Slashdot Mirror


Ars Technica Posts Panther Review

Nexum writes "Today Ars released their latest Mac OS X review, this time for Max OS X 10.3 Panther. It's great to see another tour de force from the Ars guys. They have, as usual, an excellent insight into the new OS release, and they also cover that burning question 'is it worth $129?,' and Panther seems to come out rather well. Certainly worth a read."

420 comments

  1. FUS, Devs... etc. by dolo666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An observation I made when reading this is that Mac really is the system I'll use for our upcoming DooM3 Project, because it just seems much smarter to develop graphics and games on a Mac, and Panther seems like a really nice OS that no only will handle what I want to do (with cinematics, textures, sound and code), but it also seems like it'll be a solution for cross-platform testing, with the X11 and Windows support. Unless I'm mistaken, Mac now seems to be the system for development, more than ever, and that spells progress in the right direction for developers everywhere.

    A comment about Fast User Switching (FUS), from the article, kinda made me think about how the author used different applications to make sure his prefs didn't get changed by his spouse. This seems good in some ways, but in others it means less programs will be in use, while the most effective programs will be staple. For example, I used Pegasus while my wife was using Outlook. With my Mac, we'll both use the same mail prog, whatever it is. Does this cut down on variety? Does it cut down on experimentation? I think so.

    1. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hmmm... develop DOOM3 add-ins on OS X?

      If I am not mistaken, DOOM was originally proto'd on NeXT Stations - so this would have some precedent and cultural continuity.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by cosmo7 · · Score: 1
      Dream on - Mac will be an ideal system for game development when it's installed on 95% of common gamers' machines, has multiple languages running on a single runtime, allows for components written in different languages to talk to each other without hassle, and has a stardard way of manipulating hardware. Until then, Windows is still the ideal development for writing games - the huge market available, DirectX, plus COM+ and .Net interoperability makes Windows a gaming platform unchallenged by either Mac or Linux.

      One aspect that developers might want to consider is the time required to see a return on investment. While Windows does have a significantly larger market share, there are several advantages to developing for OS X:
      • Less competition
      • Free (and good) development tools
      • User base is demonstrably prepared to pay for quality products
      • Speed of development in Cocoa can outweigh time to port to Windows
      • Cocoa offers fully object-oriented late-bound control of streams, messaging and scripting
      Obviously developers want the largest market share available, but that can come from developing for Macintosh and then using that expertise in an unsuspecting Windows world - qv: Macromedia, Adobe, Quark and, ironically, Microsoft.
    3. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by dolo666 · · Score: 1

      That's kinda cool. I like the idea of cultural continuity, in that it brings a bit of nostalgia to the project, now that you mention it. I'm all for that! Maybe we'll have the characters in our story all using "what-would-have-been-Next" systems. :)

    4. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by bahamat · · Score: 1

      Fast User Switching is cool. Although with X you can spawn multiple X servers and log in a different user with each, the thing that makes FUS really slick is that it (can) autolock the user being switched out.

      What I'd like to know though, is if an OS X screen is locked, can you walk up to it and switch users, or does it have to be unlocked by the first user?

    5. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by windex82 · · Score: 1

      I was just wondering the other day, since OSX is based off of UNIX, wouldnt this make it easier to create Linux and OSX Games? Since doom3 is supposed to have native linux support, and now that OSX is based off of UNIX wouldn't it make it many many times easier to port the linux code over to something OSX could use?

      Also whats the correct term to use when refering to an entire apple system? Most poeple still call em macs, but just dosnt seem right anymore. Im considering more and more latly to get an apple system instead of building a new system this winter and stick with linux.

    6. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Found it!

      Re: The OS wars and DOOM...
      To: Phil Fraering
      Subject: Re: The OS wars and DOOM...
      From: Andrew Loewenstern
      Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 18:17:12 -0500
      Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
      > Apps have migrated from Unix to the Mac and the PC before in the
      > past. In the further past, this has included curses and
      > other-types-of-text-control packages such as PC versions of Emacs
      > and nethack and the like.
      > Of course, this was not done with graphical programs; everyone
      > knows that graphics isn't Unix's strong suit, and what it has is
      > so different from the PC, etc., blah, blah,...
      > Except that for the past two or three years, it's been WRONG.
      > One of the hottest games on the PC, DOOM, was originally written
      > in Nextstep (a Unix variant, and a ghetto even amidst the "ghetto"
      > of Unix) and then ported to the PC.
      Being a resident of the NeXTSTEP ghetto, please allow me to chime in. While Doom is written on NeXTSTEP boxes, that's about all the game itself has in
      common with it. The game is carefully written in strict ANSI-C and any
      portions that must be OS specific are separate. They have a VGA emulator
      that allows them to run Doom on non-DOS boxes. All of the platform
      independance comes from the discipline of the developers (who are extremely
      talented, IMHO). In contrast, Lotus Improv was NeXT native and had to be
      completely rewritten over a period of at least 3 years to get it to work on
      Windoze.

      The primary reason Id software (and Trilobyte among others) uses NeXTSTEP
      (over DOS or any other unix environment) is because it lets them write
      in-house tools like map and monster editors really fast (and really slick
      too!). On any other platform it would take much more time and effort to
      write the tools and they probably wouldn't be as nice either. Since these
      tools aren't being sold to customers, it doesn't matter that they only run on
      a dead-end niche software platform that costs $1000 per user (and $5k per
      developer!!).

      This strategy makes sense for a commercial video game where there is the
      opportunity to save major amounts of time and effort through the use of
      custom tools (and the incentive of major amounts of cash if it is
      successful). However, this strategy definitely doesn't make sense when you
      are talking about a cypherpunk donating their spare time to write a freeware
      (or copyleft) crypto app. Better would be to just write the app for the
      target platform or write it using an environment that is designed to be
      platform independant (like Java).

      andrew ...able to work cypherpunks relevance into virtually any thread......and uses
      Python instead of NeXTSTEP when writing stuff that needs to be
      platform-independant...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by rworne · · Score: 1

      While I agree with most of the points brought up:

      NeXTSTEP as an OS was not "ghetto" by any means. The hardware platform had been dead for the previous three years (from 1995), but the OS lived on for quite a while on its deathbed until Apple snapped it up.

      Its user interface was light years ahead of its time and the ease of development showed that this system, as marginalized as it had become, was still the development platform of CHOICE. The developers of DOOM were not locked into it by any means. They found the best tool for the job. It says quite a bit about the competing offerings doesn't it?

      Hardly any OS since has approached the elegance and simplicity of NeXTSTEP, and they had 15 years to try.

      Well, two have: BeOS (from what I have seen of it) and OS X (obviously).

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    8. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm mistaken, Mac now seems to be the system for development, more than ever, and that spells progress in the right direction for developers everywhere.

      I'm currently considering get a Mac for exactly that reason. With the Unix-like base, X Window support, XCode, and CHUD, they have a very nice development platform available for every Mac, and some of it is even open source.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    9. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      For example, I used Pegasus while my wife was using Outlook. With my Mac, we'll both use the same mail prog, whatever it is. Does this cut down on variety? Does it cut down on experimentation? I think so.

      If you need some spice I got some porn you can borrow for some experimentation.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    10. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      "NeXTSTEP as an OS was not "ghetto" by any means."

      You sir need to be enlightened on the true meaning of ghetto. A ghetto is any neighborhood where the people are of the same cultural origin. Their is no economic requirement on something being a ghetto. Now the NeXT Platform is a small community of a releatively unified culture. NeXT people tend to be very similar from a computing standpoint. Due to the nature and history of the platform they tend to be developer types and adept with the NeXTSTEP drag and drop gui building stuff.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    11. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by rworne · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of that. Here's the true meaning (I am assuming def #2 applies in this case):

      ghetto
      n 1: formerly the restricted quarter of many European cities in
      which Jews were required to live; "the Warsaw ghetto"
      2: any segregated mode of living or working that results from
      bias or stereotyping; "the relative security of the gay
      ghetto"; "no escape from the ghetto of the typing pool"
      3: a poor densely populated city district occupied by a
      minority ethnic group linked together by economic hardship
      and social restrictions
      [also: ghettoes (pl)]

      There's no negative bias by me, I was using the platform exclusively to complete my undergraduate degree from 1993-1998.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    12. Re:FUS, Devs... etc. by mmc52555 · · Score: 1

      The screensaver password dialog has a switch user button so the current user doesn't have to unlock the screen for the new user to log in. When the 1st user wants back he switches with FUS (it asks for the password) and when his desktop rotates into view, the screensaver is still running and he is required to enter his password to unlock it.

  2. $129= $10/Month by BadCable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frankly I think it's worth it. I almost see it as a "montly" subscription to using an OS. It came with the Mac and every year you shell out $129 to keep using the latest and greatest version. Mac OS is steadily improving and improvment costs money. I almost feel like it's payment for a MMORPG where new content is release all the time in the form of patches and free additional features.

    1. Re:$129= $10/Month by dipipanone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mac OS is steadily improving and improvment costs money.

      Coincidentally, I installed it on my Powerbook yesterday. I'm extremely impressed. It's very fast and responsive by comparison with 10.2, and Expose is an absolute dream though.

      However, I didn't pay for it myself, so I can't really answer the question of whether it's 'worth' $129. I think if I had been paying for it myself -- because it is an expensive upgrade for the functionality. But if I had stumped up the money and bought it, I don't think I'd have been disappointed or felt ripped off.

    2. Re:$129= $10/Month by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1
      I almost see it as a "montly" subscription to using an OS.

      Seeing as I'm a "the glass is half-empty" kind of guy, I've never looked at it like this before.

      I'd still like an "upgrade" price (yes, I know, Apple provides what they call an upgrade release, but this is not what I'm talking about) for those that always legally get each release.

      Ok, it sounds a bit like Dr. Evil asking to be thrown a frickin' bone, here, but the cost is more like $15/month for me. I would have appreciated a nice little discount to offset the taxes and such.

      I felt like this more when they released Jag less than two months after I got my shiny new G4 with all the bells and whistles. Running 10.1.x is not _really_ an option, and was quickly a forgotten release. The same will likely happen for 10.2.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    3. Re:$129= $10/Month by boesOne · · Score: 1

      I dont look at my OS as a MMORPG ;) Firstly i'd like to keep other online people out of my OS and secondly i dont want to pay $129 each year just to keep my machine working. Yup, i know apple keeps updating old iterations of X, but releasing an OS every year is imho just a bit too much. So dont buy it you say. Well if it was only for the nifty stuff like fast user switching i wouldnt buy it, but they also put in major speed improvements, which cant be missed.. I would be happier with free speed improvements for the older X's and a new premium OS version every 1.5 year or so..

