oh-ess-ten" not "oh-ess-ex"; saying the latter is a giveaway that someone is not a mac person in conversation.
      Umm, sir, you are totally incorrect!
      I have been a "mac person" since day one, having owned a dozen different models from 1984 to present, and I will continue to call an "x" an "x".
      It is easier to say, and makes more sense, so there!
      --
      "Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
    9. Re:Decency? by Politburo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh, but this is software and no physical manufacturing analogies apply.

      Yup. So why did you fucking bother?

    10. Re:Decency? by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Let's try this again.

      The reports say that existing software in some cases won't work with the "upgrade". There are certainly going to be releases that will only support the upgrade and not run on the previous "dot" release. There is an expectation, in my opinion a reasonable one, that if the number at the beginning or the name or whatever the hell else you want to do indicating a "version" is THE SAME then the SOFTWARE SHOULD STILL WORK.

      If it doesn't, it should get a new name/number/whatever. Breaking stuff means it's a major release, period. There is also an expectation that price maps this way too; upgrades are reasonably cheap (i.e. $50 or less) and new versions are not.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    11. Re:Decency? by fractaltiger · · Score: 1
      I agree with pulazzo's comment:


      >>Microsoft, at least, has the decency to wait a few years between upgrades.

      I know lame comments like these are essential to journalism and aren't meant to be taken seriously, [...] What is indecent about releasing a major upgrade to your operating system after a year?


      It struck me as too alienating for a renowned and widely circulated paper such as The NY Times (read "diverse audience"). I found the comment careless and not worthy of the time of anyone who has seen their old computers and software systematically and intentionally left behind because of the scrolling MS upgrade from 98 to ME to 98SE to 2000, followed by XP. All these OS's were in concurrent demand of customer support back in 2001, and my IT job was a nightware because users knew only hazily what they were running anyway. Compare that with the almost-linear saga of the slow-moving macOS timeline.

      Now, windows 2000 was a disparate version for businesses (remember corporate NT 5?) that many non-techies/home users wanted "just because!" and made IT support a new nightmare. What I'm saying is, users will find ways to upgrade because, as you say in your post, software upgrades are easier than automobile ones --because unlike new OS CD's, users can't just come home one day in a brand new Lexus or Lambourgini(sp) without the corresponding massive cash leakage. And demand IT support for it in spite of their "untimely" theft of a product intended and priced for corporate environments.

      Since OS X is both a commercial and home OS in a single versioning scheme of Cardinal # nature, unlike NT and 2000, the versioning and lack of confusing upgrade paths is rather comforting because it is serial, rather than semi-random. Its price? Well, since they don't have as many viruses and security "features" to fix, the upgrades tend to fall more toward new inventions and extensions of the OS, such as the whole phenomenon responsible for the "Unixfication" of macintosh.
      --
      "Wireless : LAN :: Laptop : Desktop"
  54. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by netglen · · Score: 0

    And how hard is it to pull up an article when their website gets /.ed? I'm not expecting the NYT to crumble under the traffice, but there are plenty of other sites crushed by the /. crowd in the past. Cut the poster some slack.

  55. Impoverished apple users..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....can just go onto a P2P network and download the ISO. For free. E-mule is good for such things. More power to the people, etc. etc.

  56. X11 Support? by peterdaly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have heard that Panther has X11 support built in. Does this mean (for example) run OpenOffice without having to first start up X11?

    That would make running "ported/recompiled" X11 apps much simpler.

    Can someone with the developer version comment on how this works?

    -Pete

    1. Re:X11 Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is built in... so you just have to double click your X11 app and voila! it is open...

      X11 is not default, though... so be careful when configuring your new system.

    2. Re:X11 Support? by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 1

      This simply means that X11 in included on the installer disks (although it isn't installed by default), so you don't have to go download it from http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/download/

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    3. Re:X11 Support? by Raleel · · Score: 1

      I believe that yes, this is the case

      --
      -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    4. Re:X11 Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that it is installed by default. You still have to start up X11.

    5. Re:X11 Support? by bojan · · Score: 0

      please read more before you say something like this.

      It means a lot more. In Jaguar, it was XDarwin, you run it separately. Now X11 has been Aquafied, with full Quartz Extreme acceleration anad Direct Rendering. If you install it, you won't need to run anything extra, and it'll feel like the app is part of the whole Aqua interface, except for the X11-style buttons and widgets of course.

      You can change the window manager if you wish to a non-aqua ones, Apple states this is possible for "advanced users".

    6. Re:X11 Support? by xiaodidi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't have 10.3 but on 10.2 running X11 is straightforward: you double-click on the X11.app, and X11 is up and running in seconds. Then you can launch any X11 app from the terminal or from the X11.app menu. I suppose you can wrap X11 applications into AppleScript applets to make them double-clickable, but I am not sure.

      If you put X11 in your startup items you will have it up all the time.

      In summary, you may have to start X11 first (as on any system, if you think of that), but that's fast, and can be automatized.

    7. Re:X11 Support? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      It looks as though X11 is one of a number of included resources. Browsing through the package files on the Pather discs I saw one containing the GIMP print drivers!

    8. Re:X11 Support? by metalligoth · · Score: 1

      Starting X11 in Panther is a similar process to starting OS 9. If you run an X11 app you must start the X11 environment. If you place X11 in your startup items, it will start when you boot and thus will save you the headache of waiting when you're ready to run an X11 app.

    9. Re:X11 Support? by kartracer_66 · · Score: 1

      Does anybody know if you can run x11 by itself? Can you just login under >console and type 'startx'? I would love to have this capability with a hardware accelerated x11.

      (I've searched for the answer to this and can find nothing.)

  57. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by rlthomps-1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    what you've done here is really lame.

    I don't think it is very appropriate to edit the article like you have. While the edits are obvious (at least some of them) who knows what else you subtly changed without reading both versions as closely as possible. While you're not bound in anyway to provide the exact text, I think you should treat the /. community a little better than that.

    here's the lines that I noticed

    When you use Mac OS X, you feel like sodomy; should be When you use Mac OS X, you feel like it's yours; when you use Windows, you feel as though you're using someone else's toys,

    and

    You can have incoming faxes automatically printed out, saved into a folder, smeared with diarrhea, sent to yourself by e-mail, or any combination of those.should be You can have incoming faxes automatically printed out, saved into a folder, sent to yourself by e-mail, or any combination of those.

  58. I've found a few bugs with it by Raleel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Overall, I'm quite happy with it, but I've found a few bugs. yes, I've reported at least one to apple

    1) iChatAV and a AD account - If I try to opena video chat to a person, and I am logged in via my Active directory account (i.e. authenticated to the AD domain), the video connection fails. Audio is fine, jsut video

    2) If I open a chat to one particular friend, it causes my cpu to pegged. Fortunately the process is niced (iChat, that is) and so it's not particularly disruptive, but it's a very ahrd problem to diagnose (it's only him, other people with the same setup work fine)

    3) using Mail.app to access an exchange server with an exchange mail account (i.e. you select "exchange account" when you set up your mail, different than the imap one), you cannot make rules that filter to subdirectories of Inbox. Very odd.

    Otherwise, I'm pretty happy. You can't encrypt home directories of "network accounts" (read: AD accounts), even if you tell it to create a local home directory, but the home directory encryption is pretty slick. Expose, of course, is unique, and I've still not used it extensively. The asking for a password when coming back from sleep is a much needed repair.

    As a whole I find that it's quite a lot faster than the previous version, and all the subtle tweaks are a good add. I didn't know about the command-tab switching. I use that a lot in windows.

    Probably worth the $130

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:I've found a few bugs with it by bojan · · Score: 0

      does the exchange server use IMAP or keep folders otherwise on the server?

    2. Re:I've found a few bugs with it by jaysones · · Score: 1
      If I open a chat to one particular friend, it causes my cpu to pegged.

      Yeah, I have a problem like this in real life. Every time I talk to certain friends, I feel like all my resources are drained.

    3. Re:I've found a few bugs with it by clf8 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't use IMAP, but it does keep folders on the server (unless you explicitely setup local ones).

      I believe rules, and your out of office msg, are all stored server side. This could be while you can't get them to work with Mail.

    4. Re:I've found a few bugs with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How'd you get a copy?

      If you've got one, you didn't pay $130 for it.

      This means you don't think it's worth it for you to pay $130, but you think it's worth it for the rest of us.

      I'm sorry, but I doubt your bug reporting is really worth $130.

      p.s. Command-tab was in Jaguar (that's 10.2) as well. It just didn't pop up in a huge splat over your screen, focus moved in the Dock.

  59. 10.1 was a free upgrade... by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

    For buyers of 10.0 or crafty upgrders who knew how to "hack" the free upgrade CDs available at participating locations. That said, 10.0 was unusable atrocity and there is no way Jobs could have gotten away with charging for 10.1.

  60. Re:Whaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Diarrhea" wasn't in the actual NYTimes review. I believe that, along with "sodomy," was added by the helpful poster of the "complete" text for those who didn't want to register with NYTimes.

  61. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by yuri · · Score: 1

    partner=GOOGLE in the url.

    news.google can link directly to articles. I guess its the same technique.

  62. Re:It's $129..... by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So let's see. This release is faster, more secure and contains many significant UI and system improvements - encryption, Expose, power on/off scheduling. Also improvements to the apps included as well - TextEdit, Mail etc.
    Just because Apple is being modest and only calling it a 0.1 increase doesn't mean it's only a minor upgrade.

  63. Re:Well put! by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Actually, it's one of the more pretentious assertations I've seen. What the hell does it mean exactly? It's just some author trying to be clever (and failing).

    I'm using Windows XP, and I don't feel like I'm "using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in" on me. I feel like I'm just using my operating system as usual.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  64. Yes, they should. by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    > should apple worry about undocumented API backward capbility just becasue App makers use them?

    Yes, the should. But the solution is not to retain backward compatibility for undocumented APIs, but to not expose them in the first place. Then the programmers will tell them what they need and there will finally be a documented API out there. Otherwise you get software that stops working for undocumented reasons. Ever try TIOCL_GETSHIFTSTATE?

    1. Re:Yes, they should. by Pius+II. · · Score: 1

      What a wonderful idea. So Apple should just do what?
      Link their system programs against different versions of the libraries?
      Or just statically link all their stuff?
      Or not use libraries at all?
      Fact is, if you have an API for which there are no header files, which isn't documented, and which is used only in special cases in system applications, then don't complain if it changes. Your program _will_ be a terrible hack, and nothing's going to change that.

  65. How thats a slashdotted site NOT by Gabriel+Radic · · Score: 1

    On the Apple web page you can notice the astronomical number of downloads for Fink: 49 (fourtynine)

    --
    http://twitter.com/gr
    1. Re:How thats a slashdotted site NOT by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you like, you can check the SourceForge page, where the LifeSpan stats show that it's been downloaded 1,204,740 times.

    2. Re:How thats a slashdotted site NOT by bunicula · · Score: 1

      probably just because not many people download it from apple.

      i know i've downloaded it at least a dozen different times.

    3. Re:How thats a slashdotted site NOT by azav · · Score: 1, Informative

      Dude, that's the download ID, not the number of downloads.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    4. Re:How thats a slashdotted site NOT by ChuckleBug · · Score: 2, Funny

      He prolly didn't notice the space and thought it meant 49 people downloadID it.

    5. Re:How thats a slashdotted site NOT by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      And about half that was me re-downloading it because I kept messing up the install....

  66. Would you mind writing a HOWTO on how you did that by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Would you mind writing a HOWTO on how you did that? I am sure lots of people want to know. Cryptoloop is seemingly impossible to get working on my RH8. Some hack to lomount seems to be necessary.

  67. it's not that simple by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Insightful
    if you don't want the new features then you don't have to pay for them. And, if you don't pay for them, you're existing system doesn't become any less productive

    This view can only be supported by having a very static view of how software is used. I was using OSX 10.1 when 10.2 was released. I suddenly began running into many commercial and open source products that required 10.2. For example, virtually everything on osxgnu.org now requires 10.2, and this is not because these projects are using 10.2 specific features; they're binary compatibility requirements. Fink is another example, and they already note on their page that 10.3 will require a new install from them. I also encountered this in a substantial number of commercial apps and drivers. Apple itself removed the 10.1 dev tools from their page by the time I went to get them.

    For some people, myself included, software is a living, dynamic thing. I don't want 10.3 because of whatever assortment of new features it has; I want it because I'm afraid of being cut off from a bunch of things on which I depend. And if I get it, it's going to force some painful transition choices on me by breaking some 10.2-dependent stuff. In some ways the transitions between these 10.x versions is more jarring than that from 9.x to osx; at least when 9.x was left behind, dual boot and emulation support was provided.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:it's not that simple by keytoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this is not because these projects are using 10.2 specific features; they're binary compatibility requirements
      Apple initially released a binary API in 10.0 that would allow as much compatibility as possible with existing tools (mostly the stuff they grabbed from NeXT), but they had every intention of moving to the new one as soon as they could. With the release of 10.2, they made that change.

      Sure, this broke the old apps, but they needed to do it, and wanted to do it as soon as possible so that other application developers wouldn't be hit so hard by it. Would you rather have had them wait until this revision to make the change? The amount of third party applications out there right now is significantly larger than it was when they released 10.2.

      You are assuming that Apple will change the API again - which is not the case at all. They had to make a change, and they did it as soon as they could. Given the (relatively) seamless transition from OS 9 to OS X as a whole, I can forgive them this single issue.

      Finally, this is hardly an Apple only issue. Anybody remember having to bump glibc versions? By hand? With some legacy apps that didn't like the new version? On a live system? I sure do...
    2. Re:it's not that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Anybody remember having to bump glibc versions? By hand?

      I'll call your glibc versions and raise you a.out to ELF. Hehe. Those were fun days, always tinkering with the guts of the system, but now I find myself more and more just wanting to get things done. Mac OS X is it for me, and I can't wait to get Panther tomorrow! :)

  68. Re:It's $129..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UI Improvements?

    did they remove aqua

    one can only hope

  69. parent +2 informative? how about Score=0 Luddite by johnpaul191 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Almost everything they make (along with others) doesn't work on pre-10.2, and that should change to 10.3 in the next few months. Upgrade or perish.

    [rant]
    i don't understand? do you mean newly written software might at some point utilize features built into the new operating system? THOSE BASTARDS!
    If you don't want to upgrade, then don't. Many many many people still use OS9. At some point there will be less choice for web browsers supporting the latest features, but most everything else will work as it does today and did 2 years ago. My mom still runs OS9 and she can still check email, and she still will after 10.3 hits the shelves tomorrow.


    In terms of running the NEW os and running OLD apps, that's generally fine. OS X has this thing called classic mode and i can run old OS9 software pretty ok. Till Photoshop, Quark, Dreamweaver etc upgraded, i could run them in classic with very acceptable results. For example, i did layout for a few full color CDs, used Photoshop to tweak the graphics and Quark to do the layout. Took the files to the plant and got back CDs looking 100% as i wanted. I was able to keep working on websites using Dreamweaver without rebooting to OS 9. I really had no problems using Dreamweaver in classic mode.


    [/rant]

  70. Biggest imporvement by iJed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The biggest improvement in Panther is simply the speed. On an oldish G3 or G4 the performance increase in doing everything is incredible. After this Expose has to be next best improvement. This really makes managing windows a whole magnitude easier. I've simply never seen a nicer way of doing this. I've set it to activate on the click of mouse button 4.

    1. Re:Biggest imporvement by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      I've set it to activate on the click of mouse button 4.

      I'll say it before someone beats me to it: "But Apples only have one mouse button!"

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    2. Re:Biggest imporvement by mprindle · · Score: 1

      Then you use command-option-shift-f3-tab to get the 4th mouse click or you do like everyone else and go buy a new mouse. :) But I have yet to figure out why Apple doesnt @ least include a 2 button mouse. Seesh...

      Kage_

  71. Make that 4 years behind by Gabriel+Radic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    QuartzExtreme is Jaguar's last year feature.

    --
    http://twitter.com/gr
    1. Re:Make that 4 years behind by Progman · · Score: 1

      Emigrant la Paris, designer de interfete grafice, bagator de seama. Blog la www.timbru.com/jurnal .

