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."
Hard to see someone in an industry dominated by Macs having a pro-Apple slant.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
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.
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."
"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.
So it's just another niche os for a niche platform... Nothing to see here... move along...
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.
lose != loose