    4. Re:$129= $10/Month by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I'd still like an "upgrade" price (yes, I know, Apple provides what they call an upgrade release, but this is not what I'm talking about) for those that always legally get each release.

      It is an "upgrade" price. Every version of MacOS is priced as an "upgrade", because you can't (legally) use it without already have paid "full price" for MacOS at some stage.

      Having said that, if you regularly have more than a few windows open, Expose alone is worth the price of Panther.

    5. Re:$129= $10/Month by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree. From Apple's webstore entry for Panther:

      Requirements: Macintosh computer with PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor; built-in USB; and 128MB of physical RAM.

      I guess you mean that when you buy a Mac, you get some kind of OS. However, even Apple makes this distinction, and provides "upgrade" CDs that require exsisting previous copies to be present on the target. The US$129 Panther package can be installed to a bare disk.

      Of course, these upgrades from Apple are pretty hard to qualify for. I'm just advocating making the criteria a little more friendly.

      I have no trouble convincing myself that the $15 /month (for me) is worth it. I did have trouble paying the full price for Jaguar less than 2 months after I dropped a significant amount of money on a new system. Others seemed to feel the same way back then. It can make creative discounting very attractive.

      I'll likely wait and let the bugs shake themselves out and make the purchase eventually.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    6. Re:$129= $10/Month by JHromadka · · Score: 1
      It is an "upgrade" price. Every version of MacOS is priced as an "upgrade", because you can't (legally) use it without already have paid "full price" for MacOS at some stage.

      Wrong. The only Panther upgrades are the $19.95 versions being shipped to G5 users and Mac users who purchased after the shipping announcement. The box version is the full version and says nothing about requiring an older version.

      --
      "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
    7. Re:$129= $10/Month by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The box version is the full version and says nothing about requiring an older version.

      I never said it did.

      However, you can't (legally) use a store-bought version of MacOS without, at some stage, having paid for a "full version" - and Apple knows this. Ergo, they price all copies as an "upgrade".

      The *technical* aspect of whether or not it can install on a clean disk is entirely separate from the *financial* aspect of pricing. I'd actually be quite surprised if those $19.95 "upgrade versions" you mentioned aren't complete standalone copies.

    8. Re:$129= $10/Month by pherris · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Mac OS is steadily improving and improvment costs money.

      Let's not forget the bandwidth cost of offering "one click" updates (no hunting around for a patch). I use RHN with Redhat 9 and pay, I think, about $60USD per year. With that said, IMO, this makes spending $129 a little easier.

      I really think most of the people that complain about the cost of Mac OS updates are those (like me) that remember a time when they were basicly free. Starting with (I think) Mac OS 7.1 Pro Apple started charging and people freaked. Well, the days of Apple's ultra high profit margin on hardware is mostly gone and users need to pay for new features on the software end instead.

      Macs cost a bit of money for feeding and care like updates, hardware and service parts but you do IMO get a lot more functionality (or "bang for the buck") than other OSs especially if you do AV stuff.

      Long story short: Get the update and enjoy the new toys.

      BTW, I use an eMac for video work and Linux for everything else ...

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    9. Re:$129= $10/Month by JHromadka · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, you can't (legally) use a store-bought version of MacOS without, at some stage, having paid for a "full version" - and Apple knows this. Ergo, they price all copies as an "upgrade".

      Why not? Show me in the license agreement where it says that you must have OS X installed for the full version. The upgrade version has a special part of the installation that checks for Jaguar, but that is only for the $19.95 version.

      --
      "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
    10. Re:$129= $10/Month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An OS for rent. What a fucking idiot you are. Keep sitting on that couch.

    11. Re:$129= $10/Month by kyrre · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Panther, but the "upgrade version" of jaguar bundled with my girlfriends iBook a year ago required 10.1 to be installed. It was quite painfull each time I went for a clean install. 10.1 first, then upgrade to 10.2. $19.95 versions of Panther would probably be the same.

      I took the liberty of upgrading my own iBook back then. Please don't tell anyone. This time we went for a familly lisence of Panther.

    12. Re:$129= $10/Month by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      I don't think Apple is seriously planning on keeping up a schedule of one release per year (and even if they do, they can't; at some point, things will level off.) You don't have to apologize for Apple.

      On the other hand, I disagree with the people who bitch about the "Apple tax." You don't *have* to buy it. People bitch about security and "needing" the improvements to the OS, but that's all crap, too. Unless you're a corporate user, very few people on the Mac really need to worry about security. Contrary to popular belief, nobody really cares about your porn collection nearly as much as you do. For those of you who are self-employed, if your business is actually turning a profit, then this won't come as a big hit - should you actually need it.

      As far as the corporations are concerned, $130 is a pretty good deal, and they don't *have* to upgrade past 10.3, for that matter.

      I find most of the people who are bitching about the tax are those who plan on pirating it, anyway, and are just looking for some justification.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    13. Re:$129= $10/Month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> However, you can't (legally) use a store-bought version of MacOS without, at some stage, having paid for a "full version" - and Apple knows this. Ergo, they price all copies as an "upgrade".

      Why not? Show me in the license agreement where it says that you must have OS X installed for the full version.

      I think what he means is that you can't run OS X on non-Apple hardware, and whenever you buy a Macintosh, you are also buying a full version of the OS. I think. Maybe?

    14. Re:$129= $10/Month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, moron. If you are going to run Panther, you have to have some Apple hardware to run it on (barring anything weird like Mac-on-Linux). If you bought Apple hardware, you also paid for one of the previous versions of the OS, because Apple doesn't ship any system without an operating system on it.

    15. Re:$129= $10/Month by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Why not?

      Because you can only run it on Apple hardware. This used to be enforced by the Apple ROM, but in lieu of a similar requirement in OS X (and also MacOS 8 and 9 IIRC), the EULA performs the same function.

      Show me in the license agreement where it says that you must have OS X installed for the full version.

      I never said it did. However, if you read through it, you should find a part that stipulates it must be run on Apple hardware. You can't buy a Mac without MacOS (and people complain about the "Microsoft tax"...) - so the only people who can (legally) use OS X are those who have already paid for some version of MacOS with their Mac. Hence, every version of OS X is inherently an "upgrade" and is priced as such.

      This is why someone like Microsoft has a "full" and "upgrade" pricing structure for some products. In the case of Windows, even though nearly all customers would qualify for the "upgrade" version, it's always been possible for people to buy PCs without Windows.

    16. Re:$129= $10/Month by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I don't know about Panther, but the "upgrade version" of jaguar bundled with my girlfriends iBook a year ago required 10.1 to be installed. It was quite painfull each time I went for a clean install. 10.1 first, then upgrade to 10.2. $19.95 versions of Panther would probably be the same.

      That's surprising. How un-Apple-like.

  3. When is Apple going to hire this guy? by spankalee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    His ideas about the Finder and filesystem are pretty dead on. I wish Apple would bring him on board.

    At the very least they could shamelessly steal his ideas. They're there for the taking.

    1. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They *are* aleady stealing his ideas. He *is* already working for apple. He's *not* a rocket scientist, and posts at /. by the nickname spankalee.

    2. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He needs to implement these ideas in a $15 shareware application. Only then will Apple take notice, integrate them into Mac OS X 10.4 "Ocelot" and give them a catchy name.

    3. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by spankalee · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't expect that response... What'd you do, run an analysis on my posts to figure it out?

    4. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by spankalee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the spatial Finder is an Classic Mac OS concept, but why is he one of the only people who seems to see how to integrate the old spatial Finder with the new browser Finder?

      I'm have a real hard time getting Finder windows to consitantly behave how I want them to. They always switch from simple mode to browser mode when I least expect it. It is progress though, and I think Apple has paid attention to John S.'s articles, just not enough attention. Panther is actually pretty close, but just misses the mark. Frustratingly close, you might say.

      As for the filesystem and metadata, I can't stress how important John's ideas are. Again, they may not be originally his, and BeOS did it first, but John advocates it very well (if not with a little zealotry). I have to think that Apple is working on something completely new since they hired the BeOS filesystem guru. There's hope for 10.4 I guess.

    5. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't need to listen to his details, because Apple already knows what to do. What they need to do is acctually give a fuck about their customers. What people like John do--hopefully--is put pressure on Apple to do what they already know is right, aswell as educate the masses (programmers) about the importance of things like spatial positioning etc.

    6. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by Monk[Deviant+Form] · · Score: 1

      either you have yourself a stalker or one of your other personalities is a AC on slashdot!?! *horror*

    7. Re:When is Apple going to hire this guy? by l0wland · · Score: 1
      Wow, I didn't expect that response... What'd you do, run an analysis on my posts to figure it out?

      He probably is another Apple employee... :-)

      --

      "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
  4. Wow. Wonderful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like we have about 28 more of these stories before "unauthorized private unofficial pre-alpha first looks of Mac OS X 10.4 Ocelot" hit the wires.

  5. The speed... the speed by spoot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Expose is nice. Good eye candy. Fast user switching works pretty good. But the real bottom line is the speed. Let's face it, the real drawback of X has always been it was just dog slow. Just booting back into 9 was a reminder of how slow X was. Panther is faster on my daughters G3 ibook, my dual G4 and tibook. Is it worth a 130 bucks? Yes. With the cevat: Only if I didn't have to pay a hundred and thirty bucks last year.

    Pretty good review all in all. Not sure I completely agree with his finding on the finder. But I do agree that Apple seems to be fumbling around looking for something that clicks on the desktop.

    1. Re:The speed... the speed by Pyromage · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hold a second: I didn't think the native OSX interface was X-Windows. I may be wrong, but I always noted that my friend's iBook had the X server as a seperate application on the dock and all.

      Anyone know for sure?

    2. Re:The speed... the speed by CountBrass · · Score: 4, Funny
      Panther is faster on my daughters G3 ibook, my dual G4 and tibook. Is it worth a 130 bucks?

      You did of course mean to write "Is it worth the $199 for the family pack ?" didn't you.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    3. Re:The speed... the speed by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      X as in OS X or OS 10. You'll notice that he compares the speed of X with the speed of 9. He's not comparing the speed of Panther with the X you are thinking of, but with the original Mac OS X release or possibly Jaguar.

    4. Re:The speed... the speed by dissy · · Score: 1

      > Anyone know for sure?

      Yes, X11 is seperate, and runs within the native mac os x interface (Aqua?) just like you can install an X11 server on windows interface (win32 api? dunno what you would want to call it)

      The poster above you was incorrectly implying "Mac OS X" had something to do with "X11", which it doesn't.