      Is that Esperanto?

    2. Re:Make that 4 years behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Is that Esperanto?

      No, this is Esperanto:

      "Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lau' s^ajne estas rano en mia bideo!"

      ("Please send the hall porter, there appears to be a frog in my bidet.")

  72. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drawing further back in the draw buffer. It's an immediate fix until a more versitile X comes around.

    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depth buffer, sheesh

  73. That app was PortsManager. by Xenex · · Score: 3, Informative
    MetaPkg is the result of Fink, OpenDarwin, and Gentoo working together in porting applications to Mac OS X/Darwin. Their separate packaging distributions will still remain.
    If anyone has run a beta release of 10.3, they've seen a very early build of the app that these groups have produced.
    That was actually PortsManager, and it's part of the OpenDarwin project. OpenDarwin are the people creating DarwinPorts.

    I've briefly babble about PortsManager before over at MacSlash.

    Install DarwinPorts, then use it to install PortsManager. Simple!

    Here's a shiny image of PortsManager, in all its Aqua goodness.
    1. Re:That app was PortsManager. by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Here's a shiny image of PortsManager, in all its Aqua goodness.

      It's not just the buttons. Looking at your screen shot, I mean this in the most constructive way possible:

      • What's "devel", "comms", "parallel", or "textproc" who doesn't already know what they mean?
      • What's the difference between "sci" and "science", or "sysutil" and "sysutils", or "amusements" and "games"?
      • Why are "irc" and "mail" not under "net" or "comms"?
      • What is "lang", and why is "python" not under "lang" or "devel"?
      • Looking at the list, why are lame and bladeenc, which are end user applications, presented together with libvorbis and other libraries? Why are servers put in the same list as applications?

      Yes, I know the answers and I understand the limitations of the database, but this is exactly what people mean when they say Unix is cryptic. I'd like to see the left pane become a list of Applications, Libraries, and Servers, each grouped perhaps by categories like "audio", "games", "office", and so on. Provide a clickable link to the home page of each application, and perhaps the date of last update, or an indicator of its maturity.

    2. Re:That app was PortsManager. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, thanks for the info. How does DarwinPorts/PortsManager currently stack up against fink? Is it up to the same level yet?

      I've been using fink for well over a year, but that PortsManager window sure looks slick! And from what I recall, I think Jordan Hubbard (formerly of FreeBSD, now of Apple) is leading (or involved in) the DarwinPorts effort. So maybe it will eventually become the "official" Apple ports collection?

    3. Re:That app was PortsManager. by Xenex · · Score: 1
      Cool, thanks for the info. How does DarwinPorts/PortsManager currently stack up against fink? Is it up to the same level yet?
      It works well, but it's simply not as polished yet. However, it does have one thing going for it - Panther compatibility. At the moment, Fink is broken on Mac OS X 10.3.
      And from what I recall, I think Jordan Hubbard (formerly of FreeBSD, now of Apple) is leading (or involved in) the DarwinPorts effort.
      Yes, Jordan Hubbard is listed as a developer, and I'd expect he'd have a lot of say within the project.
      So maybe it will eventually become the "official" Apple ports collection?
      Well, it was included with the version of Panther seeded at WWDC, but has since been removed.

      However, I'd expect DarwinPorts to become as official as any of these packaging efforts will.
  74. Service Pack vs Upgrade by f2professa · · Score: 1

    ahem... A service pack is used to *maintenance existing software and features* - fix bugs and such. An upgrade *adds features and applications* that warrant a bump in revision number. This is definitely an upgrade my friend.

    Perhaps that you do not know that Apple releases bug fixes [read: service packs] quite regularly, through their Software Update application?

    Look ma! - No holes!

    --
    Someone, please shake me from this wide-awake nightmare.
  75. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Idiot

  76. Re:It's $129..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "faster" because 10.2 was slow. I wouldn't have a gripe if they didn't basically cut off most support for any OS more than a year old.

    http://www.apple.com/software/

    Look at the list of their downloadable software - almost all of it requires >= 10.2.x. Similar with commercial apps. Isn't it obvious why this is happening?

    They add new features to make you think you're getting a good deal, but a lot of it is just speeding up a slow OS and locking out older versions of OS-X by subtle tweaks in the API to force people to buy upgrades every year.

    NT4 is still installable and quite usable with many apps. That's from 1996. I know, it doesn't have BRUSHED METAL , but it's not locked out of most applications like 8.x, 9.x, and 10.0.x and 10.1.x either.

    10.3 have new features? Sure. It's also the price of admission to Mac land in a few months.

  77. Expose stolen Windows feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    How is Expose so radical? It sounds exactly to me like the options you have when you right click on your Windows taskbar: Tile Windows Horizontally, Tile Windows Vertically, Minimize all Windows (Show the Desktop on XP).

    That feature has been there for years.

    1. Re:Expose stolen Windows feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That feature has been there for years.

      And that feature is half-assed shit. Using it means fucking up your carefully positioned and sized windows, and they don't spring right back to the way they were when you're done.

      Before accusing Apple of stealing a laughable Windows "feature," I suggest you go here and click the "Try it out" link.

      Take a good look. I'm sure you'll see something just like it in 3 years, when Longhorn finally sees the light of day.

    2. Re:Expose stolen Windows feature? by jtdubs · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, "Tile Windows Horizontally" is the same as:

      Shrink all visible applications to tiles on the desktop, allow the user to choose one, and then expand the applications back to their original sizes with the user chosen one on top?

      Also, Expose doesn't resize windows, it scales them. In other words, the windows don't receive resize events because the aren't being resized. Instead, their presentation is being scaled by the vector graphics system in Quartz Extreme.

      Have you ever actually used Tile Windows Horizontally? If so, have you ever actually seen or used Expose?

      Justin Dubs

    3. Re:Expose stolen Windows feature? by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 2, Informative

      It sounds exactly to me like the options you have when you right click on your Windows taskbar: Tile Windows Horizontally, Tile Windows Vertically, Minimize all Windows

      It's entirely different. Expose rearranges some/all of your windows, but only for as long as you hold down the appropriate key. After that, they all snap back to their former location, unless you've done something to change that.

      So you're working on a project and you need to get back to a window that's under 5 others, or you need to get to the desktop for a moment, and you don't want to move all your windows. You press a key, and the windows either shrink down so that you can see them all, allowing you to choose the one you want, or they all fly out of the way so you can manipulate stuff on the desktop. It's nice. It's a little whizzy, but it really does work well and is useful.

      MS Windows' tiling features just make all your windows too small to be of any use.

    4. Re:Expose stolen Windows feature? by jceaser · · Score: 1

      I just tried your idea. I right clicked on the taskbar and selected one of the options you told us about. It moved AND resised all my windows. This is not the same as Expose. Expose shrinks and arranges the windows so I can pick the one I want, then it returns all the windows to where they were before the option was run. Very different, but that's just my opinion I guess.

    5. Re:Expose stolen Windows feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly entirely different. Minimize All Windows/ Restore almost provides that exact functionality...just not as fancy.

    6. Re:Expose stolen Windows feature? by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 1

      The cool thing is that instead of merely resizing your windows, it actually scales them. No matter how many open windows are on your screen, it will scale them all to a small size so that none of them overlap each other, allowing you to pick the one you want to bring to the foreground.

      Then, poof! The windows spring back to be exactly the way you left them, except with your newly selected window on top.

      It looks very slick, and I can't wait to use it in Logic, where it's quite common to have a dozen or more windows open at a time!

  78. Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Macintosh fans, on the other hand, have watched the tribulations of the much larger Windows population with mixed feelings - sympathy, relief, even amusement - because their operating system, Mac OS X, is so far 100 percent virus-free."

    Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there. Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.

    "Then again, Apple's not the only company to have trouble with naming schemes. What's the logic in the sequence of Windows versions - 95, 98, Me, XP?"

    The Windows naming scheme may be a bit confusing, but MacOS is hardly better - especially since this operating system started out at version 10, taking the same name as a previous different OS. This seems an odd point to pick on - both companies are guilty of naming their products for marketing rather than for technical reasons.

    "and pop-up messages that nag you to sign up for some Microsoft database or clean up your icons."

    I can't say I have this trouble, but maybe that's because I'm on 2000 and not XP.

    "When you use Mac OS X, you feel like it's yours; when you use Windows, you feel as though you're using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in on you."

    This seems an entirely subjective comment. Macs are one of the platforms that I've felt least at home on, but I realise that this isn't an objective point.

    "Wherever you stand in the Macs vs. Windows debate"

    Well the point is, I don't. Pro-Mac articles often try to polarise the computing world into a Mac-vs-Windows argument. I'm not really pro-Windows at all, despite what I've written here - but there are a plenty of other non-mainstream OSs I like or would like to investigate.

    1. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1
      Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there. Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.

      Read this, then do a search for OS X here, followed by one for Windows.

      That should answer a lot of your questions.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    2. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by phillymjs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there.

      There are zero known OS X viruses in existence right now. A very few of the Office macro viruses could affect Macs as well as Windows machines, but for the most part a Mac with a virus-infected normal.dot file would just become a carrier and not see any negative effects itself.

      There were a handful of "classic" Mac OS viruses around back in the late 80's, but few were malicious and most are extinct. In 12 years of using Macs, I have seen two of them, way back in 1991, and both were benign and easily removed by rebuilding the desktop file on the infected floppy. Until maybe 10 years ago, the leading Mac anti-virus software was a free product a guy maintained in his spare time. If I didn't get it free with .Mac, I wouldn't even be running antivirus software on my G4 running OS X.

      Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.

      Bullshit. No version of the Mac OS ever automatically executed code stuck in an e-mail message. When Apple came out with AppleScript about 10 years ago, it couldn't even read or write to files for security concerns. Now it's much more powerful and there's little you can't do with it, but the only malicious use of AppleScript we've ever seen was a trojan that had to be actively run by the recipient, and that was around 5 years ago. Outlook and Outlook Express could trigger some viruses just by clicking on the message and having it display in the preview pane. You still can't even effectively run as a non-admin user in Windows, because there are quite a few things that won't work that way. In Mac OS X, even running as admin you still have to authenticate before the system will let you do things like install software. Hell, the root account is disabled out of the box, and there aren't even any ports open by default. Apple has almost always gotten security right, and with OS X they're batting 1.000.

      Microsoft spent years putting gee-whiz features ahead of security, and now they are reaping what they've sown. They're getting embarassed by critical exploit after critical exploit. They've drawn the ire of non-Windows-using internet users whose inboxes were crammed full of copies of SoBig and whose internet connections were slowed to a crawl or knocked out by Slammer. And they're trying to blame these things on their customers for not practicing safe computing, when it's Microsoft that is to blame for marketing a complex, high-maintenance system as a simple, low-maintenance one.

      They expect people who can't be bothered to set the clocks on their VCRs to be proactive about watching for Windows updates, and then spend hours downloading tens of megabytes over a dialup connection. I just had to upgrade a client's machine from 98SE to XP. It took THREE HOURS and countless reboots to install the OS from CD and then download and apply all of the updates, and that was on DSL. Instead of just giving up and starting over with security at the foundation, Microsoft is attempting to bolt security onto their existing mess after the fact-- which is why they will continue to fail miserably at this "Trustworthy Computing" nonsense.

      I'll bet any amount of money that no matter how many Macs you have in the world, even if the marketshare numbers are reversed, there will never be a Mac Slammer, a Mac Blaster, or a Mac ILOVEYOU.

      ~Philly

    3. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there. Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.

      it is really completely virus-free. One of the last Mac virii, "sevendust", roared its head at the end of the last century and it wasn't really widespread in the Mac community. I've been using Macintoshes since 1984 and *never* had a virus on my machines, even though I share documents with other members of the Mac community on a daily basis.

      Since half of Mac OS X is open source I don't see how you can apply "security through obscurity" here. True, Mac OS X is not part of the huge Microsoft monoculture and therefore less prone to catch virii, however, the OS itsself is quite open.

      The Mac OS X platform would likely be a more important target if its market share were bigger, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it would suffer viral problems as much as the Windows community does. Look at the market for webservers, for example. Apache is the most important player here (often running on Linux, *BSD or Solaris), yet most of the security problems and vulnerabilities are for Microsoft's IIS. Furthermore, virii spread faster among close-knit communities -- sheer number of users is not the only factor here. A lot of graphics design and DTP shops constantly share documents with eachother so any virus that lives on the Mac would likely spread really fast among the graphics community. This has never happened yet however.

      I'm convinced that more important reasons for the virus infested Microsoft world are fundamental design flaws in Microsoft software, bad quality control and just a lack of interest to security issues. And why should they care? People keep using the steaming piles of cr*p anyway...

    4. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by metalligoth · · Score: 1

      "Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there. Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows."

      Yes, it is 100% virus free. There has never been a virus released in the wild for Mac OS X. In case you don't know, Mac OS X and Mac OS are two totally different operating systems. OS X runs on a BSD base.

      "The Windows naming scheme may be a bit confusing, but MacOS is hardly better - especially since this operating system started out at version 10, taking the same name as a previous different OS. This seems an odd point to pick on - both companies are guilty of naming their products for marketing rather than for technical reasons."

      Nope. Mac OS Classic never had a version 10. The last release of Classic was 9.2, and that came out after OS X was initially released. As for the "point" issue, the upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP (a large upgrade) was WinNT 5.0 to WinNT 5.1. I suggest everyone start using the version numbers with Windows, it makes things easier. As for Apple, Mac OS started with I believe version 7. The operating systems before that were older Apple operating systems, going back to Apple OS 1, on the original Apple 1 computer, built by Woz in his mother's garage. The numbering system is measuring Apple's OS's, not Mac OS's. (Frankly I wish they'd stop calling them Macs in the first place, it'd get across the point that OS X is a whole new OS.)

      "I can't say I have this trouble, but maybe that's because I'm on 2000 and not XP."

      The author is referring to Windows Messenger, a "feature" of XP designed to destroy AIM. OS X's iChat AIM client can be uninstalled (or the Safari browser, or anything else really) by dragging the application's icon to the trash, and emptying it.

      "This seems an entirely subjective comment. Macs are one of the platforms that I've felt least at home on, but I realise that this isn't an objective point."

      The author is considered an expert by the nespaper or else they wouldn't be publishing his opinion. That's all the whole article is - his opinion.

      "Well the point is, I don't. Pro-Mac articles often try to polarise the computing world into a Mac-vs-Windows argument. I'm not really pro-Windows at all, despite what I've written here - but there are a plenty of other non-mainstream OSs I like or would like to investigate."

      Good for you. The last thing we need on this Earth are more people feeling they are forced into using Windows.

    5. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Anonymoose Coward writes:
      "The Windows naming scheme may be a bit confusing, but MacOS is hardly better - especially since this operating system started out at version 10, taking the same name as a previous different OS. This seems an odd point to pick on - both companies are guilty of naming their products for marketing rather than for technical reasons."

      ]Then metalligoth (672285) responds:[
      Nope. Mac OS Classic never had a version 10. The last release of Classic was 9.2, and that came out after OS X was initially released. As for the "point" issue, the upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP (a large upgrade) was WinNT 5.0 to WinNT 5.1. I suggest everyone start using the version numbers with Windows, it makes things easier. As for Apple, Mac OS started with I believe version 7. The operating systems before that were older Apple operating systems, going back to Apple OS 1, on the original Apple 1 computer, built by Woz in his mother's garage. The numbering system is measuring Apple's OS's, not Mac OS's. (Frankly I wish they'd stop calling them Macs in the first place, it'd get across the point that OS X is a whole new OS.)

      }}}and my (another anonymouse coward) response:{{{
      You're both wrong. Well, at least mettaligoth is correct about the OS 10 not being a duplicate name.
      But the Mac OS definitely did not begin with system 7.0. It either started with 0.0, or 1.0, depending on which component you're talking about. (see the OS version history portion of these sites to help confuse yourself!):
      http://www.theapplemuseum.com
      http:/ /applemuseum.bott.org/

      I don't think they'll change the name just because of a software change, as revoluntionary as it might be. After all, the Mac name refers to the hardware _and_ the software, and both have been changing constantly over the years.

      Also, did the first OS on the Apple I even have a name?

    6. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mac antivirus app, by the way, was called disinfectant. the maintainer stopped development after all new viruses were macro viruses, so there was little point in the app.

    7. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.

      The security issues with Windows that you're neglecting to mention:
      Earlier versions of Outlook Express will automatically run scripts that are received in emails with little or no user intervention.
      Windows Scripting Host exposes the entire capability of the computer (on 9x versions, with admin permissions!) to many of these scripts
      The macro language in MS Office is also exposed, via Windows Scripting Host, to the entire capability of the computer.

      I think we can say that this is not a case of OS X's only security advantage being security through obscurity.

      "Then again, Apple's not the only company to have trouble with naming schemes. What's the logic in the sequence of Windows versions - 95, 98, Me, XP?"

      The Windows naming scheme may be a bit confusing, but MacOS is hardly better - especially since this operating system started out at version 10, taking the same name as a previous different OS. This seems an odd point to pick on - both companies are guilty of naming their products for marketing rather than for technical reasons.

      He wasn't picking on it, he was saying that Windows had no advantage there. Both have essentially the same numbering scheme: Windows 4.x and Windows NT 4.x were parallel but largely unrelated operating systems (with the latter doing a pretty good but not perfect job running applications for the former), and Windows 2000 and XP is NT 5.x (while Windows 98 was Windows 4.x, not NT 4.x). No advantage either way.

      I'm not really pro-Windows at all, despite what I've written here - but there are a plenty of other non-mainstream OSs I like or would like to investigate.

      Try BeOS, RedHat 9, Debian, FreeBSD, and Plan 9 in that order (of simplicity - to install and configure - to complexity). The VMSes are for masochists; Solaris and Irix are both nice, but as far as "flavor of the month" goes, I wouldn't bother trying them unless you liked the other Unices. I'd love to try a consumer-quality Plan 9-like OS, one with the kind of UI loving that OS X has, but it ain't gonna happen.

    8. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is 100% virus free. There has never been a virus released in the wild for Mac OS X

      Fair enough. I asked because I remember there were plenty of viruses on platforms like the Amiga about ten years ago, even though they were never popular as business machines. I guess people are only interested in writing them for Windows now - and possibly that the Amiga was more of a "hackers'" machine, and so more likely to be used by people who liked writing them, maybe.

      In case you don't know, Mac OS X and Mac OS are two totally different operating systems. OS X runs on a BSD base.

      Nope. Mac OS Classic never had a version 10. The last release of Classic was 9.2

      I didn't mean that there were two version 10s. I know that OS X is a different OS to previous versions - that was my point, that it's just as arbitrary to start a new OS off at version 10. It makes more sense to consider them as versions of "Apple OSs", but the name Mac OS is still given to two different OSs. Macs had version 6 (I don't know about earlier), which was called System 6 - another oddity being that things changed from System 7 to Mac OS 8. Then they switched to a Roman numeral - and now with "OS X 10.3", I'm wondering if the "X" really does mean "10", or whether it's become part of the name again?

      Of course, I don't really care about all this - I just thought it was odd for him to snipe at Windows versions. To the consumer, there's Windows 95, 98, Me and now XP, versus System 6, 7, MacOS 8, 9, MacOS X, ... MacOS X 10.3. From my point of view, it's annoying that I can't refer to NT/2000/XP by a single name - but annoying that I can't use a name to be specific about either MacOS X, or the previous MacOS.

    9. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by metalligoth · · Score: 1

      The Finder on my Apple IIgs (laugh all you want, but it was my primary computer until 1998) says System 6.0.1.

      Check out this if you don't believe me.

      I'm 99% sure that numbering system is correct. Does anyone else know if there was anything before System 7 on Macintosh?

    10. Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm 99% sure that numbering system is correct. Does anyone else know if there was anything before System 7 on Macintosh?


      Origional MacOS machines shipped with MacOS 1.0 (or, actually, 1.1 I believe.) There used to be versions of this floating around the net. Apple has archvies with many versions, but I don't know if they go back beyond System 7 on-line.


      The IIgs had a lot of parallel development with the Mac, but was a separate OS... I believe the IIgs could run a version of the old II series ProDOS, plus some stuff to make it vaguely Mac-like (as your screenshot shows) with a GUI. It was a true OS, and not a glorified program-loader like the various earlier systems.


      Apple only started charging around the System 7 era, and even then, really didn't push OS licensing until System 8, as I remember. System 7 was released in an era where some Macs still came with one bit displays, but System 7.5 supported the then brand-new PowerPC systems.


      Personally, 7.1 was a great OS. Stable, sturdy, had enough features to still be useable without being too frustrating today. If my Classic II still worked correctly, I'd probably have downgraded back to it for retrocomputing.

  79. Re:parent +2 informative? how about Score=0 Luddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you mean newly written software might at some point utilize features built into the new operating system?

    That's exactly what I'm saying, but "at some point" is within a year of release of 10.n+1, locking out users of 10.n.

    And of course you can run older software, because you paid your annual fee. Try finding Apple applications (or most commercial apps for that matter) that run on 10.1.x.

  80. Bear in mind who the author is... by pev · · Score: 2, Informative

    Whilst I'd personally agree broadly with what David Pogue wrote, its worth reminding readers that he's the author of :
    Mac OS 9 - The missing manual
    Mac OS X - The missing manual
    Switching to the Mac - The missing manual
    iMovie - The missing manual
    iPhoto - The missing manual
    The Flat screen iMac for dummies
    MacWorld Secrets
    More Macs for Dummies
    Macs for Teachers
    MacWorld Mac FAQs
    The great Macintosh easter egg hunt
    The iBook for dummies
    Mac OSX Hints
    and,
    The Microsloth joke book

    admittedly, in his defence he's also writtin :
    Windows ME - the missing manual
    Windows XP - the missing manual

    but from the list, I think you can get the gist of his personal OS of choice :-) So don't take it as an unbiased review....

    ~Pev

    1. Re:Bear in mind who the author is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd be much more trusting of someone who only wrote Windows ME guides. That way I'd know he's not biased in favor of Mac OS X. I use the same method when voting for governor of California!

    2. Re:Bear in mind who the author is... by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      Didin't he also write some "Dummies" books on opera? Does that mean he can't review the next Eminem album either?

    3. Re:Bear in mind who the author is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I'm pretty sure that Mr Pogue is a very capable man, it is more accurate to say that he is the author and/or co-author and/or editor of the books you listed.

      I've read MacOS X Missing Manual. It contains some anti-Windows pearls that I found inaccurate and misplaced for that kind of book. Example: contrary to Windows, you don't need a spring cleaner to delete applications on MacOS X, just throw the app to the trash. Yeah sure.

      This put aside, the book, for what it intends to do, performs as expected. Seasoned Mac users can learn a few things from it.

    4. Re:Bear in mind who the author is... by zepkin · · Score: 1

      I believe what he is referencing here is Windows horrible system for adding and removing programs. You can't drag and drop programs into the trash to delete them in Windows. There are so many files that are added to the system folder and other parts of your computer that using this method will undoubtedly break the OS quicker than it normally breaks. On a Mac, you drop the application in the trash. It is deleted. The only other things that are added to your computer are preferences, which you can delete or just leave alone. The system folder is never touched. Therefore, the OS doesn't break. Brilliant! Removing programs from a Windows box has to be one of the most poorly designed, convuluted processes ever. One of the joys of using a Mac is knowing you can install apps and later delete them and the OS will not suffer. There is no need to reinstall the OS and its apps every six months in order to regain lost speed due to a broken OS. Makes you wonder why people tolerate Windows.

  81. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by J-Hawker · · Score: 1

    Guess you guys didn't actually READ the article. How hard is it for someone to throw in bullshit in the text and still get knighted as a good samaritan?

  82. 10.1 was a free upgrade from 10.0 by log0n · · Score: 1

    iirc..

    the reason people were bitter over 10.2 being $130 was that 10.1 was free.

    1. Re:10.1 was a free upgrade from 10.0 by Morky · · Score: 1

      That was because 10.0 was so slow and next to useless (there was no 3rd party software for it to speak of) that anyone using it was a beta tester for Apple, and Apple simply owed them.

    2. Re:10.1 was a free upgrade from 10.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was because so great a mass of the tech-ignorant unwashed began to scream, wail & moan that business sense & sober explanation became useless - they bit the bullet & rendered a one-time no-cost upgrade.

      Don't expect them to do it again.

  83. I get mine for free! by Laplace · · Score: 1

    The university that I work for has a site license for OS X. I get my copy for free. Better than free; it's like the university is paying me to use OS X!

    --
    The middle mind speaks!
  84. Re:Scheduled Start and Shutdown of Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I may interject. OS X has always had "software shut down" (start up isn't a software feature, as such, though many PCs have a BIOS that will allow a timed start up to be scheduled.) What Panther adds is a proper user interface to having the system automatically shutdown and started up at specific, scheduled, times.

    That's relatively new and I'm not aware of such a thing in XP. That's not to say you can't do it in XP, but that the user interface that makes the whole thing nice and friendly isn't there.

  85. Re:Would you mind writing a HOWTO on how you did t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to:
    ------

    - Click the "Encrypt Home Folder" checkbox.

    ------

    Oh wait... you meant on Linux? Yeah, good luck with that.

  86. Apple is a business, not a charity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Newsflash people: software costs time and money to develop. So either pay up or shut up. Apple is a business, not a charity.

    What about the Stallman argument, that software should be free? As is, anyone can redistribute it without charging, if they want to.

    Why is microsoft evil because it makes money; yet apple is good?

    I really want to know: why the double standard!

    1. Re:Apple is a business, not a charity. by telbij · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is not evil because it makes money, it's evil because it makes money by squashing innovation and manipulating the market using its monopoly powers. Apple makes money by providing something that people find useful.

      The idea that all software should be free is just silly. It's commercial software that has given us computers average people can use. Why? Because the profit motive forces companies to at least think about what most people want. Linux hackers only need worry about what they themselves want.

  87. Re:It's $129..... by bojan · · Score: 0

    excuse me but I think you are part of the same world that the "bleeding edge" people are.

    I still have a bike I bought 10 years ago, it works fine. It doesn't have all the l33t polymers and ultra thin materials that a today's bike would have, but both work fine on the road.

    Much the same way, I could still to this date use a 386 with DOS to do my thesis work on.

    The same way, one could use OS 9 to do all the work they would need to get done.

    Uupgrading is not required in computer technology. It never is, as long as you can do what you need to do. I know musicians who use Logic Audio 4.2 in Mac OS 9 and are quite wealthy from it. They simply haven't upgraded for "comfort" reasons.

    Eventually they will....there's no perish involved.

  88. Re:MacinTax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You're not familiar with Apple's versioning scheme. Going from OS9 to OSX (Full version number shift) is a comparible shift to going from Windows 98 to Windows 2000/XP (entirely new operating system).

    Going from 10.0 to 10.1 or 10.2 to 10.3 (.x version shift) is like going from Windows95 to Windows98 or Windows 2000 to Windows XP (same underlying OS, new features and enhanced interface).

    The Apple equivalent to a service pack is a .0.x release (i.e. 10.2.5 to 10.2.6). These are free and happen all the time.

    MS doesn't give users free upgrades from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Apple gave students/teachers free upgrades from 10.1 to 10.2, $65 upgrades from 10.2 to 10.3. This is pretty decent pricing for the level of upgrade.

    The main difference is that Apple has been developing meaningful changes and enhancements to their OS more quickly than Microsoft in recent years.

  89. Rule 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Never start a land war in Asia. No, wait, it was never send a monster to do the work of a mad scientist. No, wait, I remember.

    Never publish a pro-Mac review by an author who is famously pro-Mac without disclosing it to your readership.

    Hey, I'm writing this from a Mac. And David Pogue is a great guy, having written many wonderful Mac books. But NYT should have been more objective. Get a rabidly Mac guy to write a Mac review, and what are they going to say, something BAD about Panther? I doubt it.

  90. FYI...Pumas and Panthers by Stalemate · · Score: 1

    A little useless trivia here. Pumas and Panthers are the same animal. They are also the same animal as Cougars and Mountain Lions. It seems like most people don't know this.

    Just though I'd fill you in with some useless cat knowledge.

    1. Re:FYI...Pumas and Panthers by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1
      Uggh. Taxonomy. Your statement is true to a point. It all depends on how far you want to go down. It is true that Pumas and Panthers are of the same genus and species (Felis concolor of family Felidae and subfamily Felinae)
      Now the trick .....
      There are approx 30 known sub-species worldwide, 13 in N. America
      F. concolor azteca Merriam
      F. concolor browni Merriam (Yuma puma)
      F. concolor californica May
      F. concolor coryi Bangs (Florida panther)
      F. concolor couguar Kerr (eastern cougar)
      F. concolor hippolestes Merriam
      F. concolor kaibabensis Nelson and Goldman
      F. concolor missoulensis Goldman
      F. concolor olympus Merriam
      F. concolor oregonensis (Rafinesque)
      F. concolor shorgeri Jackson (Wisconsin puma)
      F. concolor stanleyana Goldman (Texas panther)
      F. concolor vancouverensis Nelson and Goldman
      So they are the same only to an extent. Here is the source.
      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
    2. Re:FYI...Pumas and Panthers by Stalemate · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thanks for the info! I like the 'yummy puma' you listed second :)

  91. Re:Scheduled Start and Shutdown of Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's relatively new and I'm not aware of such a thing in XP.

    I'm talking about XP though, I said proper OS's that have proper tools. I can schedule a shutdown at any time, too. Its called shutdown. A whole bunch of tools are available for different BIOS's that allow you to set a scheduled boot time, too. None of them cost $129

  92. OS 9/Panther by UnixRevolution · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would just like to note for the sake of doing so that if you install Panther over a Mac that can boot into OS 9 (alongside jaguar or something), you can still boot into OS 9 afterwards.

    Also, the fast user switching is awesome!

    --
    You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
    1. Re:OS 9/Panther by Morky · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that note. That was a question I had and I hadn't seen anything on it.

    2. Re:OS 9/Panther by dmdimon · · Score: 1

      Again, I tell you (mean all) :
      ANY Mac (exept G5, can't get it) CAN be booted into OS 9.
      Exists special script for that, but it's not my property and guys get money off that.

    3. Re:OS 9/Panther by wavedeform · · Score: 1
      ANY Mac (exept G5, can't get it) CAN be booted into OS 9.

      No they can't. This misinformation gets thrown around a lot.
      Recent PowerBooks cannot, for example. The original "mirror door" G4s cannot. Although it needs an update, see this article from the Apple knowledge base called "Some Computers Only Start Up in Mac OS X"

    4. Re:OS 9/Panther by dmdimon · · Score: 1

      Yes, they CAN.

      Last saturday I PERSONALLY run 2x1.4 Mac under OS 9;
      Two weeks ago I PERSONALLY run 2x1,25 Mac (new) under OS 9.

      As I have no ' Recent PowerBooks' at hand, I can't say anything on that.

      RIGHT NOW my good frienr works on G5. Wait a minute, I'll call him.
      Ok, I called.
      For now, it dont work.

  93. It can be that simple by stewby18 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fink is another example, and they already note on their page that 10.3 will require a new install from them.

    Although your point is still valid, Fink is a terrible example of it--like many tools out there, fink will have a new version of the software for 10.3, but will (presumably, since they do it now) continue to offer the 10.1 and 10.2 versions for download. Granted, not all the packages will stay available forever, but there's no reason you can't back up the working versions of all the 10.2 packages you want and call it a day.

    While I understand what you are saying, you are choosing to live in a dynamic-software mode, which is probably not a good mode to live your life in if you don't like to pay for upgrades. I know people (in the CS field, not just Joe User) who almost never update anything, and they get along just fine. It's possible to live in a static software world if you are willing to make a few trade-offs. It's up to you to decide whether the money or the cutting edge of everything is most important to you.

    1. Re:It can be that simple by Politburo · · Score: 1

      While I understand what you are saying, you are choosing to live in a dynamic-software mode, which is probably not a good mode to live your life in if you don't like to pay for upgrades.