    5. Re:The speed... the speed by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      You're right it's not, OS-X uses Quartz natively, not X-Windows.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    6. Re:The speed... the speed by wfberg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me explain.. You see, MacOS X "Panther" is actually MacOS 10.3. But they use the X so you can see it's with windows, but X windows skipped version numbers all the way to X11 (0.7 more) some years back to show people that it was like windows 3.11, but now Apple has gone back to 10, because 10 in Roman numerals is X, which is why the successor to windows 2000 is windows XP to show it's just as good (they used the full 2000 to show it's Y2K compliant in windows 2000, but now they can use double digits, because no one will think windows was made in 1910), but they added the P, which stands for Panther because it's not as slow as X11 on MacOS X.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    7. Re:The speed... the speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expose is the least eye-candy-ish thing about Panther. It's useful for a lot more than just cool demos.

    8. Re:The speed... the speed by 0rbit4l · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Regarding "booting back into 9" - you're comparing apples (no pun intended) & oranges. Booting back into 9 is a great reminder as to how AWFUL 9 was. I booted my tibook 867 into 9 not long ago to do some disk maintenance. Yeah, 9 is super-fast - as long as you only ever want to do one thing at a time (I'm not talking about disk-only utilities - we're talking anything here) and don't mind the occasional crash. Face it, running 9 on a modern mac is like running Win 3.1 on a p4 with a gig of ram. It sure is speedy without that annoying overhead of real virtual memory or a useful scheduler, right? - thanks, but no thanks. All the speed in the world is useless if it's an insecure, cobbled-together OS that can't multitask without barfing.

      Regarding 10.3, I didn't notice a speed increase from 10.2.8. XBench reported increased scores in text scrolling (definitely a plus) but that's about it. The killer feature of 10.3 is definitely expose - worth my $69 (academic), for sure. The new mail client is nice, too.

    9. Re:The speed... the speed by GigsVT · · Score: 0

      You know, the funny thing is, non-mac users kept telling you all how much MacOS sucked and was behind the times, but mac users would defend it to the death. Now that OS X is out, it seems like the Mac users realized they were wrong all along.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:The speed... the speed by 10bt · · Score: 1

      "Just booting back into 9 was a reminder of how slow X was. Panther is faster on my daughters G3 ibook, my dual G4 and tibook."

      but panther is still slower than OS 9.x, right? i don't know why it's so, but a lot of open source software is slower than commercial software (i.e., software that is 100% coded in-house). and i'm not just saying this because KDE is slower on my p2 desktop than win98.

    11. Re:The speed... the speed by 0rbit4l · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You know, the funny thing is, non-mac users kept telling you all how much MacOS sucked and was behind the times, but mac users would defend it to the death.
      I suppose it would be funny, if it were true. (I don't ever remember being told how much MacOS sucked - considering I was the one doing the "MacOS sucks!" complaining during the pre-OS X days.) However, the homogenous community of "mac users" you seem to imply isn't the real picture. You may (or may not) be aware that there generally are 2 (maybe 3) camps here: 1) OS 9 die-hards (the "original" mac zealots who would tell you that cooperative multitasking was plenty good, and macs are awesome - don't you know!) are largely in the background right now - they still proclaim OS 9's goodness, however ("The new finder sucks! OS 9 forever!"), or have converted to the 2) middle ground - the ones who have converted and realize OS X's goodness. However, I think the most vocal mac advocates right now are the 3) people who are new to macs & have chosen them on technical merit *now*. For instance, I wouldn't have dreamed of buying a mac pre-OS X. Now I wouldn't dream of going to a PC. Just as I used to feel about macs (what's the point of blowing cash on an inferior product that doesn't do what I want?), I feel exactly the same about PCs now. Do you really think that all the unix geeks on slashdot who have turned into rabid mac fans were rabid mac fans in the OS 9 days...?

      To clarify: MacOS before OS X was pure crap, and there are a whole lot of current mac users out there who feel the same way - and have, since well before OS X. The others are still somehow stuck in Steve Jobs' reality distortion field.

    12. Re:The speed... the speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahahaha OMFG!!

      hahahahha

      CAUGHT!!!!

    13. Re:The speed... the speed by kyrre · · Score: 1

      Gotta love that $60 family pack sticker.

    14. Re:The speed... the speed by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

      Well, I wouldn't say that MacOS before OS X was pure crap -- just horribly dated. Compared to its original contemporaries (early versions of Windows, for instance), it was probably the best GUI OS (with the possible exception of the Amiga) available. It's just that it failed to evolve with the times and got horribly outdated.

    15. Re:The speed... the speed by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of it comes down to lack of hardware to test on. The only thing a lot of us small timers have to test on is the same one development is done on. While in-house software usually has the money behind it to test and debug on a wide variety of hardware configurations.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    16. Re:The speed... the speed by javiercero · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Jeez, I guess the X11 people were on to something since the 11 version, which followed the version 10, of the X window system had its first release in the mid 80's (87), which was like almost 7 years before windows 3.11. X11R2 came out in 88 and started to be adopted by major unix vendors, again...this is way before windows 3.11 ever came out.

      Xwindow version 10 actually was the first "public" release and came out in 85 I believe. I have a tape image with sources somewhere, previous versions were private delevopment releases within MIT, each version from 1 to 9 had major additions to the overall architecture (i.e. full client/server support, color support, etc.)

      Anyhow, you are either a troll or a very ignorant person. In any case you have no freaking idea what you were talking about....

    17. Re:The speed... the speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your humor detector is malfunctioning . . . Good thing /. has a 'Funny' moderation so humor-challenged individuals like yourself don't get confused.

  6. $129 for 0.1 by DrugCheese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems to me like Microsofts strategy. It's another year, get another 'major release' out of the door so we can get everyone to chip in another hundred dollars.

    Hey but as long as you pay Apple befor Microsoft

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so you're saying if it were released as Mac OS X 10.5 or Mac OS X 11, it would be worth it? a rose by any other name.... There are many improvements in the core OS itself that end users won't see, but make this a 'major release' in many eyes. The features that users *do* see are many as well: expose, user switching, ichat AV, improved finder, etc.

    2. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      This seems to me like Microsofts strategy. It's another year, get another 'major release' out of the door so we can get everyone to chip in another hundred dollars.

      Oh, is there more than one Microsoft? The one I know about last charged money for a Windows upgrade two years ago, and won't be demanding any more cash for another two years.

    3. Re:$129 for 0.1 by cosmo7 · · Score: 2, Funny

      so you're saying if it were released as Mac OS X 10.5 or Mac OS X 11, it would be worth it?

      Obviously the best value proposition was upgrading from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, giving you a total of 91.9 for your money.

    4. Re:$129 for 0.1 by in7ane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly 98 to 2000 would be better in that sense...

      That's a whole 1902 for your money.

      Where it all goes wrong is with Me and XP though.

    5. Re:$129 for 0.1 by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      And how many times to you pay said Microsoft for their GUI DOS OS ?

      5?

      Cause I think that's how many times they released it. Under a different name with 'major release' improvements done to it.

      Win95A
      Win95B
      Win98
      Win98SE
      WinME

      This is just my opinion. I don't use Apple (regularly). I try not to use Microsoft.

      My beef is with the version naming. If it's a 'major release' then increase the major release number, not the bug fixes and updates number. And if its an update call it that, and definetly don't charge so much for it.

      Once again just my opinions ... which are frequently proven wrong.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    6. Re:$129 for 0.1 by CountBrass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that Apple's point releases actually *improve* the OS and make it *faster*.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    7. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Graff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This seems to me like Microsofts strategy. It's another year, get another 'major release' out of the door so we can get everyone to chip in another hundred dollars.

      Everyone seems to think that these ".1" releases of Mac OS X are not really major releases. In fact, they are pretty much whole version releases, it's just that Apple doesn't want to have to call their new baby Mac OS XI, Mac OS XII, Mac OS XIII, etc.

      The amount of new features, better ways of doing things, corrections to problems, additions to the user interface make each one of the .1 releases to Mac OS X worth being treated as a full version. Take a look at how many reviewers and users are saying that this upgrade is well worth the $130, that alone should tell you that it really is a full version and not some minor update.
    8. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to charge for something when you aren't releasing anything, isn't it?

    9. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again just my opinions ... which are frequently proven wrong.

      The big difference is that while MS offers improvements, they don't really force the upgrade the way Apple does. 95 -> 98. 3 years. NT4 is still supported. Most of the older OSes still run new applications, while anything you can download from Apple today, almost all of it requires 10.2 minimum. Wait a year, and they're "upgrade" the minimum requirements to 10.3.

      This is nothing like what MS does. They don't even have a major release for the desktop scheduled until 2006, and no annual $129 bug fixes.

    10. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? Hah. You're full of shit. XP and 2000 were improvements, and were responsive out of the box. Apple sold a beta, sold an update to a beta, and they're finally releasing a real OS. I'm out $130 for XP and had a real OS right from the get-go. OSX.0 to OSX.3 was $129+$129+$129+ a few "free == $20 shipping" updates. Welcome to 2001 on the PC.

    11. Re:$129 for 0.1 by nyteroot · · Score: 1

      Actually a friend and I were having a discussion about this -- the core changes to OSX in .3 are HUGE -- kernel synced with BSD5 (which, for the Linux users, is a much bigger deal in *BSD OSs than in Linux), upgrade to gcc 3.3 (with massive compiler optimization enhancements for PPC), lots of changes in the other little things (OSX finally got shadow passwords, a much improved compiler toolchain) and then the slew of UI improvements besides. This should really be a full new release, not a point release, but the branding of OSX is just too cool, and too valuable to throw away. It almost seems like OSX will be the permanent new name, and this should reallt be called OSX 3.

      --
      Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
    12. Re:$129 for 0.1 by DietFluffy · · Score: 0

      The X in Mac OS X actually stands for the letter X, as in UniX. When Apple does decide to release a major upgrade to the OS, it will be named Mac OS X 11.0

    13. Re:$129 for 0.1 by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The difference is that Apple's point releases actually *improve* the OS and make it *faster*.

      Every version of Windows I've used has been an improvement on its predecessor (save for WinMe, which I haven't used) - and starting from where OS X did, the mind boggles at how it could have gotten any *slower* with new releases.

    14. Re:$129 for 0.1 by taybin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. They also sync up with many of the open source projects out there. A fairly recent version of perl, openbsd, gcc, and others I'm sure.

    15. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Raffaello · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the X doesn't stand for uniX. The X is a roman numeral ten. Apple have been very clear about this from the earliest developer preview days. Which is why Steve Jobs, and everyone else at Apple, pronounces, and have always pronounced, Mac OS X as "Mac OS Ten, " *never* as "Mac OS Ecks."

    16. Re:$129 for 0.1 by tdemark · · Score: 1

      and no annual $129 bug fixes.