      Oh, please! The nature of software development is what causes this, and to say that all you need to do is "make a few trade-offs" to avoid it is ridiculous. Software is updated for more reasons than just usability and flashy graphics. If an application developer finds out that there's a bug in his program but doesn't want to maintain an OS X 10.2 and OS X 10.3 version, he's going to fix the bug and move forward with an OS X 10.3 version, leaving anyone still using the old version behind.

      This situation arose because of the way software development works. It is simply not possible to eliminate all bugs from a program. It is possible, with great time and expense, to ensure that the program will run bug free for all but the most outrageous situations. However, many smaller developers, including open source developers, simply do not have the time or resources to exhaustively test their programs. This leads to a strung out development process where incremental updates for minor problems are released frequently.

    2. Re:It can be that simple by mick129 · · Score: 1

      Wallstreet Powerbooks were discontinued more than five years ago (Sept '98). If you can't read floppies, DVDs or VCDs in OS X, why did you stay with it for two years? Leave it at 8.6 or 9.

      Why do you need Safari? It is by no means the only browser. Use Camino or IE or Netscape or Mozilla. I don't see the problem.

      Sounds like a troll to me.

      --
      Move along, no sig to see here.
  94. And the Guardian too by ben_of_copenhagen · · Score: 1, Informative

    Pogue is - as other writers already has pointed out - somewhat biased in his choice of OS. You might want to check out britsh newspaper The Guardian for another positive review right here. Its not as thorough as Pogues, but still worth a read.

  95. Upgrade Path.. by z-kungfu · · Score: 1

    "but I think an upgrade path for existing users (short of buying a new machine) would be nice"
    This is very funny to me, as 10.3 will run on any Mac since the Yosemite architecture (Jan 99). So you can have a machine that is almost 5 years old and run it fine. If you haven't upgraded your RAM and video card by now your already losing. There is a fine upgrade path don't let them fool you.

  96. Virus free?? by 3Suns · · Score: 1

    If OSX was "100% virus free", why would they have Virex, which has updates once a month? Are they writing their own virus and patching them just for fun?

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Virus free?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are simply using users' fear of viruses to sell them a completely useless product.

    2. Re:Virus free?? by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

      100% Virus free?

      No. Not quite. But according to CERT, It's damn close.
      • VU#147587 10/22/2001 Mac OS X utility gm4 contains format string vulnerability

      • VU#869548 05/19/2003 Apple Mac OS X IPSec mechanism fails to handle certain incoming security policies that match by port
        VU#177243 09/10/2001 Mac OS X Finder creates world-readable ".FBCIndex" file thereby disclosing sensitive information
        VU#439395 06/10/2001 Apache web server performs case sensitive filtering on Mac OS X HFS+ case insensitive filesystem
        VU#945747 10/18/2001 Mac OS X executes 'recent items' with privileges of foreground application VU#467828 05/27/2003 Mac OS X LDAP plugins transmit user credentials in clear text
        VU#583020 05/07/2003 XMMS Remote input validation error
        VU#479268 05/28/2003 Apache HTTPD contains denial of service vulnerability in basic authentication module.
      Now compare those results to a search for Windows.

      And in regards to Virex/Norton AntiVirus etc. Just because a product exists doesn't mean it's useful or needed. In ten years of using Macs, I've had one problem with malware, total, and that was eight years ago.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:Virus free?? by donely · · Score: 1

      no, Mac users also receives Windows vira, and they need not send them further in the email chain to others (via manual resend)

      As far as I know, there really isn't vira in the wild for the Mac.

      a updates once a months? or once a week? think what would happen if you had ADSL, had your computer running all the time and updated your antivirus software for Windows once a months or once a week?...'nuf said

      --
      I will blog about your incompetence @ http://www.barelyadraft.com
    4. Re:Virus free?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Microsoft Office Macro virii have been added to the virus definitions for the last couple of years. There are *no* Mac OS X native virii in the wild.

    5. Re:Virus free?? by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Informative

      If OSX was "100% virus free", why would they have Virex, which has updates once a month?

      Mostly to kill Windows viruses that will affect Windows users if you mistakenly forward an infected email to one, or you if you're using a version of Office that can run VB viruses. There are some rare UNIX-based viruses, and probably, every once in a while, a genuine OS X virus, but I'd be surprised if the number of viruses that can do any harm on an OS X system without any MS products installed is more than 20.

    6. Re:Virus free?? by One+Louder · · Score: 1
      Besides the desire to prevent Macs from being (unaffected) carriers of Windows viruses, the users have been indoctrinated by Microsoft's incompetence and the media to believe that offering virus protection is a requirement even if it isn't.

      Michael Robertson's crew at Lindows.com discovered this as well - which is why LindowsOS ships with a basically unnecessary anti-virus utility. Like the Mac products, at best it prevents transmission.

    7. Re:Virus free?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Are they writing their own virus and patching them just for fun?

      basically, yes. That's what anti-virus application vendors do. They try to be proactive and invent viruses before virus developers do. Anyway, there *are* no known viruses for Mac OS X, and the anti-virus app updates are probably for Word macro viruses and Windows viruses - so Mac users don't spread them, even though they can't hurt them.

    8. Re:Virus free?? by repetty · · Score: 1

      A couple readers have posted a good answer to your question already (to stop propogation of viruses to Windows machines, even if they cause no harm to a Mac.)

      However, the real reason is simpler: It's an approval line item in most businesses.

      Managers, accountants and such don't care if a computer can get a virus or not (they don't even know what viruses are), but they can sure read their companie's security policies and if the policy says something like "must have virus protection software installed", well, they'd better be able to buy and install it.

      And, of course, there are software developers out there only too eager to help separate a full from his/her money.

      I've been a little cynical here but mustly this is really how things are. Been there, done that.

      --Richard

    9. Re:Virus free?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats security holes, not viruses.

    10. Re:Virus free?? by dave1212 · · Score: 1

      good point. It should be added that this is also looking out for viruses/worms that could make their way to a running copy of Virtual PC, especially if it's running an older version of Windows. There have never been any issues of the sort with VPC, but now that MS is making it (previous versions were made by Connectix) I anticipate that holes will develop.

      If you don't use Microsoft or Norton products, your Mac will run just fine. By now, any Mac power user has learned this from experience.
      (Norton/SUM/SAM was/is essential in OS 9 and below, but makes such a mess of any drive with OS X installed on it that it becomes hell, literal Hell to troubleshoot and repair. Even the newest version doesn't seem to understand the concept of disk permissions. It's kind of lame; my customers suffer, and I have to battle with Norton if it is installed on a customer's machine.

      ...and I die a little more every day.

      Not really, though. Panther comes out tomorrow. :D

    11. Re:Virus free?? by olafo · · Score: 1

      Running Virtual PC on your Mac, (XP or 2000) with the network enabled (e.g. to run Netmeeting), makes your Mac susceptible to viruses while running in the PC mode. Organizations may require anti-virus software on your Mac to plug the 4 vulnerable Windows holes. However, in OSX mode, no anti-virus software is necessary at most large technical organizations I'm familiar with. The only viruses I'm aware of on Macs were pre-OSX.

  97. Everyone's converting to Mac... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    Even Penny Arcade.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  98. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually one of the funniest trolls in a while

  99. That's because they are newer! by stewby18 · · Score: 1

    Newer Apple software packages generally require near current versions of the OS, and many other software vendors go the same route.

    Clearly your experience is different, but I wouldn't agree with that characterization from my experiences. I find that the vast majority of software I use (which includes a fair amount of stuff) either requires something like 10.1.x (usually 3 or 5), or has both a 10.1 and 10.2 version available. Unless you mean the software that Apple itself releases... but the original poster's point is that these are essentially new features. Can't use the very last Quicktime? Who cares; the last version for your system likely still plays 99% of the movies the new version would play.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you want to guarantee that you can use the latest and greatest of every piece of software you find, you need to keep your OS up-to-date. That's the way the world works. If you don't want to keep it up to date, then settle for continuing to use the products that have presumably served you well for the last year or two. There's always going to be a trade off; you can't expect to have it both ways in the software world (or anywhere else for that matter).

    1. Re:That's because they are newer! by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you want to guarantee that you can use the latest and greatest of every piece of software you find, you need to keep your OS up-to-date

      There's a difference between keeping it "up-to-date", and paying a $120 fee to Apple every year just to run the latest applications.

    2. Re:That's because they are newer! by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between keeping it "up-to-date", and paying a $120 fee to Apple every year just to run the latest applications.

      Actually, no, there isn't. The upgrading and pricing path for OS X is well known. If you want to keep up-to-date, you buy the upgrade and get the new features and a guarantee of compatibilty with the next wave of software. Or you don't pay the fee, and you don't get every new version of every new piece of software. Or you get a different OS, with a different pricing scheme.

      The only difference is a set of expectations based on an "I just want it to be this way" mentality. It's not like Apple is suddenly changing the rules on everyone.

  100. Apple sez... by EricWright · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... double-click an X11 app in Finder, and X11 automatically starts up, then opens your app. And yes, X11 is installed by default when you install Panther. Check it out here!

    1. Re:Apple sez... by iso · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not installed by default, but it is an install option. To get it, you either need to download it from Apple, or choose "custom install" when installing Panther and choose to install X11. It's included on the 3rd CD of Panther.

  101. Re:MacinTax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out the laptop prices, particularly the iBook G4s. Excellent value.

  102. Let me paraphrase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship worship propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda insulting other OSes insulting other OSes insulting other OSes insulting other OSes insulting other OSes please buy a mac please buy a mac please buy a mac freedom is overrated freedom is overrated freedom is overrated freedom is overrated freedom is overrated RMS is an idealistic fool RMS is an idealistic fool RMS is an idealistic fool consumption is good consumption is good consumption is good consumption is good consumption is good Steve Jobs is God Steve Jobs is God Steve Jobs is God

    Thanks a lot for supporting Slashdot, America's ONLY unbiased news source.

    Yours in Christ,
    Doctor Reginald Scooby
    Slashdot Trolling Academy

    btw, will you editors *ever* fix Slashdot? Stop downloading Anime and get back to work!

  103. Re:MacinTax? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

    Everyone always says that "Yeah Macs are more expensive, but the cost of ownership is lower compared to Microsoft".

    And it's made under the assumption that people buy new computers every time Microsoft releases a new operating system.

    It's just false for at least some percentage of users, just as it's true for some percentage of Mac users. There are plenty of people still running Windows 98, and there are plenty of people running Mac OS 9. There are some people that buy new Macs as often as upgrades are released, and there are some people that buy new computers as often as Service Packs are released for Windows.

    Personally, if I had to buy an OS upgrade every year just to keep it up to date, I think I'd go nuts. If I had to replace the entire computer to make a significant processor and motherboard upgrade I'd lose it.

    On the other hand, if I buy a laptop, Apple becomes much more pallatable, because very few companies allow significant hardware upgrades on laptops (I heard Alienware makes a laptop with upgradeable graphics cards, but I'd like to see how that plays out in the long run). It'd also help if they made Tablet-style notebooks, although many people seem to think these are fairly useless.

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  104. Re:It's $129..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's called "educational discount"?

    Sounds like something only students can get.

  105. Works for me by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Mail.app in 10.2 checks all IMAP folders for me. Maybe your IMAP server is broken?

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Works for me by foom · · Score: 1

      Mail.app in 10.2 only checks all folders when you 1) Start Mail.app, 2) Select "Go offline" followed by "Go online" from the menu, or 3) Have a network connectivity change.

      It does not check for new messages during the periodic (every ? min) check except in the "INBOX" folder.

    2. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Right. You can force it to check for new mail in all folders by doing Mailbox | Synchronize "account".

  106. Keys and Passphrases are not stored / not hackable by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 4, Informative

    I posted this elsewhere, in a deeper comment, but I think it is worthwhile to address this to your original comment to stop the confusion that your comment might have caused.

    2048 bit encryption is useless if the key is protected by a short, english passphrase - you may as well just have the short english passphrase as the key. You have to separate key and data to make it worthwhile. [newline] Unless the keys can be held on removable USB pen drives or similar then a simple brute force attack against the passphrase will give you the key required to decrypt the data. [newline] This is the problem with many CD encryption programms - sure the disc is encrypted, but the encryption/decryption algorythm is on the disk as well, and so is the key - just obfusicated a little using a simple function that is keyed with a short passphrase that can easily (at least compared to finding the long key) be found.

    You are making a common mistake that many people not involved in crypto/security make regarding passwords and encryption. You believe that the AES key is stored somewhere, unlocked by a passphrase. It is not. The AES key is algorithmically derived from the passphrase.

    When you enter your passphrase, that passphrase essentially acts as a source for a strong cryptographic hash function. The result of the cryptographic hash is the encryption key. There is never a time that your passphrase, your key or anything related to either is ever stored on the hard-drive.

    Brute force against such hash functions with variable-length passphrases is VERY VERY HARD. In fact, there are very few techniques that provide better key retrieval security.

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  107. It's called a Power Management Unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PMU is a more or less autonomous subsystem that handles (scheduled) wake/sleep, processor cycling, power button keypresses, "wake on magic packet" and more. It's a small CPU running off battery power. Apple has had a system like this for years. Older machines used the VIA-pmu, later machines used the CUDA chip.

    Sometimes (in my +6 years as a Mac/Unix sysadmin I've only seen this twice), the CUDA subsystem gets confused and the Mac refuses to startup (actually, it doesn't listen to the power button anymore). The solution is to locate a small button soldered to the logic board with the words "CUDA" next to it and hold that for a couple of secs. This resets the PMU subsystem and your machine is ready to go. The non-volatile RAM holding the timezone and other stuff, as wel as the date, are reset too when you do this.

    1. Re:It's called a Power Management Unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DO NOT PRESS AND HOLD THE PMU RESET BUTTON.

      Check with Apple for the actual procedure. What the parent said could severly harm your system.

  108. No Intel version of it... by Kindaian · · Score: 0, Troll

    So it's just another niche os for a niche platform... Nothing to see here... move along...

    1. Re:No Intel version of it... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Actually, since I use it, there is something to see here. And there won't be an Intel version for all the reasons that have already been beaten like the proverbial dead horse.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  109. Nice troll... Re:Virus free?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For stopping transmission of Windows viruses you dumbass... The Mac doesn't experience viruses (in fact there's only been about 7 in it's history and none of those work on OS 9 or OS X as far as I know).

    So which arsehole scored the parent as a 2?

  110. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  111. Whats missing from the article... by maxphunk · · Score: 1

    ...is that the Finder has been completely rewritten from the ground up using Cocoa. Going from 10.2.x -> 10.3 feels like a hardware upgrade. (Like the jump from 10.1 -> 10.2) I would say $130 is well worth it for this one.

    --

    "The chief enemy of creativity is 'good taste'" -Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Whats missing from the article... by ChiperSoft · · Score: 1

      Uhm, no it hasn't. It is a mach-o binary now, but it is definitely NOT cocoa.

    2. Re:Whats missing from the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are stupid. in most cases, cocoa is slower than carbon. don't spread the fud.

  112. Re:auto startup = PRAM by gobbo · · Score: 1
    Perhaps there is an always awake chipset somewhere inside that stores the info, but then why did they wait until now to implement it? And if there isn't such a chip, how is it supposed to know when to power up.

    It's called Parameter RAM, or P-RAM, and it's kept alive by the motherboard battery or a trickle feed from the wallplug. It keeps settings like time, date, hardware prefs etc. I think it's been on Mac motherboards since the late 80's, or even '84. The wake up / shut down automation has been part of the Energy Saver panel since at least System 8.0 or earlier... I remember setting the damn thing as an alarm clock with a really obnoxious start up sound in 1993, so that would be System 7.1 or so.

    The old macs really were amazingly automate-able, and it was easily extended with scripting. Nothing new here.

  113. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    They've been doing this one for a long time now.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  114. Re: upgrade envy by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Ehh... I can understand both sides of it, really. On one hand, I'm a big proponent of recycling/refurbishing older hardware and putting it back in use where it makes sense.

    Just recently, I sold a number of old Pentiums (75-120Mhz) and even a Dell 486DX2-66 desktop (in like-new condition, mind you - or else I probably wouldn't have bothered with it). I made complete, Internet-capable systems out of these with network card and modem, included a VGA monitor, and sold them for under $100 a pop.

    They're just the thing for some people. (For example, a manager of a fast food restaurant was very happy to find that Dell 486 I was selling. He wanted something just like that to run some point-of-sale software he had.)

    By the same token, I work for a guy who rebuilds old Apple Macs, loads them up with educational programs, and sells them as "first computers" for kids. Everything we have is under $200, with some complete systems as low as $45 each. People spend more than that on a single Playstation 2 game!

    But all of this has it's limits... If you originally shelled out the multiple thousands of dollars it cost for something like a Beige G3 Mac tower when it was new - you obviously had much more than just a "passing interest" in computers. It's always tough for these people to "let go" of their purchase - yet they still have the interest in computing technology that keeps them yearning for the new versions of OS's and software.

    Do I think Apple is overcharging for Panther? No.... really, I don't. At least your money is buying a very respected and stable product. People spend more than that every day on buggy, insecure copies of Windows XP.

    But people "whining" that their beige G3 or 3rd. party processor-upgraded pre-G3 PowerMac won't run Panther? I'm caught in the middle. Yes, they should probably accept the fact they've got to "pay to play" and upgrade their hardware. But no, I can't say I don't understand their pain, either. Computers are one of the worst "investments" around, as far as their resale value goes. New OS releases are usually an unpleasant reminder of why....

  115. Re: try tar & GPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My solution to this is to tar the directory & pipe it to GPG. A bitch for very large directories: but then if its worth encrypting its probably worth the hassle.
    That way I can always recover my kiddie porn collection.

  116. Funny about that $130 by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's funny (strange) that Mr. Pogue makes such a big deal ("Now the big one:...") about the $130 upgrade price. I'm willing to bet that his copy of Panther didn't cost him even $0.01. He probably got a "review copy" or a "not for resale copy" or somesuch.

    If you're the kind of guy who wants to get a lot of free stuff - books, gadgets, hardware, etc. - you can hardly do better than to become an author and reviewer. Write one or two books, and suddenly every other author in that field wants your name and a quote on the back of their book. I believe Dave Barry has written on this subject, and he's a lot funnier than I am, so I'll leave it to him.

    Anyway, the upshot is that you should pretty much ignore anything that any hardware or software reviewer says about money, because they likely haven't spent any of theirs on hardware or software in quite a while.

    1. Re:Funny about that $130 by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      Write one or two books ...or a hundred and forty...

      Pogue has been around for a long long time and has written quite a lot of books over the years, aside from being a technology columnist for the NYT.

      That being said, he's not writing the article for himself, he's writing it for other people - and those people should hear about the upgrade fee and find out if it's worth it or not.

      --Dan

    2. Re:Funny about that $130 by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the upshot is that you should pretty much ignore anything that any hardware or software reviewer says about money, because they likely haven't spent any of theirs on hardware or software in quite a while.

      This makes no sense. They can read what the asking price is, whether they personally paid it or not. They can also make a judgment as to how reasonable that price is. That's the reviewer's job. It isn't necessary for them to pay the money out of pocket so they can experience the same pain as the average joe. By your logic, it wouldn't be possible to say, "I didn't by x because it was too expensive" - Not having paid the money myself, I would have NO IDEA if it were or were not actually too expensive.

    3. Re:Funny about that $130 by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty damn clueless argument. How about the fact that a lot of reviewers take price into account when presenting their review. It does make a difference.

    4. Re:Funny about that $130 by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      You have a good point. But I think you have to admit that getting something without paying for it tends to skew one's perception of value.

      Usually, I see this happen in the other direction, where price seems not to be an object for the reviewer. That's because, well, it isn't. In this case, I feel like Mr. Pogue is making a mountain out of a molehill. He talks about how great a number of features are, but then turns around and complains about a measley $129. Okay, I know $129 is a lot of dough for some of us, but it's only $30 more than the upgrade price for MS Word, and fully $100 less than Word's purchase price.

      I don't have a problem with reviewers getting free stuff, though it'd be nice if they were a little more up front about it. I just feel that their reviews ought to give you enough information about the product itself to let YOU decide whether, given your own requirements and financial circumstances, the product will be a good value for you. YOU should be the one to say "I didn't buy x because it was too expensive," and THEY should tell you how well the product works, whether it lives up to the publisher's claims, and under what circumstances it works or doesn't work particularly well.

    5. Re:Funny about that $130 by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Usually, I see this happen in the other direction, where price seems not to be an object for the reviewer. That's because, well, it isn't. In this case, I feel like Mr. Pogue is making a mountain out of a molehill. He talks about how great a number of features are, but then turns around and complains about a measley $129. Okay, I know $129 is a lot of dough for some of us, but it's only $30 more than the upgrade price for MS Word, and fully $100 less than Word's purchase price.

      I agree that getting things for free can skew your perceptions, but I also think you're using one explanation for two opposite behaviors and that undercuts your point. If some reviewer writes that $130 is chump change, you can attribute that cavalier attitude to being spoiled by freebies, but when the exact opposite occurs, you invoke the same theory to explain it. I'm suspicious of any theory that can be bent to account for any result.

      There are extreme cases, I'm sure, but I think a reviewer is as capable of estimating what's too much or too little as anyone else. Even here, among people who will pay for it, there's disagreement as to whether that's cheap or expensive. I've read a lot of posts here complaining about the outrageous price, and others like you (whom I agree with, BTW) who say it's not such a big deal.

      I don't have a problem with reviewers getting free stuff, though it'd be nice if they were a little more up front about it.

      Hmm...I guess I always took some of that as a given. Then again, we've heard about the dog-and-pony shows and junkets video game companies throw for reviewers, which they aren't good about disclosing.

      Really, the only objection I had was to the original comment to the effect that you can pretty much ignore what reviewers say about money. I'd say rather that it's good to bear that in mind, but that on the whole, reviewers probably have the same spectrum of opinions on this as everyone else. Like everything in reviews, take them with a moderately suspicious eye, but don't dismiss them out of hand.

    6. Re:Funny about that $130 by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      You just make a logical fallacy - that's a circumstantial ad hominem argument. Just because you are putting the reviewer's circumstances to question doesn't mean his argument is any less valid.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
  117. A little mistake... by p-p-pom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing that is very, VERY good about Mac OS X is the excellent I18N of the system, which works right out of the box. I use Japanese, English and French on a daily basis and the new improved Japanese input method makes this task quite manageable. An excellent idea was also to make the terminal (which still mostly sucks, but still) but UTF-8 by default. Including vim was also a smart move but WHY OH WHY did they have to compile it without multibyte support? It then becomes useless on the terminal they provide... fortunately this is easy to fix yourself.

  118. Re:expose QuickTime demo by funwithstuff · · Score: 1

    Just in case all the descriptions aren't quite enough, people might want to check out this demo page at Apple to see Expose in action.

    --
    it's not about the karma, it's about the whuffie
  119. More ass kicking from Apple! Yeah baby. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Apple has done it again. I can't wait to get my handy on this! Once again Apple demonstrates why the closed source commercial development model, in combination with the BSD license, is superior in every way to so-called "free software". A better user interface, a more stable and robust platform for server and heavy duty computing tasks, the FASTEST desktop and supercomputer systems in the world, more applications for science, engineering and general purpose desktop use. There is simply no comparison between the hobbyist OS's like Linux and even Windows to this professional standard operating system and platform from Apple. Yeah baby! Think different, think better, think Apple.

  120. Re:Whaaaa? by sammycourt · · Score: 1

    That line isn't in the original article, by the way.

  121. Double Standards by daviddennis · · Score: 1
    Obviously this double standard is not universal; just read a few more of the posts here.

    But I, among others, hold the double standard, and the reason is pretty simple:
    • We love Macs and the Apple software that makes them shine
    • We really, really hate Microsoft Windows.
    In that context, then, we resent paying Microsoft, but we line up at the Apple Store at 8:00pm Friday just to pay for Panther.

    Many of us are more than happy to pay for something approaching greatness (MacOS X), and we are not happy to pay for something that isn't great or even all that good (Windows XP and friends).

    Did that help?

    D
    1. Re:Double Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... except all this is fanboy-ism.

      There's fans of XP too, who feel the same about you but with OS X and XP swapped.

      What annoys the rest of us is having to hear either bunch doing all the whining and sniping, and particulaly in the case of the Mac people, the evangelism.

      It's a bloody OS. I'm delighted you love your OS, but shut up already about it. I don't *CARE* that you think it's more productive, I'm fine with what I have. That applies to ANY OS evangelists. I don't care which one.

  122. Brushed metal -- yuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't anyone else hate the brushed metal look? How can design-conscious people tolerate this ugliness?

  123. Encryption strength by coolfrood · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how Apple came up with the 149 trillion year strength of encryption. They may use a zillion bit key for encryption, but encryption is eventually as strong as the user's password.

  124. remember G5 users, 10.3 is a 32-bit OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac OS X 10.3 is not a 64-bit operating system. This is particularly frustrating because Apple's marketing machine has very carefully crafted their message to make a reasonable person believe the operating system is 64-bit, especially if you download and read Power Mac G5 Tech Overview (PDF). Apple says about the G5 version of Mac OS X that it runs all of your software -- and runs it faster -- with a version of Mac OS X Jaguar specially tuned for the PowerPC G5 processor, providing a seamless transition to 64-bit power. That's only the beginning of the smoke and mirrors. The 64-bit power only gives users two things: the operating system can address up to 8GB of RAM, though user programs are still limited to 4GB, and some of the G5 numerical hardware is available with a special version of GCC (3.3).

    1. Re:remember G5 users, 10.3 is a 32-bit OS by VojakSvejk · · Score: 1

      This is essentially correct, but the situation is actually a little worse. You can buy a 32-bit Intel machine with more than 4 GB of RAM (try www.swt.com) and have all the "64-bitness" that you get on a G5 except for the hardware handling of 64-bit integers (whoopie!). The G5 systems they deliver do not "break through the 4 GB barrier" in any real way; they see the barrier the same way any other 32-bit system does.

      Please, people... Apple owes anyone who bought a G5 system a FREE upgrade to a genuine 64-bit system. I'm just glad I didn't pay their frightening price to get 8 GB in mine.

      Had they simply been honest about this in the first place, it might be OK, but they weren't.

    2. Re:remember G5 users, 10.3 is a 32-bit OS by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1
      This is why we just ordered several new dual G-4 machines. It came crunch time and we had to do something since we were hiring two new empolyees and it was time to replace some of our older G3 machines.

      Until FCP can take advantage of the added power, it doesn't benefit us enough to warrent the huge early adoptor mark-up.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    3. Re:remember G5 users, 10.3 is a 32-bit OS by adri · · Score: 1

      You can't easily use more than 4gig in a _single_ application on a PC without .. well, many many hacks.

      On a 64 bit OS, I can just go "OS, give me 5 gig of RAM" and it'll quite happily do so. In a single chunk.

      So, yes, its a bit misleading, but the only real misleading thing I have a problem with is the "first 64-bit desktop machine". *cough* Alpha.

  125. Not a double standard at all by Tony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Software should be free," is not a double-standard. It's an ideal.

    When you hear people griping about spending tons of money on MS products, it's because they are overpriced, bloated, insecure hacks from a corporate megalith that hates innovation because it means they might miss the Next Big Thing. Like the music industry, they don't want surprise hits; they want engineered hits.

    Apple, on the other hand, has a corporate philosophy that respest, even *loves*, the computer. I believe this is Wozniak's biggest legacy: the love of the computer. So when Apple makes a product, it is often well worth the admission price.

    You are confusing two orthogonal issues: the ideal of free software, and the judgements of the current state of corporate, commercial software. Just because some of us hold the Free Software ideal does not mean we don't hold valid opinions about the commercial software industry.

    I hope this helps clarify the issue.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  126. A radical new UI improvement by smartin · · Score: 1

    Expose sounds interesting but why don't they just add the ability to lower a bloody window or push it to the bottom of the stack like you can in X11.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:A radical new UI improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Apple-H. Window gone. Go to the dock to retrieve. Very handy.

    2. Re:A radical new UI improvement by wavedeform · · Score: 1

      In most apps Command-` rotates the window order.

  127. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you bother waking up in the morning?

  128. Cap the Bandwidth by Dawang · · Score: 1
    2) If I open a chat to one particular friend, it causes my cpu to pegged. Fortunately the process is niced (iChat, that is) and so it's not particularly disruptive, but it's a very ahrd problem to diagnose (it's only him, other people with the same setup work fine)

    Tell your friend to go to his iChat video preferences and limit the bandwidth down a few notches. I found that I had mine set to "Unlimited" and when I connected to one of my friends, I was flooding him with data which killed his CPU. Lowering my end took care of it and we could then video chat nicely.

  129. Re:parent +2 informative? how about Score=0 Luddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And of course you can run older software, because you paid your annual fee. Try finding Apple applications (or most commercial apps for that matter) that run on 10.1.x."

    How about iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, AppleWorks, Remote Desktop....? With most other apps (for example, Quicktime, Mail, etc.), while the *current version* requires 10.2, the older versions will still work flawlessly in 10.1. So you can choose to pay for the upgrade, or continue to use your old versions for free, but don't get the upgraded features. I don't see how that's unfair.

    I don't know about commercial software supporting 10.1, but really, if a third party company chooses not to support a two-year old version of the operating system, how is that Apple's fault?

    Personally, I've been using 10.2 since about a week after it came out, and I love it, but you certainly don't *have* to use it. My parents have been using the final released of 10.1 (10.1.5, I believe) for over a year, and it works just fine from them. Despite what you seem to believe, they have not suddenly found themselves unable to use their computer or applications.

  130. Re:It's $129..... by Politburo · · Score: 1

    Okay, fine. Let's go so far as to call 10.2 OS XI, and 10.3 OS XII.

    Do you agree with Apple's strategy of releasing OS X, releasing OS XI a year later for $120, and then requiring OS XI for the applications which are considered a strong part of what I'll call "The Mac Advantage"? Do you agree with them, about another year later, releasing OS XII and doing the same thing?

    Call it what you want, OS X 10.3, OS X 2004, OS X SP2, OS XII... it's still making your users pay $120 each year.

  131. how do I read the darn article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may be old news or a dumb question, but is there anytwhere else to read this article? I feel silly asking, But there is so much stupidity on the net i doubt adding to it slightly will harm that much. While the New York Times site is technically free, I messed up my password sometime ago. I've been unable to straighten it out, so consequntly the site is closed to me unless I get a new email account just for it, an even then it will lkely be messed up again in the future. Does anyone have a site/article mirror or work around for this?

  132. Apple is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is so worthless, I can't believe peopple use that crap. Just kill yourself you yuppies of questionable sexual preference and let apple die already.

    1. Re:Apple is garbage by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, at least you present a well reasoned arguement. Macintosh computers are more stable and pleasant to use. There are great features built into the OS, which you would know had you read the article.

      I know Windows pretty well. I work with it professionally and have an MCSE in Win2k (I'm not bragging, I swear). I wouldn't use it at home though. Product activation? Trustworthy computing? Please. And if that doesn't change your mind like a bolt of lightning, well I guess you're just a stupid head.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Apple is garbage by scottgfx · · Score: 1

      U R Sooooo Kewl :)

      --
      It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
  133. Pogue also writes Windows by rjung2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you checked his bibliography, you'll see that David Pogue has also written several books for Windows, such as The Missing Manual series for Windows XP and Windows Me.

    Pogue might enjoy Macs, but he's hardly a Microsoft-bashing zealot.

    1. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by clontzman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surely -- it goes both ways. He shouldn't be reviewing XP either. I'm not accusing him of being anti-Microsoft, just of being unflinchingly pro-Apple (which makes writing an impartial review more of a challenge). Surely there are journalists who can write a reasoned review of a product who aren't also living off of the teat of the product they're reviewing.

    2. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by filmsmith · · Score: 1

      Question. Where is it written that reviews MUST be impartial?

    3. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Where is it written that reviews MUST be impartial?

      If it's not impartial, it's an advertisement.

    4. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by weez75 · · Score: 1

      Find someone qualified to write an article such as this for a major publication that *doesn't* have an agenda and I'll be impressed. The relatively small number of viable operating systems and the great disparity between them means that most people have a distinct preference. It's called differentiation--something Apple and Microsoft both know quite a bit about.