      Yeah, well maybe they should given that their track record has cost the world billions , at least.

      - Tony

    17. Re:$129 for 0.1 by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somehow I have a feeling that if Apple waited 3 years before the next major OS release, critics would come out of the woodwork asking why users let Apple treat them so badly, waiting so long for new OS features. No doubt followed by claims that it marked the impending end of Apple...

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    18. Re:$129 for 0.1 by noewun · · Score: 1
      The big difference is that while MS offers improvements, they don't really force the upgrade the way Apple does.

      No one is forced to upgrade on the Apple side. There are people still using 10.2.x and 10.1.x. I know people still happily using variations of the classic Mac OS, from 8.1 to 9.2.2. A good friend of mine is still running 9.2.2. It does everything she needs. She will probably upgrade when she buys a new machine, but she's in no hurry.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    19. Re:$129 for 0.1 by iantri · · Score: 1
      Keep in mind that Windows 2000 to Windows XP is just NT 5.0 to 5.1.

      Microsoft just hides it.

    20. Re:$129 for 0.1 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      it's just that Apple doesn't want to have to call their new baby Mac OS XI, Mac OS XII, Mac OS XIII,etc.

      At least Apple has the good enough sense to use a logical naming when it comes to versions.

      95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> ME (WTF?) -> XP Home-> ?
      NT 3.5 -> NT 3.5.1 -> NT 4 -> 2000 (NT5) -> XP Pro -> 2003

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:$129 for 0.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me how much better XP is to 2K, and in what ways. Tell me how much it justifies the upgrade cost and the long delay between releases. Tell me how it is better that Microsoft bloated their OS so that XP had much higher system requirements than 2K, while allowing users to do less, and forcing home users to call a telephone number to use the software on equipment they own. Tell me how XP runs slower on the same equipment as 2K, instead of how Panther runs faster than Jaguar on the same Mac.

      If you talk about anything other than XP's fast user switching, you're a fool.

    22. Re:$129 for 0.1 by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      And they're serous about it too. Type "Mac OS X" into text edit and tell it to speak the text and see what happens.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  7. Wither now? by asparagus · · Score: 1

    Expose is certainly frickin' cool. I don't know if the upgrade's worth $129, but since I got my copy for $20, it's a steal. All the various bugfixes and whatnot are certainly nice as well.

    Apple's managed to get back to the lead of the desktop os pack. The question is, where do we go from here?

    Filesystem metadata is a must, but give 'em another version or two. After that, I really don't know. Any ideas?

    1. Re:Wither now? by Graff · · Score: 3, Informative
      Expose is certainly frickin' cool. I don't know if the upgrade's worth $129, but since I got my copy for $20, it's a steal.

      Heh, you want to talk about a steal. I was going to purchase a new computer soon so I signed up to be an Apple Student Developer. It cost $100 per year (they have a free version also) but it comes with all sorts of cool monthly mailings and perks. The best part about it is that you get a one-time, up to 20% discount on a hardware purchase. I bought a brand-new dual 2 gHz G5 and saved $600. The gravy on all of this was they sent out a copy of Panther with the Student Developer kit, another savings of $130. I also got a shirt and a bunch of other cool extras.

      So for $100 I saved $730 in hardware and software, not to mention the developer mailings and all the extras. Not bad at all! Apple definitely treats its developers well.
    2. Re:Wither now? by asparagus · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those of you interested in the above, go here, click on "ADC Hardware Purchase Program Store," and drool away.

      -Brett

    3. Re:Wither now? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I'm confused... that link is apparantly going to allow me to order the high-end G5 for $600 less. I am all the way to the final page asking for my credit card, and it hasn't asked me to prove that I'm entitled to this discount... wtf?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:Wither now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      64-bit baby!

    5. Re:Wither now? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Expose is so cool.. Its nice to know that we can finally switch between tasks with a single click of the mouse (and a quick press+hold of the function key)...

      Now we are only 8 years behind the pesky windows taskbar.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    6. Re:Wither now? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      they ask for an appl user id before they allow you to complete the order.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    7. Re:Wither now? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Apple user ID's are free of charge.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    8. Re:Wither now? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      But the UID has to have a puchase asset asociated with it. If it doesn't have one, the order will be canceled.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    9. Re:Wither now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine hasn't been cancelled so far... fingers crossed :-)

  8. My review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using Panther for a little less than a week and it's been bliss. Seriously, neither Windows XP or any Linux distro I've ever tried can touch Panther in terms of usability. It's very slick and polished, and blows even Jaguar away with lots of refinements in networking, the aqua GUI, and expose, the feature most likelt to be copied my MS when longhorn comes out.

    The complainers will be the loudest of the bunch, and yes there are a few kinks. But note the firewire problem was an issue with the hardware chipset, not apple's programming. Obviously people like me, the happy ones are not going to get the headlines.

    1. Re:My review by blackmonday · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, now I've seen everything. An anon copied my earlier post from another story, and didn't even try to get mod points for it. He should have at least plugged my band too!

    2. Re:My review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, now I've seen everything. An anon copied my earlier post from another story, and didn't even try to get mod points for it. He should have at least plugged my band too!

    3. Re:My review by gbrandt · · Score: 1

      The firewire is a problem with apples QA, the fact that it is a hardware issue is not important.

    4. Re:My review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Expose may be copied by MS, but that doesnt hide the fact that they ripped it off Sun, ie: Project Looking Glass

  9. Paid-for OS upgrades by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think Apple are somewhere between a rock and a hard place here - they have to have an evolving sexy OS, to maintain their position in the "consciousness" (God, I sound like a marketing man!) of its' users. They also have to pay for it to be developed, and (since it's a part of their unique-selling-point) can't just open-source it. So, they've got an expensive 'cost-of-doing-business', without the resources of OS to fall back on. I don't see what else they can do but charge...

    Frankly, it looks like it'll be worth it anyway. One nice (for the users) thing is that Apple will need to listen to them if the OS is a profit-centre. This might explain their "two-fingers" approach to the industry complaints over "Rip, Mix, Burn"... Apple know which side their bread is buttered :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's bad enough that people don't know the difference between "its" and "it's," but those who think they're smart by using "its'" -- which, by the way, isn't a word -- ought to be publicly flogged.

    2. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by Hitchcock_Blonde · · Score: 1

      'Its' is a word. Look it up.

      --
      Karma Schmarma
    3. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by jared_hanson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but "its'" is not. Note the trailing apostrophe. That is the non-word the parent was complaining about. Now, read before you critiqe.

      I admit, the apostrophe is hard to see amongst all the qotation marks.

      That is all.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    4. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by Hitchcock_Blonde · · Score: 1

      "I admit, the apostrophe is hard to see amongst all the qotation marks." Yes, it is.

      --
      Karma Schmarma
    5. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "critiqe" is not a word.

    6. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (I am the AC who wrote the original flame.)

      Its', with a trailing apostrophe, is not a word. You probably didn't see that amongst the double quotes, but when you're flaming (or flaming a flame), you ought not to make any mistakes. :)

    7. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean "Yes, it's."?

    8. Re:Paid-for OS upgrades by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I think Apple are somewhere between a rock and a hard place here...

      Would you say they are beleagured?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  10. My concern by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, I certainly don't have time to wade through another John Siracusa epic and still make the first hundred posts. Skipping to the end, he basically says, "It's worth $129, if you like giving large chunks of money to Apple for no particularly important reason." That's pretty much what I'd already concluded.

    Anyway, more important to my mind than "Panther r0x0rs/sux0rs!" is this: what's up with Apple's quality control? They've had quite a few releases lately that have completely screwed their users. They've been on the order of the iTunes installer issue a few years ago, which at least had the excuse that they were new to Unix. When I pay them large amounts of money, I expect something that at a minimum doesn't break my system.

    (As opposed to, say, apt-get upgrading Yellow Dog from 3.0 to 3.1. That I *do* expect to potentially break my system but I can try it for free and send them money when it works.)

  11. Sounds worth it to me. by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 4, Informative
    At $129, it's probably one of the most effective updates you can get for your Mac. It's faster than the previous version, slightly more reliable in many circumstances (not that there's much room for improvement), and they've fixed my least favorite interface flaws.

    It's backward compatible with everything, I think. It also seems to boot slightly faster. But you might find the memory management to be the most noticable aspect.

    Basically, lots of little updates that add up.

  12. Re:Port it, you mofos! by XaXXon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay. I'll post it this round...

    Apple doesn't make money selling software. They make money selling hardware. They don't want you paying $130 for their software.. that's just a little bonus. They want you dropping $2,000 on a new Apple computer. That's where their money comes from.

    If they ported it, they'd lose their primary revenue stream.

    Got it?

  13. Why should they? by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should Apple port OS-X to i386, or any other platform? Apple is a hardware company that makes their software to facilitate the purchase and use of their hardware. They have nothing to gain from porting to another platform, especially one as open and varied as the i386 platform, except the mother of all support headaches.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  14. Pretty fair by ben_of_copenhagen · · Score: 5, Informative
    Im running full panther mode here, and the review seems fair to me.
    Most changes are under-the-hood stuff and changes to the user interface, who admittedly may not seem as impressing as new applications and massive feature-additions. Still, these are the things that improves the experience every day and in almost all kind of work on the machine.
    And the main thing for me is that now i would be sorry to go back to jaguar, and that almost justifies the nasty price tag (+the company pays!).

    One feature that i really miss, though: support for exchange-servers from iCal. Its driving me nuts. And it makes it really hard to justify the use of macs in my department, when everybody else in da houze is using winboxes and outlook - and constantly complaining about me and my close colleagues not using the calendar.

    1. Re:Pretty fair by lordDallan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It sounds like all of the Windows folks have Office (they're using Outlook). If you have Office for the Mac then Entourage will do ALL of the neat Exchange tricks. E-mail, addresses (contacts), and calendars (including scheduling, seeing busy time, etc.).

      But don't take my word for it. Here it is right from the horse's mouth.

    2. Re:Pretty fair by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      It does the job your respondent was complaining about but it doesn't do all of the neat Exchange tricks. It doesn't, for example, seem to use Exchange's RTF format, which means when people send me emails with embedded images elsewhere in the office, I have to switch either to the OS 9 Exchange client (urgh!) or over to my NT box.

      As our product support department is sending me screenshots of problems all of the time, this is a major downer...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Pretty fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried Outlook 2001? It's a free download but unfortunately it's a Classic app. It sucks having to run Classic, but I'm in the same situation as you, and Outlook 2001 does work rather well. The only real problem is that it freaks and goes out to lunch when I change network settings, so I just have to remember to quit before moving the PowerBook around.

      What I don't understand is why MS didn't port Outlook along with the rest of the Office apps when creating Offive v.X? Surely it couldn't have been more difficult than Word or Excel, etc. I honestly don't know why Entourage even exists. Its Exchange support simply isn't up to the task for a true corporate environment. I'd love to use that or Apple's apps and be free from Classic, but I can't. Oh well!

    4. Re:Pretty fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I tried Entourage and it doesn't fully integrate with our Exchange server. Can't do calendars properly and can't send outgoing mail (probably something about how the corporate Exchange server is setup). Outlook 2001 works perfectly except for the fact that it's a $%*&ing Classic app.

    5. Re:Pretty fair by ben_of_copenhagen · · Score: 1

      believe me, i've tried. Im actually using entourage in my daily work but syncing with the exchange server is simply not good enough.
      I cant see public folders/calendars and free/busy time seems unstable and sometimes produces weird problems. I hope MS addresses these issues, but i would much rather have apple-flavoures solutions to them.

    6. Re:Pretty fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried for a long time to get Entourage to work but unfortunately the muppets in charge of Exchange at my place don't have the correct mystic runes scribbled on the Comms room floor so it doesn't work.

      Oh yes, I could see e-mail over IMAP, though I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this is an improvement over the standard mail app, but I can't see a calendar or contacts because we're "on the wrong version of exchange" (tm).

    7. Re:Pretty fair by digrhino · · Score: 1

      Nope. Entourage doesn't see Public Folders/Calenders. It just does some of the free/busy tricks. But not being aboe to see Public Folders and company wide calenders makes it pretty much not any better then the rest of the email clients out there that sort of work with Exchange.

  15. Well dammit by tbradshaw · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm reading the OSX review on Ars, quite enjoying myself, then suddenly I can't make it to page 3. I get "connection failed" messages.

    Giving up temporarily, I cruise over to /. to see what's new. Of course, what do I find? The OSX review on Ars at the top of the list.

    While I've definitely witnessed the slashdot effect trying to follow links from articles, this is definitely the first time that I've ever been caught in the middle of one.

    It's kind of crazy, I didn't think people actually read the articles around here...

    1. Re:Well dammit by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      I feel for ya man, that's why I didn't read it. More bandwidth for the rest of you. But hey, this is /. and I can post without RTFA'ing, so here goes:

      Windoze suX0rz! Lunix r00lz! um, OSX...that's built on BSD, right? BSD is DEAD!

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:Well dammit by sc00p18 · · Score: 1

      It's kind of crazy, I didn't think people actually read the articles around here...

      You're giving these people too much credit, man. We don't read the articles, but we will load up the pages looking for pictures and screenshots. That's really all it takes for a good slashdotting, anyway...

    3. Re:Well dammit by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I think you've got the order confused. Now saying Windoze r00lz and Linux suX0rz is the cool thing among those who let the article titles dictate their opinion of the month.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    4. Re:Well dammit by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1


      What's ARS being hosted on, anyway? I mean, I expect "I built this roller-coaster in my backyard, and come see all the pictures on my site, which I'm hosting on the 486 on my cable modem in my bedroom," to get slahsdotted, but I don't expect other news sites to get slashdotted: they're news sites. Everyone's suposed to go read the articles. That's the idea.

      I mean, if someone posted a link to a Slashdot story, I wouldn't expect Slashdot to get Slashdotted.

      I suppose ARS is lacking the sort of major sponsorship, and the heavy hosting & bandwidth that comes with it, that someone like OSDN provides.

      -Phat Tony

      Have the guts to post things that aren't worth modding up.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    5. Re:Well dammit by NighthawkFoo · · Score: 1

      Ars is self-hosted, I believe. I think the founders pay the bandwidth bill out of their own pockets, with advertising and subscription revenue helping to offset those costs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
      - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Well dammit by danila · · Score: 1

      News sites are designed for more or less constant load. No matter how great your server is, there is a limit to the number of page loads it can handle per minute. And with hundreds of thousands of slashdotters all hitting the same page at almost the same time this limit is often exceeded. Ars Technica can serve the whole Slashdot crowd if only visit could be evenly distributed over the day.

      This about this. You can probably have almost a hundred of orgasms every month, but imagine a hundred slashdotters coming to your place and trying to fuck you all at once. That's what they just did to the Ars. :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:Well dammit by Hannibal_Ars · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Ars can handle a thorough slashdotting without even blinking, due to the fact that we serve static HTML--no CMS, database, etc. for the articles.

      The problem isn't slashdot, but the fact that the entire Mac community shows up to read major OS X articles like this. So when you add in the slashdot crowd, which normally doesn't even cause the server to flinch (we haven't choked due to the /. effect since about early 1999), with almost all of the Mac users and Mac watchers on the 'net, then the server starts to choke.

      --
      Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
    8. Re:Well dammit by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      You can probably have almost a hundred of orgasms every month, but imagine a hundred slashdotters coming to your place and trying to fuck you all at once. That's what they just did to the Ars.

      Nice visual there, cowboy.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    9. Re:Well dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine a hundred slashdotters coming to your place and trying to fuck you

      There are 100 women on slashdot? In the immortal words of Keanu Reeves: whoa!

    10. Re:Well dammit by Emil+Brink · · Score: 1

      As far as I can recall, they actually have their own server solution, which they are fond of bragging^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwriting technical articles and speaking appreciatingly about. It seems to have not survived so well this time, however. I thought it had, since I could continue from page 5 or wherever I was when you guys hit, but it's down now. Otherwise I would have linked to some article about their back-end, of course.

      --
      main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
    11. Re:Well dammit by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      It's kind of crazy, I didn't think people actually read the articles around here...

      We don't we're all just pounding repeatedly on the links hoping to cut through a slashdotting.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    12. Re:Well dammit by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      The problem isn't slashdot, but the fact that the entire Mac community shows up to read major OS X articles like this. So when you add in the slashdot crowd, which normally doesn't even cause the server to flinch (we haven't choked due to the /. effect since about early 1999), with almost all of the Mac users and Mac watchers on the 'net, then the server starts to choke.

      What?! You're telling us that compared to the lumbering elephant that is the Mac community, we here at /. are a tiny squeaking mouse? Please say it ain't so.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    13. Re:Well dammit by tbradshaw · · Score: 1

      I didn't even think of that. Thanks for the info.

    14. Re:Well dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said they were women slashdotters coming to fuck him?!

    15. Re:Well dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Ars was sure on it's Ars(e) for a while though :-P (sorry)

    16. Re:Well dammit by Bangie · · Score: 1

      Hannibal:

      Less posting on /. and more writing CPU roundups plz

    17. Re:Well dammit by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      I guess that means that John Siracusa's job at Ars is secured ;).

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  16. Good Job! by Verminator · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow. Astounding.

    Your check is in the mail.

    Love Always,
    Bill G.

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
  17. Yet Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot effct strikes back

  18. Expose by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A friend of mine was raving about expose the other day, saying it was the next big thing in UI design, but can anyone explain to me how it's any better than pressing F11 in WindowMaker, to get the Window List? I know it can do the "minimize all open windows" thing too, but that can already be done in X anyway.
    I'm not knocking it (too much), I'm sure it looks very pretty, but I just can't see it as being that much of a breakthrough.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
    1. Re:Expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to experience it to understand it.

    2. Re:Expose by kalleh · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have no idea either. And why did they start with this nice-looking UI thing, I mean, what can they do I cannot do with emacs in terminal mode?

    3. Re:Expose by Spyky · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not familiar with the F11 feature in WindowMaker. However, I can say that it took me about a day of using Expose to realize that I can never go back. Thus, if any other OS developer wants my money ever they better have an expose-ish feature.

      I explained expose to a friend of mine, and he couldn't understand out why it was better than ALT-TAB. Several reasons: first, it is a single click, not cycling through a list of windows, as with ALT-TAB. O(1) instead of O(n). Second, Expose shows you your currently open *documents*, rather than applications, and it doesn't show ones that you might have minimized or hidden. Thus it shows you what you are working on right now, not applications that might be running but aren't in active use.

      I also use Expose (F11) to access the desktop (similar to minimize all). The difference is, it isn't minimizing, it is just moving them out of the way so I can access my desktop, maybe drag some files to Finder (You can open other documents/applications while Expose has moved the windows off to the side). It is also easy to restore, just click anywhere around the edge of the screen and everything zooms back to normal (or click F11 again obviously). The most important thing to remember is, you aren't minimizing (or hiding) these windows, so restoring has no effect on windows that you might already have minimized or hidden.

      I've used linux as my only desktop operating systems for several years, multiple desktops were my primary way of managing multiple open applications and documents for several different tasks simultaneously. Since upgrading my weeks old mac to Panther not quite a month ago, I have totally changed the way I work, now using minimization, hiding, and expose to effectively manage my tasks. I find the new methods of doing things easier and more efficient then before (after the initial adjustment). Like I said, I couldn't imagine going back.

      Not that there aren't any improvements to be made (I just can't think of any, but I'm sure someone eventually will). I have to agree that Expose is one of the most significant recent developments in windowed GUIs. Don't knock it until you've spent enough time with it to get used to it.

      -Spyky

    4. Re:Expose by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      can anyone explain to me how it's any better than pressing F11 in WindowMaker, to get the Window List?

      The other guy's right. The experience is outstanding (not a word that ever sprang to mind when using WindowMaker), but if you want an explanation of how it works, try here.

    5. Re:Expose by liquid+stereo · · Score: 1

      And what would you do with the Window List?

      The beauty of Expose is that its simple and extremely obvious.

      Apple has knack of introducing things/features which makes one wonder how they worked before said feature was introduced.

    6. Re:Expose by frinkster · · Score: 1

      To make it even more useful, Panther allows you to set mouse shortcuts to Expose. I have the side buttons on my Microsoft Intellimouse Exporer set to the F9 and F10 equivalents. I can't believe I actually lived without this!

    7. Re:Expose by autechre · · Score: 1

      Microsoft apparently decided that people didn't want "minimize all windows" anymore (I can't find the equivalent on this XP machine), and now look what happens. I wouldn't think there was much difference between a windowlist with selectable windows and Expose, except that some users might prefer Expose's more graphical approach. Some people also have a small enough email volume (or large enough patience) to use GUI email clients, I guess. It's all about needs and preferences.

      Personally, I tend to either tile my windows or, in the case of Mozilla, have stacks of windowshaded windows (which have multiple tabs, but I keep everything grouped by window so it's easy to keep track). Now, thanks to focus-follows-mouse, "tiled" doesn't necessarily mean that you can see all of every window. If I'm only going to use the left-hand side of this Eterm, why not have GNUcash overlap it?