      So Pogue reviewing OSX is fine with me. He's doesn't take everything in a glossy magazine as gospel and presents an effective look at things.

      --
      Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
    5. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If any of you retards could do more than click a mouse, drool in your bibs, and pick your noses, you'd know Pogue writes very little of that stuff. He's good at making money and at bullshitting, but as a guru he's not worth a cent.

    6. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Wow, how incredibly black and white!

      So to be totally impartial essentially means you don't care one way or another about a product you're reviewing. However wouldn't the act of reviewing said product remove you from impartiality? IE, "It sucked!" or "I loved it!"

      And if it's just mediocre, well, that's still not being impartial.

    7. Re:Pogue also writes Windows by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      What nonsense. It's not an advertisement unless it's paid for - in this case, it's just an opinion. The newspaper is paying Pogue to give his opinion on Panther.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  134. Re:It's $129..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EXACTLY! Finally, someone who gets it.

    But...there are UI improvements! But....they've added features! But....the old version of the software you can't download any more still works! But....it's faster than the old version!

    It's a cleverly dressed up carrot to motivate people to buy and to feel good about their annual Apple subscription fee, which isn't exactly optional. New features - good. Lock-out of last year's OS - BAD.

  135. No. I refuse to ignore it. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Here little Spam-bot!

    Heeere little Spam-bot!

    (...holding out a piece of roast beef and wiggling it...)

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  136. Re:It's $129..... by rjung2k · · Score: 1

    Call it what you want, OS X 10.3, OS X 2004, OS X SP2, OS XII... it's still making your users pay $120 each year.

    Unless Steve Jobs breaks into your home, holds a gun to your head, and demand you to buy MacOS X 10.3 or else, it's stupid to say Apple is "making" users do anything.

  137. Err... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean FreeBSD.

  138. Redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> ...if you want some cash, start your own business. Or give an awful lot of blood.

    What's the difference? ;)

  139. Octopussy-still leaves two fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    opps

  140. Re:It's $129..... by BenjyD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My original post was actually intended for another, similar-sounding post that said it wasn't worth the money, I just clicked reply on the wrong one.

    It does seem odd that apple can't (or won't) maintain some sort of backwards compatibility, even if only to a limited extent. That said, I imagine the value of the time saved in a year for an average worker using a Mac instead of a Windows machine is probably more than $130.

    I don't own a mac personally - my OS comes with free upgrades every few hours (Gentoo).

  141. How much discount actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like, if I'm a student, do I get the 20% discount on top of student prices or normal prices? Plus, do you actually get the whole 20% off?

    1. Re:How much discount actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, if I'm a student, do I get the 20% discount on top of student prices or normal prices? Plus, do you actually get the whole 20% off?

      No, they just tell you you're getting 20% off but then charge you regular price.

  142. Re:It can be that simple (Cont'd) by Politburo · · Score: 1

    Should teach me to hit submit instead of preview.

    Anyway, to say that a user has put themselves into a dynamic software mode is ridiculous. That is simply the nature of 99% of the software released today. Even large programs suffer from this, and fixes are released daily for many of the programs we all use, no matter what platform, no matter what product. In order to completely avoid this, as you suggest, a user must select those programs which have already been thoroughly, thoroughly tested, to ensure that no upgrades or other changes to the software will be required. To hold a personal user to such a standard is ludicrous.

  143. Re:It's $129..... by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Informative
    That makes it an Apple .1 upgrade/bugfix/annual tithing. Almost everything they make (along with others) doesn't work on pre-10.2
    Nonsense. I know plenty of people who never bothered to upgrade to Jaguar, and their software still works fine. The only things that don't work on 10.1 are the completely new applications, which are a big part of what Apple is selling with these major (even though the put the version number after the decimal instead of before) upgrades. Apple tends to promote it as an OS upgrade that includes some bonus applications, but it is at least as reasonable to say that you are paying for a set of new applications and utilities that also includes a bonus OS upgrade.
  144. Re: upgrade envy by stripes · · Score: 1
    But people "whining" that their beige G3 or 3rd. party processor-upgraded pre-G3 PowerMac won't run Panther? I'm caught in the middle. Yes, they should probably accept the fact they've got to "pay to play" and upgrade their hardware. But no, I can't say I don't understand their pain, either. Computers are one of the worst "investments" around, as far as their resale value goes. New OS releases are usually an unpleasant reminder of why....

    New comercial OS releases at least. Open source OSes do sometimes "de-support" old hardware, but normally only when the hardware is so old that nobody that ran beta versions of the hardware were avilable to test it! I have an ISA sound card bought in 1991 or so that worked under FreeBSD until about 2001. If I had really wanted it to keep working I could have spent a day or two figuring out what bit rot killed the driver and then submitted a patch and made the 3 other people on earth who still owned that card happy. I ended up spending $18 on a replacment, and leaving the work to on of those other 3 folks.

    In fact I know someone who has been dilligantly working on adding MCA support to NetBSD (I think). He has been going to HAMfests and buying any MCA gear he hadn't seen before so he can code up a driver. Odd hobby, but I'm sure someone somewhere is thankful.

    So why doesn't the beige G3 run Panther? Well I understand that Apple probbably doesn't see enough reason to assign testers to make sure it works, and it would probbabl ytake far more programmer time to fix the bugs then it did to code up the rotating cube while switchign users eye candy. Yeah, I understand that. But...

    ...do you really think once it is released the same folks that made Darwin boot on unsupported-by-Apple-old-Macs won't do their magic again and make the beige G3 work?

    I betcha $5 it'll work by the end of November.

  145. Price tag, Shmrice tag. by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

    I got mine for $69, including free shipping, and it will be here tomorrow afternoon. (In other words, I won't have to wait for 8:00.

    Ah, the perks of being a student.

    It's worth it either way. Sure, financially, it seems like a good thing to be running Windows XP for five years, but that little "Search Dog" is going to seem pretty old by 2006. I'll take my innovation in large, annual chunks, versus the Windows way of annual, bug-fix Service Packs, followed by a big, garish upgrade every 5 years.

  146. Re:parent +2 informative? how about Score=0 Luddit by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

    so johnpaul191 sez:

    "If you don't want to upgrade, then don't. Many many many people still use OS9. At some point there will be less choice for web browsers supporting the latest features, but most everything else will work as it does today and did 2 years ago. My mom still runs OS9 and she can still check email, and she still will after 10.3 hits the shelves tomorrow."

    Until this past March, I was happily using System 7.6.1. When I changed out the 5400/180 logic board for a 5400/200 board, I jumped directly to OS 8.6.

    I'm really happy with 8.6. Although, now that I have a 5500/225 logic board installed, along with a Sonnet 400Mhz G3 upgrade card plugged in the logic board, along with 128MB of RAM, OS 9 might be an interesting experiment.

    But I digress.

    What I've got now suits my needs quite well. Eudora still works. iCab still works, Graphic Converter and Photoshop still work, SoundJam MP still works. Text Edit-Pro still works. I do regret that I can't access the iTunes Music Store, but as I don't have an iPod yet, I can live without it.

    If I had a suitable Mac that could run OS X, I wouldn't mind paying the yearly upgrade fee. After all, it works out to something like US$10.00 a month. People pay more than $10.00 PER DAY for two cups of Hot Cup Filler from Charbucks!

    I think that the average OS X user can squeeze out $10.00 a MONTH for the annual upgrade.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  147. Re:MacinTax? by Politburo · · Score: 1

    Analogy broken. I can start up Windows 2000 and don't get messages that say I need Windows XP to run this application.

  148. Price. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Let's face it... the majority of mac users aren't looking for the cheapest thing out there. $130 for a brand new OS is fine... if you bought 10.2, or 10.1, or 10.0, you still have upgrade cupons, and can get your upgrade for cheap (I think it's $20 or $40, or something.. haven't looked yet). And hey, if you are poor, there is no activation or anything, I mean, you COULD pirate it extremely easily.

    This isn't like a "bugfix release" like a windows service pack.. they fixed a lot of stuff, added stuff.. and I have to say, if apple continues to improve OS X in the ame way they have been so far, with each release, it's well worth the $130.

    Yes, I know I could do all these same things with linux, but it would take 10x the effort.

    1. Re:Price. by valkraider · · Score: 1

      Upgrade coupons are invalid. Only if you bought a new PowerBook, or G5 can you upgrade for $20. The rest pay full price.

  149. 0.1 upgrade well justified by pstreck · · Score: 1
    That decimal-point increase (from version 10.2 to 10.3) doesn't give the upgrade's 150 new features enough credit. Then again, Apple's not the only company to have trouble with naming schemes. What's the logic in the sequence of Windows versions - 95, 98, Me, XP?
    I think we should be thanking Apple that they use coherent numbering schemes. If it was a move to OS 11 then you would expect a whole new operating system, not just an improvement on the old set of features. Linux has been at 2.x for how many years now? Microsoft is the one who needs help, 95 98 ME STOP NT 4 2000 XP Longhorn... They're more worried about clever marketing then making sense.
    --

    Later,
    Phil
    1. Re:0.1 upgrade well justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is the one who needs help, 95 98 ME STOP NT 4 2000 XP Longhorn... They're more worried about clever marketing then making sense.

      Compare that to: System 7, MacOS 8, MacOS 9, MacOS X, MacOS X 10.x, and if the author gets his way, we'll be looking forward to MacOS X 11. Makes real sense.

  150. Mac OS X 11?! by poopyhead · · Score: 1

    Now THAT is some fine editing. Do they not realize that X is a roman numeral? I know that oh-ess-ex sounds cooler in that "TO THE X-TREME!" kind of sense, but you might want to actually figure out how to SAY the name of the product you're publishing a review of in the New York Times.

    --


    Wes - Crazy like a fox.
    1. Re:Mac OS X 11?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No editting problem at all. Mac oh ess ten version eleven.... It's what comes when OS X 10.x is finally EOLed (after version, say, 10.21.39)

  151. Re:It's $129..... by Politburo · · Score: 1

    Nevermind the fact that if this was MS, you'd see such hell raised here that has not been seen before...

    Based on everything else I've read in the comments, Apple does not make all of its software backwards compatible. By doing such, they are making users upgrade to use the latest software. If you're okay with paying, that's great, but it represents a significant departure from the accepted practice of backward compatibility in OSes and applications.

  152. Paper of record ?!? by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
    The author seriously refers to the next major-version release as "Mac OS X 11". I cried in my coffee when I read that. This is the level of journalism in what is supposed to be one of the best papers in the world. I think I am going to cry again.

    Besides, writing "Mac OS XI" might have almost made his joke funny.

  153. Re:It's $129..... by Politburo · · Score: 1

    That said, I imagine the value of the time saved in a year for an average worker using a Mac instead of a Windows machine is probably more than $130.

    Yeah, sounds great! Except you just made it up. You say at the end of your post that you use neither system (I use windows, but no mac), so I doubt either of us have the perspective to say which one is cheaper to run, or saves more time, except for the slashdot perspective, which we all know is slanted.

  154. $130 - Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just recently bought a new iMac about three weeks ago with 10.2.7 and I will gladly hand over the $ for the 10.3 upgrade. The fact of the matter is it works, and it works better than any other personal computer on the market. I've also got a gateway 6400 that runs redhat linux. I decided to upgrade from RH 7.1 to 9 a couple of weeks ago and let's just say it has gone less that seemlessly. I will eventually figure out the problem(s), re-install and all that crap. But I think it will have to wait for a rainy day. I have better things to do with my precious free time than screw around with computers, that's what work is for. Now go out and play!

  155. Mod parent down by pstreck · · Score: 1
    I mean, you COULD pirate it extremely easily.
    Piracy is bad, dont encourage it. If you can't afford it sell something on ebay.
    --

    Later,
    Phil
  156. Re:It's $129..... by Politburo · · Score: 1

    Also, until Bill G, or Darl McB, is doing the same, I want to see no talk of MS or SCO "making" people do anything. Cause we all know it takes a gun to the head to coerce users to do something.

  157. funny stuff by batura · · Score: 1

    The article says that it's such an upgrade that incrementing it .1 is offensive, yet it grips about the $130 price tag!

  158. Hypocritical... by samdu · · Score: 1

    So, let me get this straight... The reviewers say that this should be a whole number version number (OS XI?) but complain that it costs too much? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

  159. Re:MacinTax? by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

    I'd paypal you a thousand dollars if you could find ANY 10.2 machine that upon boot-up, declared you need to upgrade to 10.3. Or did you mean to say that certain apps will require 10.3? Obviously. Developers who want to take advantage of new features will require 10.3.

  160. Family packs are cheaper (by the half-dozen - 1) by finelinebob · · Score: 1

    If you've got more than one Mac to upgrade, remember that the Apple Store sells family packs -- 5 OS licenses for $199 instead of $129 for just one license. License says they have to be installed in Macs in the same "housing unit", so I don't know how that might affect machines that move somehow or another to another "unit"....

    ...as an aside, since it includes Xcode, it's just perfect for the family that develops and compiles their own code together!

  161. Re:It's $129..... by one-of-many · · Score: 1

    My Mac is less than 12 months old and they want me to pay $129 for an upgrade?
    New features look cool, but as someone who recently "switched" from Intel/MS, I feel a little cheated.
    I'd pay less than $50 for the upgrade. One more of these and I'll give in and learn linux.

    Recommendation for a linux distribution for me (one that lets me install the OS on a Intel box with a CD and instructions that would fit on one page)?

  162. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When your entire home directory is encrypted into one big file, the tiniest corruption, even a single bit, will render the entire thing useless.

    With file-by-file encryption, corruption will only destroy the file that gets corrupted, so you don't lose everything.

    Who's sucking it now?

  163. Congrats NYTimes by CptChipJew · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article states that the 10.1 upgrade was $130.

    The 10.1 upgrade was free. If you made an image of the CD, then removed one particular file of the image, and reburned the disc, you had a bonafide 10.1 full install.

    But the discs were free. You could even get more than one if you asked nicely enough at the Apple store.

    --
    Vonal Declosion
    1. Re:Congrats NYTimes by soupforare · · Score: 1

      If you were lucky enough to live near an Apple store.
      I had to get my 10.1 update through slightly less legitimate venues.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    2. Re:Congrats NYTimes by valkraider · · Score: 1

      You mean an "Apple Authorized" store, because the closest Apple store to me at the time was > 500 miles away, yet there were at least 5 places that had it in our metro area... Then there are places like Albuquerque, NM where there is not a Mac store to be found.... (Except 1 CompUSA)

  164. You're missing the point by MochaMan · · Score: 1

    You don't need to update your software. If a new version with bug fixes gets released, nobody is forcing you to upgrade to it. Your existing version is still just as useful as it was yesterday, just like your existing OS. If it was good enough to use then, why is it so urgent to upgrade?

    And if it is so important to you that you have the latest and greates software and bugfixes that you get your panties in a knot over this whole thing, then perhaps being able to have the latest stuff is worth $130 US to you.

    1. Re:You're missing the point by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Security fixes may be important however. But that's a slightly different matter, and Apple hasn't stopped working on those for 10.2 yet. (But do note the "yet".)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:You're missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying for features is one thing, but if one's already paid for software, it's hardly unreasonable to expect bug fixes for free.

      No one may be forcing them to continue using software with bugs, but that doesn't mean that it's fair for them to be in that position.

    3. Re:You're missing the point by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      I agree absolutely.

      From what I've hear 10.1 users still don't have the latest OpenSSL and SSH patches. Sure, they can go out, download the source themselves, and compile, but something so simple should have been provided by Apple by now.

  165. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When your entire home directory is encrypted into one big file, the tiniest corruption, even a single bit, will render the entire thing useless.

    Not surprisingly, the folks at Apple are not colossal idiots. There's this little thing known as "parity" which corrects single-bit errors. You'd have to get two errors in the same parity block in order to lose any data, and you'd still only lose the data that was actually stored in that block.

    Who's sucking it now?

    Well, apparently...

  166. whens gon be x86's time laudy by steak · · Score: 0, Troll

    every now and then some one asks why doesnt apple make an x86 version of os x. it seems on this eave of panther a great time reassert that question. STEVE JOBS, YOU MORON, WHY DONT YOU MAKE AN X86 VERSION OF OS X?

    p.s. if you say drivers ill bitch slap you, bsd has plenty of hardware support.