      For me, Expose wouldn't compare to multiple desktops because I use them not just to sort windows, but for _mindsets_. I don't even want to think about what's on those other desktops when I'm in my "development" desktop. IRC and email shouldn't even exist, but can just do their own thing until I get back to them. And I have a desktop set aside for whatever new thing I'm starting on at the moment, so I can work on it when I'm in the mood and forget about it otherwise.

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    8. Re:Expose by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      From Windows 95 up to Windows XP, just press the Windows Key + D at the same time to display the desktop. Press it again to restore your windows.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    9. Re:Expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bind Expose to a mouse button... It's the best thing *ever*. I've got one of those logitech mice with a ridiculous number of buttons and a scroll wheel. I never thought I'd have a use for them all until I found Expose. I never use it from the keyboard now.

      My only problem is that I keep trying to use it when I'm at work using Linux. :...O( But hopefully KDE or Gnome will catch on and add it as a feature soon.

    10. Re:Expose by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Microsoft apparently decided that people didn't want "minimize all windows" anymore (I can't find the equivalent on this XP machine), and now look what happens.

      Press Win+M (where 'Win' is the Windows key) to minimize all windows. Alternatively, Win+D shows the desktop by hiding all open windows.

      Win+Shift+M will un-minimize all windows. All of these shortcuts work in Windows XP.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    11. Re:Expose by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I'm not knocking it (too much), I'm sure it looks very pretty, but I just can't see it as being that much of a breakthrough.

      You cannot be told what Expose is...

      Seriously, it's really quite amazing to use. The "technical" reasons its so good are because it's spacial and because it leverages Fitt's Law. It makes switching between dozens of windows phenomenally efficient. The default shortcut keys suck, but bind them to mouse button or something a bit better and it will change the way you use a GUI.

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

      You are going to get a whole slew of "You have to see the animation to understand it" smarm, but really you don't. All open windows shrink and tile, you choose one, everything expands back to where it was. End of story.

      Functionally, it is no different from a window list menu, except that it takes up the entire screen, and you don't see hidden or minimized windows, where with a menu you do -- and there is usually a little icon to signify the state of the window.

      Additionally, the purely graphic method has serious problems if you do a lot of work with multiple windows that all look the same. Say for example, you have a couple dozen terminal emulators running -- a common enough situation -- they all do their little fancy smancy shrink thing, and bang, you now have twenty little pictures of nearly identical looking xterms, all untitled. The only way to title them is to mouse-over the window. Mouse-overs for vital information is a major UI law being broken.

      A window list menu far surpasses the use here. Now, for visually inclined people who get headaches reading things, having all of their fancy pretty Photoshop pictures shrunk down so they can choose one -- well I guess that is just the royal peach for them -- but it is certainly not a revolutionary, innovatinary, evolutionary, set to change the face of UI forever, blah blah blah that a typical Mac fanatic would have you believe.

      It's a neat gimmick that some people will find a use for. I think some of OS X's other more technical merits are far more interesting, but everyone seems to forget that kind of stuff when their windows are flying around and shrinking and expanding.

    13. Re:Expose by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      BTW, I do some programming, and I've often got 3 or 4 terminal windows open. I can easily read their contents and/or title bars at a glance and tell which is which. Maybe the quality of the scaling makes the difference.

      Most Mac users will have 5 or 6 different graphics open (my case) or several movies, or scenes from films (if they do video editing), a couple of word processing docs, or excel spreadsheets, etc. These are all quite easily distinguishable when scaled just enough so that all open windows will fit on screen at once. In fact, the quality of the scaling is such that I can easily still read text in a word processing document that has been shrunk to 1/2 size (i.e., 1/4 normal area). With expose, the whole window shrinks, including the title bar, scroll bars, etc. All windows that are not hidden are tiled. This can be done on a per app basis, or for all windows of all applications that are not hidden.

      In any event, Expose really *is* different than any of the following:
      1. multiple desktops. This just spreads the problem out over a larger area.
      2. Tile all windows. This keeps the window title bars and scrollers the same size as before (mistake), and, even worse, it actually changes window size and arrangement. With Expose, the windows go right back to their former size and arrangement with another key press (or by releasing the key if you've been holding it down).
      3. Window lists. Much worse if your window content is easily visually recognizable, as is the case with most Mac users, even those with multiple terminal windows.

    14. Re:Expose by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Press Win+M (where 'Win' is the Windows key) to minimize all windows. Alternatively, Win+D shows the desktop by hiding all open windows.

      I'm on a Dell keyboard with no Windows key, you insensitive clod! ;)

      -T

    15. Re:Expose by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      Er, click on the window you want (or scroll to it using cursor keys). You are then taken to the correct virtual desktop, it is unminimized if already minimized and brought to the front. You can also get to it through the middle mouse button, but for that you need some desktop to click on. As I said, it's not graphically lovely, but it seems just as efficient.
      My next laptop will be an iBook, but I'm struggling to see this particular feature as revolutionary. I'm willing to be proved wrong but it sounds as though I'll have to wait to try it for myself :-)

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    16. Re:Expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VI, dammit!

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

      One HUGE difference is that the shrunken windows are LIVE.

      Try this: open and play 5 Quicktime files in separate windows, now put Expose in action. Your QT continues to run. Just cool for demo, you say?

      Well, how about this: I can start a build in XCode and while in Expose mode, I can still monitor the build progress.

      If you're asking why it is better than a simple list of apps, it is clear that you haven't had enough time to play with it.

      Once you GET Expose, there's really no turning back.

    18. Re:Expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps it would be more useable for me if I were getting the same ratios that you are. After a few days of playing with it, I've found on average my windows are shrinking to 1/8th of their original size, and at that level the anti-aliasing engine munges up entire lines making it hard to even see the lines. There is no way things could be read unless the original font was 42pt or something.

      multiple desktops. This just spreads the problem out over a larger area.

      What problem? When I'm working with virtual desktops I have in my head an idea of where everything is based on a grouping of function by desktop. I guess, I haven't really analyzed how I know where something will be. I just know that I never have to hunt or peck at desktops and windows to find something. Everything is side-by-side in its own functionary desktop. Further, I have all of these bound to a simple single-chord. So if I want to visit the graphics program I hit Win-5 and I am instantly there. Win-2 [pause] 5 to check email. And so on. Expose solves a problem that does not exist for me unless the OS doesn't have virtual windows.

      Tile all...

      Never used that function for the very reason you bring up. Why mess up all your window sizes just to find something that could probably be easier found with alt-tabs -- certainly in the aftermath.

      Window lists. Much worse if your window content is easily visually recognizable...

      Hey, like I said, let the Photoshop types have their peach, just don't try to make it sound like it is better than everything in the whole world because it works best for one type of work style. There are people who do all kinds of things with computers for a living, and most of those tasks are not visually oriented like that. I like window lists because I can see everything instantly, no animation wait, and access what I want, even warping through desktops if necessary.

      It's a matter of scale. Expose works well for a limited number of windows, on a certain kind of window -- multiple desktops and window lists have essentially no ceiling, but you have to think like an array to be good at them. You can have fifty applications running for months on end and never blink twice about it. I'll be the first to admit its not for everyone. Neither is Expose. That is why they are different.

    19. Re:Expose by FunkyChild · · Score: 1

      If you had actually read the article, it's all pretty darn obvious.

    20. Re:Expose by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      There's an option to turn off anti aliasing for font sizes smaller than X (where X is whatever you set it to) you might want to try that.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    21. Re:Expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you've never used it, you dickpumping antibrain. Just like everyone else who equates it with some hunk of melting shit window management aid.

      Brush your fucking hair.

    22. Re:Expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On second inspection it is not anti-aliasing, just whatever fast algorithm they are using for interpolation on a scaled object. The window itself is not shrinking; the font size is not actually changing inside the window, so setting the minimum anti-alias limit higher doesn't do anything. It is just a snapshot image of the window taken at the buffer level and then manipulated with a 3d routine in Quartz Extreme for performance reasons. So to fix the problem you'd have to give it a better interpolation function, which would probably drastically slow everything down. Hmmmm.

  19. Re:Port it, you mofos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It won't happen. Apple doesn't make money from software development. They make money from selling the hardware that their software runs on. It's pretty much that simple.

    If you want the cool OS, iWhatever, etc., buy our slightly expensive, but worth every cent, hardware.

    Why even ask for an x86 port? If you want the OS, there isn't anything very bad about Apple's hardware. I could see you asking for a port to x86 if x86 hardware was vastly superior, but it aint.

  20. Re:Let it start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmm, strange. not one post yet like you describe. bad morning ??

  21. Re:1st Slashdot SUICIDE PACT POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Maybe we'll find you, gun you down and make the national news.

    Shithead.

  22. Granted..... by h8macs · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There have been a few articles that I have attempted to contribute over the years, which have not made it to post.

    However if you want to complain about comments being modded down or up, blame lazy users with moderator power. I for one have been to blame as well.

    Just recently I have started looking at 1 thru -1 posts and modding them up accordingly if they are interesting or informative.

    I think slashdot is still pretty cool, it isn't the /. of 1998 but it is still cool. I do not subscribe, as I am still extremely under paid for my skill sets. I can barely afford to clothe my children and keep my house.

    I do however appreciate /. for what it is, a distraction from my now mundane life and sometimes very informative site.

    Thanks for hearing me out.

    --
    :-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again. :-b
    1. Re:Granted..... by h8macs · · Score: 1

      Not sure how this was off-topic....but ok. Interesting how when someone defends slashdot they are modded down. That seems anti-slashdot to me.

      --
      :-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again. :-b
    2. Re:Granted..... by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Not sure how this was off-topic

      Here's a clue:

      1.) Use your mouse to scroll your browser up to the top of the page.
      2.) Click on the link to the article.
      3.) Read the article. Failing that, read the title of the story.

      Works for me. (Though it doesn't stop me from being modded Off Topic either.)

  23. Re:Port it, you mofos! by aredubya74 · · Score: 1

    I've heard this a million times, and I've disagreed with it a million times. I'm a hobbyist, and want to build my own system rather than pay the premium for a retail system. I'd also like to avoid the scourge that is Microsoft. I've run Linux on the desktop, and while it's decent, it's nowhere near as slick and seamless as Macs. I'd love to run it, but I can't build my own Mac. So, it's rock and hard place. Microsoft seems to have done ok financially, despite giving up the inherent revenue stream of proprietary hardware. I'll wait patiently til it happens, but it's what I'd love to see.

    Oh, and it has to come with "Duke Nukem Forever" preinstalled ;)

    --

    RW

  24. What are you talking about. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doom3 is cross-platform.

    The game that the sick fuckhead in the parent post is writing (did anyone follow his link?) is thus a cross-platform game.

    Therefore he can develop it on whatever system he likes.

    What is a good "gaming platform" is irrelivant in this case. In fact, what is a "good" gaming platform is *always* irrelivant: games are developed for Windows, or they are developed crossplatform. Period. This is for economic reasons, not technological reasons.

    What is important here is what is a good development platform. And as the parent post points out, Mac OS X is an excellent development platform. Therefore it is what he is using.

  25. Re:Thanks, slashdot! by Glyndwr · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Thanks again, slashdot! Between be clicking the "reply" button and actually getting that reply written and posted, three other people said the same thing, and ended up right above me. Now I'm probably going to be -1 Redundant too! Hurrah!

    --
    You win again, gravity!
  26. Well by CountBrass · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm running Panther on both my G4 PowerBook and my Dual proc G5.

    It's certainly nice. But is it better than Jaguar ? To be honest, not that I notice. Expose is kind of nice - but despite everyone else's raving about it I just can't get excited about it. Very pretty and clever eye-candy to be sure, but the only feature of it I use *at all* is the "clear everything and show me the desktop" f11 function.

    People get excited about the coloured labels. Huh? Can't say I have - and I haven't used them at all and I can't see myself using it.

    Now one thing I do like is the updated Finder. Do I think it's any faster ? Nope. Although it doesn't suffer from spinny-beach-ball-syndrome at all, which is nice. But then i'd call that a bug fix. The thing I do like about Finder is the list of places to go (Home, Applications, etc) that now appeat in their own panel. Although I am still getting used to it, I like that.

    I do use the encrypted home directory on my PB and that makes me feel a bit happier (I can now carry those Confidential and Restricted documents on my laptop ;-)

    The Journalling file system was a no brainer and I feel very smug :-)

    So overall am I happy with what I got for my 114 (one full copy for 99 and another for 15) ? Yes actually I am - doubly so when I see spot the internet machine at work (secure site, so no-one's "work" machine can be connected direct to the 'net) getting clogged with spyware and crashing just because it's now sharing a connection over a wlan I get this warm feeling :-P

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:Well by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      FWIW, colored file labels were one of the most-loved features in the old Classic Finder, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when they weren't included in OS X. I've done without them long enough that I don't usually miss them any more -- column view + lots of different folders takes care of one of their major uses, which was organizing groups of files for big projects -- but I'll be glad to have them back, and will probably get into the habit of using them again.

      When people ask me what, honestly, IMO, makes MacOS better than Windows, it's lots of little things like that. There's no one dramatic advantage. (Well, okay, having Unix one click away is a pretty damn big advantage. But I'm talking about Classic as well as OS X.) It's a bunch of stuff that adds up into one slick whole. When you sit down with a well-designed interface, IMO, you don't have to think about why it works as well as it does. It ... just ... works.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Well by flabbergast · · Score: 1

      I notice you said you didn't see a speed increase in the finder on your G4 PB and a Dual G5. Well, considering the hardware you're running, I'm not surprised (I'm jealous). My 800Mhz iBook (G3) is noticably "snappier" and a lot of the pausing and waiting has disappeared. I find it money well spent for the speed increases alone. IIRC, the Ars article specifically states that for older hardware upgrading is a good thing because you will see noticable increases in speed.

    3. Re:Well by sakusha · · Score: 1

      Labels were a vital part of managing my workflow in OS9. I labeled files to backup as red, backed up files green, and work in progress was blue. Now I can use this old workflow trick again, it's already paying off in organizing my files. Thanks, Apple!

    4. Re:Well by godawful · · Score: 1

      er.. It's certainly nice. But is it better than Jaguar ? To be honest, not that I notice.

      and then you go and list some of the big changes you like between it and jaguar, the updated finder, filevault, journaling (well, on by default). not mentioning expose, FUS, and all the new junk on the inside..

      but then at the end.
      So overall am I happy with what I got for my 114
      in my opinion your review is a double negetive. and i dont have no time to read it.

      --
      Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
  27. Re:Port it, you mofos! by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

    Besides which, I bet a part of the reason it works so well is that Apple control the hardware they build iMacs from. Unlike x86 OSes it doesn't have to put up with being run on whatever hardware the local semi-competent PC building firm happen to throw together. Now I know some x86 OSes are better than others, but it just has to be easier writing an OS where you know exactly what hardware configurations it will be used on.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  28. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by LordBodak · · Score: 1

    Having run KDE 2 on a Pentium 200, I can tell you for sure that Aqua is significantly more responsive :)

    --
    LordBodak's journal.
  29. Hopefully by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they've gotten over the fact that it's not the OS 9 Finder.

    That whining went on a little too long.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:Hopefully by Ineffable+27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well you're misrepresenting his argument. His propsed alternative to the current way the OS X Finder is organized -- he wants to 'separate' the browser and the 'spatial Finder' -- would sacrifice none of the functionality or advantages that the OS X Finder provides. But it would allow for a more consistent and productive user experience, regardless of whether the user is aware of the advantages of the OS 9 'spatial Finder' approach. His proposal is dead-on, and I hope Apple sees fit to adopt it.

      --
      "He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." - Steve Jobs on Bill Gates
  30. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ok that was some troll. Want more than one button? Get a logitec optical. They are better than most mice you get with PCs standard. Slow? Have you tried panther? OS X contains more open source than Darwin. Apple contributed back to the KHTML source tree after making improvements for their Safari browser and I'm sure they have been involved in the Samba 3.x project and Open Directory.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  31. What I've found by pclminion · · Score: 5, Informative
    So, I don't own an Apple machine myself, but my girlfriend has a 17" Powerbook and my friend has a dual G5. Both of them upgraded to Panther in the last week.

    My biggest complaint about X used to be that it's latent as hell. It just can't stand up to Linux with the preemptible kernel patches. You'd push the "Increase volume" key on the keyboard at it would lag for over a second before popping the volume icon. If you use the visualizer in iTunes and start messing around with other stuff it's choppy as hell. Basically, whatever application you are not currently using has ridiculous latency and choppiness. That particular peeve doesn't happen anymore.

    The whole system seems a little more responsive, although with everything sitting on a Mach kernel I don't think MacOS X will ever achieve the low latency that Linux pulls off. Mach's cool but you pay a price.

    They are also doing this thing called "prebinding" which I assume is equivalent to "prelinking" in the Linux world -- performing dynamic linking a single time and saving the intermediate results so that applications can launch faster. If you look through the installation logs for Panther you see that it includes a new dynamic linker and there are many log messages of the ilk: "Prebinding xxx application."

    If you look at the process list in top or with ps you see that there are FAR fewer system processes than before. I'm not sure whether this is because they really aren't running, or if the OS is somehow hiding them (which would be very un-UNIX-like).

    I don't personally give a shit about the new bells and whistles such as Expose. But the improvement to latencies and the general snappy feel are enough for me to justify a $130 price tag. The improvements are mainly under the hood but as a developer I really appreciate that (heh, and I don't even develop for Mac).

    1. Re:What I've found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I don't personally give a shit about the new bells and whistles such as Expose.

      It just depends what you do with your computer. Expose shines when people do creative work with anywhere from three to ten programs open and being used simultaneously. When I work on my web site, I have Photoshop, Flash, two browsers, ImageReady, BBEdit, and up to three or four other graphics open at the same time, such as Bryce, Vue D'Esprit, POVRay and Illustrator. Expose was a friggin revelation.

      When there are Linux versions of those programs (other than POVRay), I'll give that OS a fair try.

      Now if you just dink around with command lines in terminal windows, yeah, something brilliant like Expose might pass you by.

    2. Re:What I've found by pclminion · · Score: 1
      My my, you Apple people are so touchy...

      I wasn't criticizing Expose, I was just saying that I personally don't care about that sort of functionality, however, I do appreciate some of the under-the-hood things Apple has changed for Panther. I was saying I like the new OS! To each his own, sir.

    3. Re:What I've found by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      Take a deep breath, relax and let go of the hate. It was a positive post. Not everyone can care about everything you do. That's why we have individual personalities and don't have a need to form a hive.

    4. Re:What I've found by Durin_Deathless · · Score: 1

      ...it's latent as hell...
      My beige G3(300mhz) has never had high latencies on Jaguar. Never. iTunes never goes above 15% CPU usage unless I turn on the visualizer.

      --
      You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
    5. Re:What I've found by MarkoNo5 · · Score: 1

      A woman with a 17" powerbook ? I hope you are aware of the fact that you've just unleashed the /. effect upon your girlfriend.

    6. Re:What I've found by autechre · · Score: 1

      No, Expose would have the same value to someone with 20 terminal windows open as it would to someone with 10 applications having 2 windows each open.

      As an Enlightenment user, I've always wondered how Mac and Windows people managed to have more than 3 applications open at the same time and not go insane. I'm glad that Apple has come up with a really nice solution for you. I still think that an environment without multiple desktops and focus-follows-mouse will result in wasted time and screen real estate, but you probably work differently than I do.

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    7. Re:What I've found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When was the last time you used a modern operating system like Windows or Linux? You would notice the fact that when you click on a widget, such as a dropdown list, the list appears instantaneously. With OS X, there is a significant amount of lag time between the click and the display of the list. It sounds like a small thing, but when you click on widgets all day, every day of the week, month after month, it all adds up to reduced efficiency. You have become acclimated to this speed, even to the point where you have forgotten how snappy "Classic" OS 9 was. You select a menu, BAM, it's there. What is even more amusing is watching all of you loyal fans slavering over the speed increases in each OS X release (conveniently forgetting how "fast" the previous incarnation was when you first installed it, now calling it "slow"), while failing to realize how many years it has taken them to get their OS back up to a speed comperable to their old operating system, and the rest of the world.

      Acclimation and blinders, my friend. Step outside and shirk them both for a dose of reality.

    8. Re:What I've found by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      The whole system seems a little more responsive, although with everything sitting on a Mach kernel I don't think MacOS X will ever achieve the low latency that Linux pulls off. Mach's cool but you pay a price.
      Kernel latency and (gui) responsiveness two quite different things. Mac OS X actually scores very good on the latency front and has had similar features as what the low-latency and pre-emption patches added to linux quite a while before those patches existed. See this (now outdated) study comparing Mac OS X and Linux on latency during audio-processing (before those low-latency and pre-emption patches were integrated in the linux kernel).

      The unresponsiveness was not due to the fact that they use a kernel based on Mach, but simply due to the fact that the GUI wasn't optimised very well. In Panther, they added tons of new special-purpose functions which are much faster than the general-purpose routines. You just have to take care the conditions for calling them are fulfilled.