  167. Re:It's $129..... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    Students, facualty, or really anyone that recieves a pay check from an educational institution. If your pay stub has an educational institution on it, you get the discount.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  168. Re:It's $129..... by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

    My iMac is about 4 years old now, and has had two paid upgrades in that time, with Panther making a third if I can find room on my credit card for it. I paid for 10.0 and 10.2. Each gave me new capabilities that I didn't have before, and 10.3 will add still more features and reportedly faster speeds.

    --
    "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
  169. And here, we can notice the astronomical size... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of your stupidity!

    Is "download ID" not clear enough???

  170. Re:It's $129..... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    They want you to upgrade yes, but your computer will not magicaly stop working, your software will not stop working, you'll probably be able to use some new apps, but obviously some apps will use features built into the new OS and as such will not likely run on your current OS, but such is life in the computer world. Besides, wait a month or two after the release and you will see the price in most places drop to at the most $99. If you have a friend who's a student, a teacher or works in an educational institution, they can get it for you for $79. I think the same applies to government employees.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  171. Brute force this! by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    The only way passphrases can be secure is if they are not easily typeable. Adding the "easily remembered, easily typed" constraint on a key is a huge constraint!

    Brute force this: "My turtle is 3ke"

    Pretty easy to remember, and to type. Completely resistant to dictionairy attacks because of the 3 random characters at the end of the phrase (which are easy to remember). Your search space to find this is essentially the same as that when you are trying to break a variable length passphrase of random characters. You could brute-force it with efficiency on the order of 36^17 ~= 36^16+36^15+36^14+... because it is 16 characters out of a pool of 36, variable length (assuming the brute force starts at length 1 and keeps going). This equates, roughly, to about 87 bits of keying material without taking into account additional bits generated through salting in the key generation function (log2(36^17)).

    So, perhaps we should add punctuation "My turtle! is 3ke" - this should change efficiency to something around 64^18. This equates, roughly, to about 108 bits of keying material without salts, much more with salts (log2(64^18). Nothing to scoff at, considering the difficulty of breaking >100 bit symmetric keys.

    Conclusion: With proper keygeneration and salting, this technique can easily give high bit keyspaces from small dictionairy-resistant passphrases.

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    1. Re:Brute force this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Brute force this: "My turtle is 3ke" That's just four dictionary words with a letter replaced by a number. 3ke could be 'ake', 'ike', 'eke', or 'uke'. The only upper-case character is the start of one the first word. In addition 'My' and 'is' are very common words that would be searched early.

    2. Re:Brute force this! by firewood · · Score: 1
      Brute force this: "My turtle is 3ke"

      One brute force method would be 1 dictionary word + 1 random character, 2 dictionary words + 2 random characters, etc. and permutations. That would be considerably more efficient than hunting through the keyspace of 16 random ASCII characters, assuming that the passphrase length was already guessed somehow.

      In any case, the password setup routine should tell the user that it estimates the password entered can be broken in X seconds, where X might be small enough number to concern careful users.

    3. Re:Brute force this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One brute force method would be 1 dictionary word + 1 random character, 2 dictionary words + 2 random characters, etc. and permutations.

      You can't possibly be serious. Those random characters could be anywhere in the phrase and of any length, etc.. The point being made is simple: Add a few random characters somewhere in a passphrase or do something else similar (prepend x_ before each word, whatever!) and the passphrase becomes resistant to dictionairy attacks.

      While it is easy to examine a passphrase like the one that was shown and then magically create an algorithm that can crack it, that misses the point. You have to create an algorithm that can crack any variation of a dictionairy attack. Do the analysis... You will find that no matter how hard you try, the efficiency of your attack will still asymptotically approach the brute-force case.

    4. Re:Brute force this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The three characters "3ke" are meant to be random. But whatever, use "3kt" instead so that there is no dictionairy entry with vowel repacement...

    5. Re:Brute force this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The point being made is simple: Add a few random
      > characters somewhere in a passphrase or do >something else similar (prepend x_ before each >word, whatever!) and the passphrase becomes
      > resistant to dictionairy attacks.

      Most decent dictionary crackers, eg. 'crack' allow you to specify rules that allow you to test for modifications of words sets, adding characters, digits, replacing characters with numbers etc.

      'Adding a few characters somewhere in the passphrase' only increases the keyspace by ([size of character set]*[passphrase length])^2.

      The search space to crack a pass phraselike you mentioned is going to be really quite small depending on what dictionary you are using. Certainly way less than 2^128.

    6. Re:Brute force this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The search space to crack a pass phraselike you mentioned is going to be really quite small depending on what dictionary you are using. Certainly way less than 2^128.

      Only if you knew beforehand what type of dictionairy obfuscation was used. A few random characters in a passphrase, in one or more random places will make the passphrase as strong as a single stream of random characters, because searching for the insertion point of the random characters is just a variation on the brute-force (same amount of work). That was the point, I think.

      Eagle-eyed hindsight into cracking a key is irrelevant.

  172. Re: beige G3's by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm sure Panther will be on Beige G3's by the end of the year, at worst.

    The problem is, "unsupported" is still "unsupported" - any way you slice it. Those "old world" Macs running Darwin via patches and helper apps still don't really have everything functional. (Last I checked, things such as sound recording and the volume control for audio output were broken.)

    I regularly see reports of Beige G3's that do weird things with OS X - including trash the whole partition on a weekly basis, making it impossible to really use it. Sure, it works on many of them without issues - but just as often, weird glitches happen. I had a Beige G3 with a Sonnet G4 upgrade board in it, and I ran OS X on it. It worked, but I'd occasionally get problems where it wouldn't boot when first powered on. If I hit the reset button, then it was ok on the second try. Not a "show stopper", but still behavior that's frustrating.

  173. Off topic here... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this out.. It looks like iBook isn't as reliable as it should be.

  174. It's not actually my screenshot... by Xenex · · Score: 1

    I've just used it.

    Personally, I just use Finder to connect to http://packages.opendarwin.org/ via WebDAV, and install the .mpkgs of the software I require.

    However, your comment highlights many of the issues facing the DarwinPorts project - do they wish to adopt the ease of the Macintosh, or stick to their stuffy, difficult-to-use BSD roots.

  175. Re:MacinTax? by Politburo · · Score: 1

    Mis-read/Convoluted language by me. I did not mean a message on startup of the OS, but of an incompatible application.

  176. Not only hackers by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

    "Works for me" is quite popular with a lot of people, not just hackers. Windows defendants for example use "it works for me so your computer must be broken" as an argument to defend Windows.

    And when hackers say "works for me", that's that an excuse: that's a fact. How can they fix it if they can't even reproduce the problem?

    1. Re:Not only hackers by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "that's that an excuse: that's a fact."

      Typo. I mean: that's *not* an excuse.

  177. Funny... by filmsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been using Mac's since I was a wee lad and am calling Panther OS X 3 (oh-ess-ex three). Just makes things easier.

  178. Article Typo by JasonAsbahr · · Score: 1

    (FileVault uses an encoding scheme so thorough, Apple says, that a password-guessing computer would need 149 trillion years to break it. Just enough time for Apple to reach Mac OS X 11.)

    I think he meant just enough time for Microsoft to release Longhorn...

  179. On the Benefits of Open Source by BlackBolt · · Score: 1
    So you think everyone should just give up on security, then? Or should people take the time to run an app to scan the code for possible backdoors and hidden links to the net? Even if every backdoor can't be found with a quick scan, 99% of the source you compile yourself from open-source apps is clean beyond a reasonable doubt. There ARE people scanning open-source code for backdoors. You can trust individual Linux coders (for example) to bust open a backdoor, for many personal reasons: fame, karma, to help the community, to take down an evil backdooring company, etc. You can't trust Apple employees to rat on their employer if there are backdoors, because as an employee, it's not Win-Win, it's Lose-Lose. Lose a job, break an NDA, get sued, hurt Apple's sales, piss off the government if they're involved. Lose-Lose.

    The standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" cannot be proven with closed source apps. Nobody except Apple is able to scan FileVault for backdoors, and even they don't claim to be doing so. There is no guarantee of a program's integrity with closed source code, and Apple won't even answer emails asking them about the possibility of backdoors. They refuse to be questioned or doubted. They give the image that they are above suspicion. They are not, of course. You have NO REASON to trust Apple. If your security is important, you cannot trust a company you are not in active business partnership with, one who does not have a stake in your success. And even then, double-check it yourself. Don't you think Apple would roll over on you if the IRS or Dep't of Homeland Security wanted access to your data? Definitely.

    That said, Apple's cool, their stuff is pretty good quality, but they're still a company, and as such, are not bound by ethics, but by expediency; that means that they will roll over on you, and backdoors in their software are actually quite probable, in order to better comply with government requests, if they should arise. Apple NEEDS to be able to assist the government if they need help. That means backdoors are a precaution that must be taken, but never revealed. To reveal them would be to destroy their utility.

    1. Re:On the Benefits of Open Source by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, did you miss the point of my post. But then, you're paranoid.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    2. Re:On the Benefits of Open Source by BlackBolt · · Score: 1
      Oh boy, did you miss the point of my post. But then, you're paranoid.

      Yes, I am, when it comes to security. Can you re-explain your point?

      I agree with you, manual code checking takes a lot of effort, but for big banks, currency traders, etc. it's well worth it. And Apple themselves says FileVault would take 149 trillion years to brute force, although I'm sure one key a second isn't even close to the actual rate of speed. If brute forcing is out, the logical way in is to search for a way around the encryption, ie. a backdoor. So making sure there are no backdoors is paramount.

  180. One for each limb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've set it to activate on the click of mouse button 4.

    Why do you need four mice attached to your computer? Is this a switcher thing?

    (It's a joke.)

  181. Re:Article text for those who don't want to regist by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Well, at least the poster wasn't whoring for karma.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  182. it's mine! by 514x0r · · Score: 1

    ha. i have it. i have panther a full day early. and it only cost me $1099.

    oh yea, they threw in an ibook as well.

    --

    !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
  183. Related question by filmsmith · · Score: 1

    What if it doesn't work 'mightily [sic] fine?' How easy/difficult is it to restore the arcived system folder? Having not done it and expecting panther in a few days, I'm just curious as to my options should I want to go back (for whatever reason)'

    1. Re:Related question by the+argonaut · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose technically you could, but it's not easy. According to the Apple technote, the old System folder is non-bootable.

      --
      fuck you.
  184. Command-Backtick and more by Slur · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not only does Command-Backtick snd the front window to the back but Command-Shift-Backtick brings the rear window to the front.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Command-Backtick and more by smartin · · Score: 1

      I think this behaviour must be supported by the app, not the windowing system. It doesn't work for most apps i use.

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  185. Re:It's $129..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to know where you have this upgrade or perish mentality. I've not seen that in the least, considering classic and support for many applications keep going through. Now if you're talking about new versions of the iLife apps well, you know bunkie, Apple makes money by: A) Giving things away, B) The profit margin on iTMS sales, C) Making sure Mac OS X can run on a Mac Plus or D) none of the above.

    As for the annual "tithing" for a bugfix release, you rather forgot to mention new features that are introduced with the "bugfix". As far as I recall, the .1 upgrades are on par with a full version upgrade on other operating systems. More and more bug-fixes are introduced through the software update not through the "annual upgrade".

    Just because you have come to expect to pay full price for bug fixes does not mean that every company works in that same vein. In some cases an upgrade is just that, an upgrade. Do you have to follow each and every one? No? But, you would like the increased functionality added in? well, I guess it's time to relieve oneself or get off the pot. As far as I recall, $129 is not much more than many other companies charge for a version upgrade (and less if you consider the "PRO" level versions of said OSs) so, I'd say if it bothers you, don't upgrade. But don't whine when you see the "cool new features" that you don't have. :P

  186. Re:It's $129..... by Tukla · · Score: 1

    No, but it sounds like everything is "Brushed Metal" now. Bleah.

  187. Re:It's $129..... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    It's ~$129 every year for Mac, or ~$199 every 2 years for Windows (if you're using the Pro version, which is closest in functionality to OS X). Supposedly MS is going to go a bit longer this time before upgrading Windows, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "super service pack" everyone is talking about for next year is called "Windows XP Second Edition" and comes with at least a $100 upgrade price tag.

  188. Synchronize by metamatic · · Score: 1

    ...which probably isn't the default because it's freakin' slow.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  189. Version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There may be lots of nice new features, but I ain't paying $130 for them, especially if they're labelled as a dot release.

    Unlike Windows versioning scheme that went from 3.1 to 95 (+91.9) to 98 (+3) to 2000 (+1902, whoa!) to Me (NaN) to XP (NaN), Apple use 10.major upgrade.minor update naming scheme.

    Besides, I always thought X (read: 10) is a playful pun on its Unix roots, like XWindows or X11, while at the same time it was a continuation from version 9.2. So, it will be a long time before Apple use XI. They still have 6 more upgrades before they have to decide whether it will be 10.10, 10.11, etc. or 11.0, 11.1, etc.

  190. report all the bugs! by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Overall, I'm quite happy with it, but I've found a few bugs. yes, I've reported at least one to apple

    Fire up Safari (or click on the feedback icon) and file the rest fo the bug reports. Apple is currently culling the feedback looking for bugs to fix for 10.3.1, every little bit helps!

  191. How about bug fixes? by pario · · Score: 1
    I think you missed an important point; if you do not update to Panther, you will no longer be able to benefit from bug fixes and security updates in Panther and future software updates.

    The main reason I ordered Panther is that Jaguar's samba support is far from sufficient. Connections constantly get lost when I am dealing with large files, and the whole system hangs quite often upon resume.

    I do agree with you in that we should pay for new features, but I don't think it is fair to shell out $130 because of defects in the orginal product.

  192. Re:MacinTax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Since when are they cheaper to use? I've never heard anyone say that in my life. And that's going back to 1982, when they were pitted against the Radio Shack TRS-80's. They always have been more expensive hardware-wise as well as software-wise. So that defense you are referring to is already pretty dented...

    Um, the origional Mac was released in 1984...

  193. MOD PARENT UP FOR GREAT JUSTICE! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    Please mod the parent up so his experiment works. Small price to pay.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  194. Re:parent +2 informative? how about Score=0 Luddit by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

    until i got my G4 400MHz a few years ago i was using an 8100 that i eventually put a Sonnet G3 250MHz card in..... it was Nubus so other expansion was very limited (no USB, limited vid cards etc)..... anyway it worked adequately for a while.

    Right now i am typing on the G4 400MHz. I upgraded the video card and when ram was cheap i got it up to a gig. I fully intend to install 10.3 when my copy shows up tomorrow, and from everything i have heard... the machine should actually run faster than it does today.

    I still use a 7600 with the stock PPC604e at work running 9.1 and that works fine. I would like a faster machine, and some web pages make it choke but hey........

  195. This review is a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reviewer only mentions a few stupid gui add-ons and a file encrytion add-on to protect your data. Guess, what, if the program automatically decrypts your data when you log in, so can a hacker when he hacks your machine. This is a false sense of security. The 0.1 version increase sounds appropriate and the $130 charge for an upgrade is a joke.

  196. Re:parent +2 informative? how about Score=0 Luddit by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

    what software stopped working within a year? i guess if i were a M$ windows user i would have till 2006 to worry about those pesky OS upgrades.

  197. Expose Not so revolutionary by sadangel · · Score: 1

    I only take one major exception to the claim of the story that expose is "the biggest graphical breakthrough that operating systems have achieved in years" I don't deny it's a nice feature. That's why it's been so nice that Enlightenment has had it for several years now.

  198. this is not a service pack by madbeaner · · Score: 1

    it's funny that if this was an MS release, they'd dub it WindowsXX or something alone those lines to hide the fact that they aren't using a new kernel and are instead version upgrades. Windows 2000 is running the NT5 kernel, hence 5.0.x with x being service packs and minor updates) Windows XP is 5.1.x, and Win2k3 is 5.2.x

    sure, apple could take the MS route and dupe buyers, but they're sticking to their nomenclature and adding real features instead of changing the theme, name, and patching some security holes like most of MS's 'upgrades'.

    oh, and osx sounds sexier than osxii ;)

  199. The Macintosh is the most compatible platform by PghFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This response was e-mailed to David Pogue in reply to his New York Times article":

    > "..that far more software is available for Windows (true; "only"
    > 6,500 programs are available for Mac OS X).."

    I'm afraid I'm going to have to take exception to the above statement. While it's true that there are more native Windows applications, I think that this is a misleading metric.

    The Macintosh is by far the most compatible platform. It runs Classic applications, Mac OS X applications, BSD applications, Linux applications, and X11 applications. As surely you know, the Mac will even run Windows applications via Virtual PC.

    This being the case, it's a reasonable conclusion that "far more software is available for Windows" is a false statement. I thank you kindly for an otherwise excellent article.

    --
    --- Fox
    1. Re:The Macintosh is the most compatible platform by keytoe · · Score: 1

      It runs Classic applications, Mac OS X applications, BSD applications, Linux applications, and X11 applications.
      Don't forget that some of those apps in the Classic environment were written for an entirely diffent architecture!
    2. Re:The Macintosh is the most compatible platform by aquasheep · · Score: 1

      The Macintosh is by far the most compatible platform. It runs Classic applications, Mac OS X applications, BSD applications, Linux applications, and X11 applications. As surely you know, the Mac will even run Windows applications via Virtual PC.

      You can hardly group Classic and MacOS X applications as some sort of exception to the statement. Windows XP can also run DOS and Windows 95 programs, so I hardly see your point.

      VirtualPC runs a small subset of Windows applications; not necessarily perfectly, either.

      I've found that far more software is, and always has been, available for Windows.

  200. Re:Family packs are cheaper (by the half-dozen - 1 by FosterKanig · · Score: 1

    I know this thread is dead but I don't care.
    Remember, if those five computers are networked together, Xcode's shared compiling will take advantage of unused cycles on other machines.

  201. Beware the FileVault by evand · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using the release build of Panther for a while, now, and, while I think it's a worthwhile upgrade, I strongly recommend not enabling FileVault .

    I enabled it on my new 15" Aluminum PowerBook on Sunday and was seeing serious corruption of my files by Tuesday. My keychain was corrupted, my iTunes library metadata file was corrupted, my preferences were corrupted, and some of my Data Structures and Algorithms Java source files were corrupted. Beyond that, I stopped counting, backed up to my iPod, and reinstalled.

    To be fair, this isn't a build I obtained from Apple or a retail store, so it's possible that it's not what's in the box (although the about box indicates build 7B85, and, from what I can tell, that's GM). It might be worth letting other early adopters check out the retail version of FileVault, however, before doing so yourself.

  202. Sometimes Pogue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    ... Shows how dumb and ignorant he really is.

    If you wind up selling your Mac on eBay someday, no data-recovery snoop will be able to resurrect your lost works.

    An overwrite is not the same as a shred, although David wouldn't know it.

    It also auto-blocks junk-mail graphics that, when opened, report back to the spammer that the message has landed safely at a working e-mail address.
    Smart of Apple!

    Some of Panther's "new" features are actually old ones resurrected from Mac OS versions of years past.

    Not so smart of Apple!

    modeled on the identical feature in Windows XP
    Too much copycat stuff and the hackers will come calling.

    TextEdit, which can now open, edit and even create simple Microsoft Word documents
    OS X Office? MacOffice? MacWord?

    it's now a full-blown but faster replacement for the Acrobat Reader
    Good - I just saved 60MB of disk space.

    Apple should be careful not to alienate powerful partners like Microsoft and Adobe

    Thank you David - if the phone rings tomorrow morning, it's Steve and Avie asking you to join the board of directors.

    When you use Mac OS X, you feel like it's yours; when you use Windows, you feel as though you're using someone else's toys, and Mrs. Microsoft keeps peeking in on you.

    I guess that would be Melinda Freedom?

    In Panther, Apple has taken an already sparkling, super-stable operating system and made it faster, better equipped and more secure.

    Sounds good.

    --

    But all this goes to show is that getting a good job as a journalist for the NYT and making a lot of baby-talk books has nothing to do with talent or knowing what you're talking about. My grandmother could have written that article better.

  203. Re:Would you mind writing a HOWTO on how you did t by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

    # dd if=/dev/zero of=~/e.fs bs=1M count=512 # losetup -e blowfish /dev/loop0 ~/e.fs # mkfs.ext3 /dev/loop0 Then, in your bashrc losetup -d /dev/loop0 # Delete any old loops losetup -d /dev/loop0 ~/e.fs mount /dev/loop0 ~ voila Of course you'll need an fstab entry for /dev/loop0, and losetup has to be suid root, but you get the picture. Your home directory now appears to contain everything in the encrypted file. I don't ever recall setting up the Crypto API, but that works for me.

  204. safari new features....? by poopy · · Score: 1

    "And Safari, Apple's smooth, fast Web browser, is better than ever, with its pop-up blocker and its Google search box right in the toolbar."

    these features where in version 1.0 of safari...
    I got a bad feeling this reviewer doesn't even own a mac.

    --
    Dude where's my Sig?
  205. Re:Would you mind writing a HOWTO on how you did t by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

    Woops. Serves me right for not previewing.

    # dd if=/dev/zero of=~/e.fs bs=1M count=512
    # losetup -e blowfish /dev/loop0 ~/e.fs
    # mkfs.ext3 /dev/loop0

    Then, in your bashrc

    losetup -d /dev/loop0 # Delete any old loops losetup -d /dev/loop0 ~/e.fs
    mount /dev/loop0 ~

    voila Of course you'll need an fstab entry for /dev/loop0, and losetup has to be suid root, but you get the picture. Your home directory now appears to contain everything in the encrypted file.

    I don't ever recall setting up the Crypto API, but that works for me.

  206. Re:MacinTax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what sucks is that OS X was so slow to start with. Windows 2000 was much faster than NT, because it was designed as such. Windows 2003 is much, much faster, due to the INITIAL decision to remove old code. OS X had the initial decision of being slow bloatware.

  207. Upgrade? by t0ny · · Score: 1
    Gripes include the $130 price tag and the (somewhat) lack of backward compatibility

    You're right, calling it an 0.1 upgrade ISNT fair.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  208. encryption is too complex for mac users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't encryption a rather complex process? Asymetric key, symetric key, algorythm A, algorythm B... I mean, Mac users are assumed to be too stupid to use a two button mouse, don't you think encryption is a little over their heads? Cryptography and security are far too complex for mac users.

  209. Security holes in Jaguar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are there any remaining security holes in Jaguar? I've checked around the net and have been able to find any references to outstanding security holes.

  210. When Hell freezes over.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeat after me: "Apple is a hardware company" repeat it a thousand times, or until you get it.

    They make their money selling expensive, specialized hardware.
    Now think about what would happen to the market for their overpriced machines if OSX and all the iStuff apps ran on dirt-cheap Athon boxes...

  211. QuickKeys has always been broken by OS updates by Cybertect · · Score: 1

    Nothing new here.

    I used to sell QuickKeys from 1993 to 1997 (when I left retail) and it was always sensitive to even minor updates to the Mac OS - it seems it's just one of those apps that doesn't like change. I'm therefore hardly surprised that 10.3 breaks it again.

    Suitcase (a font management utility for the Mac) was (is?) similarly afflicted. I'm curious to see how it reacts to 10.3...

  212. Anyone know what is fixed in 10.3? by tomem · · Score: 1

    Is the AppleTalk 45sec timeout for a missing volume fixed? Ever try to walk off with a powerbook that has a shared volume mounted? Good luck trying to take notes in your next meeting!

    Or how about giving the Finder the ability to transfer files using ftp or scp? In both directions? Is that there yet? How can they call the Finder a Unix GUI when it can't do this stuff?

    Good to hear the TextEdit and Preview are improved, But what about giving us a simple html editor? Did they do that yet? It was there for a while in the public beta, and was removed in favor of rtf.

    How about Mail.app? Does it deal with mail servers that aren't accessible a bit more gracefully? Can a message be dragged to a folder yet? Does dragging attachments off a message work more reliably? Can folder titles be live edited yet?

    Anyone know about such stuff?

    --
    ThosEM
    1. Re:Anyone know what is fixed in 10.3? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      But what about giving us a simple html editor?

      One of the greatest editors ever conceived. (IMO of course). SubEthaEdit

  213. Apple Versioning [was Decency?] by ahg · · Score: 1

    I'm not disagreeing with your point but I think a little history is needed to here:

    Anyone else remember the changes that took place between the Mac's System 7.0 to 7.6? There was a lot of changes and many, many programs that about the time 7.5 was released required System 7.5 or higher. It apears that Apple has a histroy of using dot releases to introduce significant changes. Bug fixes are double dot releases (i.e. 10.2.1) Conclusion: If you're a long time Apple user then you're used to this pattern. - Apple only changes the major version number when the way you interact and configure the system is overhauled, i.e. control panels, contextual menus, Quartz)

    What's different today? Apple used to bend over backward to make sure old Apps worked on the new hardware/OS, and apparantly that's no longer the case. (Think about 680x0 apps running on PPCs)

    --

    --Aaron Greenberg

  214. Version correction by TooLazyToLogon · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this really be OSX.III

  215. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $130 for what should be a FREE operating system. Yeah, Apple users really get value for their money. Muahahah! Lamer. Steve Jobs and other Apple executives are laughing their asses off at you fanboys actually PAYING for stolen unix software bundled with a proprietary gui and passed off as innovative Apple tech. Fucking fanboys, I tear off your skullcap and shit all over your brain!

  216. Re:Would you mind writing a HOWTO on how you did t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    login as root then rm -rf / *

  217. Re:Yay by SavoWood · · Score: 1

    You sound like the kind of person who wouldn't pay a shareware fee since according to your personal pet peeve, it should be free.

    --
    Plant a tree in a developing country.
  218. No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple? Break backward compatibility? No way man, not Apple! All my ][gs software still runs unaided on the G5!

  219. Re:It can be that simple (Cont'd) by stewby18 · · Score: 1

    It's not ridiculous, because I know, to take the most interesting example, a CS professor who is still using netscape 4, Acrobat Reader 3, older versions of TeX, MatLab, Ghostview, OpenOffice etc. etc. and gets along just fine. He publishes papers, creates class notes, sends and recieves email, interacts with a (non-homogenous) campus network, and basically gets along just fine without upgrading anything.

    Can everyone do this? No. Can many more people than actually do? Yes. The web, email, and word processing have all been around for quite some time. There are programs which do most or all of what most people need that are years old, which work fine for most uses. As often as not, it is simple upgrade fever that drives people to get the new software. Yes there are bug releases... but the vast majority of people might never in their life encounter the bug that some release fixes.

    It is possible for most computer users to live life without continuous upgrading. I'm not claiming that everyone can, and I'm not claiming it's 100% easy; there are, as I said, real trade-offs. But you can't tell me it's a ludicrous position, because I know many people who live, quite successfully, with a static-software mindset.

  220. Now you are just trolling by stewby18 · · Score: 1

    Safari is not part of the OS in the "embedded so deeply you can never remove it" sense. It's simply a nice program which happens to be a perk of having the lastest version of OS X... Apparently I should have said "a side-benefit of the OS" so you couldn't willfully misinterpret my statement.

    In OS X, changing your default browser is a one step process with no hassles, and throwing away Safari is a two-step process (counting emptying the trash) with no side effects.

    In Windows, actually removing IE renders the system inoperable. That's the difference.

  221. Leave the analysis to the cryptographers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dude, the guy you are arguing with clearly has some experience with cryptography. Your statement:

    One brute force method would be 1 dictionary word + 1 random character, 2 dictionary words + 2 random characters, etc. and permutations.

    Shows that you do not. For one, given an ecrypted block of data and assuming you know the algorithm used to generate the cipher, there is no way to know how many words make up the passphrase (or ever test that) or even know whether dictionary attacks are useful (without exhausting them).

    I do think that you could shave some cycles by using a statistical attack (e.g. when generating random characters, try combinations that include dictionary entries and use letter occurence frequency / letter arrangement statistics to optimize your search through the search-space). But even these approaches are not likely to result in going from n to log(n) efficiencies unless the passcode chosen was stupid.

    At the end of the day, the fact remains, ciphers from passphrases are strong unless the user is stupid.
  222. You can't read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Apple themselves says FileVault would take 149 trillion years to brute force, although I'm sure one key a second isn't even close to the actual rate of speed.

    That page that you site claims that a piece of machinery that could BREAK A 56-BIT DES KEY IN ONE SECOND would take 149 trillion years to brute force a 128bit AES key. And believe me, there aint a piece of equipment in existance that could brute force a 56-bit DES key in one second. Not even the earth simulator could pull that off.

    1. Re:You can't read. by BlackBolt · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't seen the Dual G5s.

  223. DLL hell? by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

    While I respect more of your comments KFG, I simply don't agree that a normal user would get dll with all but shitty shareware or Windows 98 designed programs.

    I mean all normal users have some flavour of Windows, Office, some Games, IE, WMP, Winamp, some CD burning software, Outlook Express or just Hotmail, a bunch of drivers for there little gizmos(camera,etc).

    And last time I noticed a .DLL problem was Windows 98. I guess you could get the problem if you have a lot of third party apps doing dumb things.

  224. Targeting 10.1 from 10.3 is possible by sorbits · · Score: 1
    they're binary compatibility requirements

    In fact Panther tries to improve this by letting you build your target for different versions of the OS (10.1, 10.2 and 10.3) and InterfaceBuilder will also show how many incompatibilities would be present in the nib-file, if used on a 10.1 system.

    As a developer though, I would always write for the latest version, due to bug fixes and new enhanced APIs, not to mention the new binding system in 10.3.

  225. How do you get losetup to accept -e blowfish? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    How do you get losetup to accept -e blowfish? Mine only takes xor and des (and none). If you look at lomount.c in unix-utils-2.11r, you will discover that those are indeed the only options it supports. Examination of the password input switch statement suggests that each different encryption type requires a different passphrase format (is that true?). So how do I get it to support more formats?

  226. Re:No Intel version of Expose...? Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, there is a program called iEx for Windows that works almost exactly like Expose. It scales and repositions windows, hides windows, shows transparent titles over miniaturized windows, permits application-specific or system-wide window hiding, provides F9, F10, F11 shortcuts, user-definable screen corner definitions, etc.
    It's derivative, yes, but works great.

    It is part of the "Aqua on x86" initiative. You can find it at aqua-soft.org, aquaxp.com, etc.

  227. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do it NOW... really good post

  228. Re:Well put! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I use Windows - or any non-Mac OS - it feels like it's mine. When I use MacOS, it feels like I'm using someone else's toys.

  229. Another new feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the NY Times take up this other brand new feature, where the flaky Panther install screws up the drivers so it fails on reboot and locks the CD inside the machine, and the fact that the latest laptops from Apple don't have a button or hole for a forcible CD eject? That's a great new feature. I love it.

  230. Juhu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I look forward to reading your grandmothers article.

  231. Mail.app - IMAP over SSL - Home Brewed Certificate by fooey · · Score: 1

    Hello,

    There is a new feature that needs to be addressed for those connecting via an SSL-encrypted connection to an IMAP server that uses a home brewed certificate using Mail.app.

    Mail.app in previous releases did not complain about mail servers with SSL certificates from unknown CA's, but does in Panther.

    I have tried adding the certificate for the CA into the X509Anchors keychains -- this process works for allowing Safari trust SSL certificates issued by that CA. However, Mail.app does not seem to use the same keychain.

    I noticed that in Panther that there is another keychain in /System/Library/Keychains: X509Certificates, and I tried adding the CA's certificate to that keychain also, but Mail.app still complained.

    I also tried specifying for this CA cert that it should always be trusted (as opposed to using the system defaults), and Mail.app still complained.

    By the way, when Mail.app complains, it asks you whether you want to cancel or continue. Continuing apparently does not have it connect and pick up messages.

    Any direction anyone can provide would be most appreciated.

    Thanks!!

  232. Went back to v1 by Steath+Car · · Score: 1

    The Mac OS started at v1.