      Even now, there's still a lot more GUI processing going on in the Mac OS X window manager than in most (all?) XFree Window managers. I think your remark would be more appropriate if it said "The whole system seems a little more responsive, although with the whole GUI being based on pdf and vector graphics I don't think Mac OS X will ever be as responsive as bitmapped systems such as Mac OS 9 and current XFree and Windows versions".

      And even that may prove to be false in the future, as until now the GUI has become more responsive with each version and Apple keeps telling its developers that performance is one of their primary goals. Also, giving the front-most application precedence for screen updates in the window manager/server has little to do with the kernel or pre-emption, but is more of a design choice.

      They are also doing this thing called "prebinding" which I assume is equivalent to "prelinking" in the Linux world --
      It's indeed similar to pre-linking.
      performing dynamic linking a single time and saving the intermediate results so that applications can launch faster. If you look through the installation logs for Panther you see that it includes a new dynamic linker and there are many log messages of the ilk: "Prebinding xxx application."
      Actually, they've been doing that since 10.0.1 (the 10.0.0 linker already had the feature, but they forgot to trigger it in the installer; that's the reason why installing the devtools sped up the system so much, because that installer script did do the prebinding)
      If you look at the process list in top or with ps you see that there are FAR fewer system processes than before. I'm not sure whether this is because they really aren't running, or if the OS is somehow hiding them (which would be very un-UNIX-like).
      They're not hiding anything, but more things are now only started on demand instead of by default at boot time.
      --
      Donate free food here
    9. Re:What I've found by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      OS X has been using prebinding since the invention of the wheel. It was manually initiated in 10.1, automatic in 10.2 (when you installed new apps or system updates) and it seems to be even more automatic in 10.3 - it checks when you open an app to see if it can update the prebindings to make it launch faster next time.

    10. Re:What I've found by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      That latency appeared in OSX.2. I purchased a 14.1" 700Mhz G3 Ibook last year (top of the line at the time) and it shipped with 10.1. The volume key was quick and responsive. WHen I upgraded to OS 10.2 it became laggy. Also, when playing the one game I own, Stonghold, I notice it runs at the same speed as his 466 Ibook running 10.1. I think its something with the powermanagement on the ibooks and that it seems as though it cuts the processor down to half speed at all times.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    11. Re:What I've found by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      When there's an apple version of povray, I'll be happy. They've been promising a new rev for weeks now. Not that PovRay under OS X is worth writing home about. Horrible design (far too os9) and horrible performance (on which the developers blame apple, even though other apps have no problem working with the OS .. riight)

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    12. Re:What I've found by heyitsme · · Score: 1

      I don't personally give a shit about the new bells and whistles such as Expose

      You obviously have yet to use Expose

    13. Re:What I've found by zhenlin · · Score: 1

      To get around some of the latency issues associated with microkernels, they completely reintegrated Mach & BSD to form a monolithic kernel - Darwin (or was it XNU?). (No internal message passing I hope)

    14. Re:What I've found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it seems to be even more automatic in 10.3 - it checks when you open an app to see if it can update the prebindings to make it launch faster next time."

      It's been doing this for a while, it's not new.

    15. Re:What I've found by Durin_Deathless · · Score: 1

      I use Linux and Windows on a regular basis on much newer hardware than the OS X machine. The OS X machine still feels faster.

      --
      You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
  32. Yet another review.... by pafmax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although I agree with the conclusions taken, I thik that the real review is always made by the users. And I, as a user, find that Panther is, by far, the best OS X version of them all to date. And yes, I'm happy that the OS has evolved so well.
    Personally, I still haven't really understood how connecting to servers now works and I don't really like the fact that some apps got quite unstable with the transition, but that's ok, somethings need time... I find this OS to be more usable than jaguar, with expose being, sometimes, a life-savior from the evil million windows from hell that insist in populate my desktop...
    Multi-user switch is also great, and I'm even getting used to the brushed metal look if the finder (that makes it quite odd, compared to any other OSX vers. but that also happened with the transition from OS9 to X, i guess)...
    Yet, the best and greatest thing is that the OS is now FAST, I mean, finally it's FAST AND SNAPPY, even on older hardware (400MHz iMac DV w/384M RAM), when compared to any other OSX version or even OS9 (with VM on, of course) and I can say that this thing alone makes the upgrade totally worth.

    So, I like it, a LOT... oh and as an apple user, I don't really give a dam about having the fastest hardware on earth if I can't be PRODUCTIVE with it (sometime SOME people DO try to produce *WORK* using computers, it's not all games, code, pr0n, or hacking your system! hehehe).
    What I want in a computer is that it works for me and does the thing I want easily and without any crashers or "bad moods". Mac's work for me and Panther is a very enjoyable OS, what more would I want from a computer?

  33. Re:Port it, you mofos! by IvyMike · · Score: 1

    If they ported it, they'd lose their primary revenue stream.

    I think people are proposing they would pick up a new revenue stream (with a higher profit ratio) to make up for it.

  34. Not quite "backward compatible" with EVERYTHING by alispguru · · Score: 1

    Classic/Carbon apps that use full-screen mode and change your screen resolution worked in 10.2.x, but cause Panther's Quartz to wedge royally. If I launch StarCraft (Carbon version) on my B&W G3 or my 500 MHz iBook, I get garbage drawn on my screen, and the mouse gets restricted to a box in the upper-left corner.

    You can get out of it by pushing the boot button. When the dialog pops up asking whether you want to shut down/restart/whatever, your mouse becomes free and you can use it to go to the dock and kill StarCraft. Then go back to the dialog and cancel the restart.

    I have seen the same behavior from Ten Thumbs Typing (2.3 or before). The fix is apparently straightforward, because Ten Thumbs 2.4 works correctly. Time to hector Blizzard about it, I guess...

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:Not quite "backward compatible" with EVERYTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it may be an easy fix for app vendors, clearly this is a problem that Apple should fix in Panther. Have you sent them feedback yet? Panther is awesome, but it does have problems, some of which I've experienced myself. Unless people send feedback, they may or may not find these issues themselves, and you can't expect them to get fixed. It only takes about the amount of time you took to post your message. :)

      Or better yet, head on over to bugreport.apple.com and submit a report there. That goes directly to the developers, whereas I would guess a substantial amount of comments at the general feedback page are filtered out long before they may get to someone who cares. And unfortunately I'll bet the grunts doing that filtering don't know and/or care enough to give special attention to every issue!

  35. Re:Port it, you mofos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft never had it's own stream of propietary hardware before the Xbox. They've always been a software company - built essentially on the back of IBM's PC. Compaq's clean-room IBM PC BIOS reimplementation is really what sparked the whole x86 software market - the OS side of which, Microsoft currently dominates.

    Also bear in mind that MSFT is branching out into several different areas - Productivity, Games, Input Devices, Wireless Network gear, Xbox, etc.

  36. Re:ARGH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me too. I had just read page 6, and page 7 timed out. I checked slashdot, and sure enough, top item on the front page. Yuck.

  37. Re:Port it, you mofos! by CountBrass · · Score: 0

    Oh dear, the obligatory 'port it to x86' post.

    1. Apple is a *hardware* company. OSX helps sell their hardware.

    2. A big factor in the superior stability of Mac OSX over Windows PC is that Apple have a known hardware target to develop OSX for. Microsoft have to develop an OS to cover all kinds of crap. From home built machines that their owners evolve (like every PC I've ever owned) to cheap as chips Dells through to the top of the range Alienware boxes.

    Apple would be insane to port OSX to PCs.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  38. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by dipipanone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "My non-techie friends drool over the transparency and scaling effects, even though UI research has shown that they add practically nothing to getting real work done.

    Let me guess, you haven't actually ever *used* Expose, have you? Or even seen it, I'd warrant.

    It's the first enhancement I've seen to an OS in the last fifteen years or so that actually *will* make significant differences to my productivity.

    But hey, if KDE cuts it for you, you keep right on using it...

  39. OS X Email Clients by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For example, I used Pegasus while my wife was using Outlook. With my Mac, we'll both use the same mail prog, whatever it is. Does this cut down on variety? Does it cut down on experimentation? I think so.

    There are gobs of email clients for OS X for every taste... for home users, corporate users, techincal users, unix users...
    1. Re:OS X Email Clients by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 3, Informative
      Also don't overlook Mozilla Thunderbird.

      I've been quite pleasantly surprised by it.

    2. Re:OS X Email Clients by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. what he meant was that because of fus he didn't need to expirement with different programs just for the sake of each user having their own settings.

      (of course, that doesn't make any sense and if he really used to use different programs just because so that he could have different settings in them, one program per every user of the machine, many programs of one kind.. well.. that wasn't that good reason to be using many different progs for the same job. quite retarded reason actually, and fus doesn't have much to do with it anyways.)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:OS X Email Clients by flimflam · · Score: 1
      Also, there's:



      We may still be missing some. Also, there's plenty of X-Windows based clients that you could install as well.

      --
      -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
    4. Re:OS X Email Clients by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1
      Left out:

      • Mulberry (Cross-platform. Linux, too!)
    5. Re:OS X Email Clients by njpomeroy · · Score: 1
      and my personal favorite:
    6. Re:OS X Email Clients by Superfarstucker · · Score: 0

      admittedly i haven't used any mozilla build since the 1.3 milestone but I think this is simply a case of advocating open source for the sake of it. Mozilla was(is?) bloated and ... well just plain slow. In my experience opera takes the cake in almost every aspect (although there is some issue with the latest build that is quite annoying). Mozilla is a far to ambitious project in my eyes, which, pretty much spelled out the abysmal mess it was(is?).

  40. Re:Expose' by ellem · · Score: 1

    I have it. It's OK.

    CodeTek's Virtual Desktop is waaaay better. I simply _need_ multiple desktops to be productive. I'd like to see them both work with each other (in a sensible way).

    F9 ensmallens things so you can find them
    F10 tells you what has focus
    F11 clears the screen But if you open something new everyting comes rushing back to the desktop! What's the point?)

    ifthensoft has a thing called Hacksopse' (or something) and it enables the "blob" which lets you click something to do F9 & F10, but again, what's the point?

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  41. X11 is broken on Panther by kurt555gs · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Jaguar I could start X11 and the in the terminal do a:
    $exec startkde &

    AND , i would get KDE3.1 ala Fink running.

    I couldnt click on icons that i saw on the screen, but the dock worked.

    Also i liked the ability to log into on of the linux boxen here with ssh -X -l and do a $exec startkde & on the remote box and use this as a full screen X terminal.

    Well ... with Panther ... If u try to start KDE , you see the center KDE box come up .. then all hell breaks loose. Konqueror windows all over, and you cant click on the task bar (kicker)

    My tempory solution to this is simply not to start KDE either locally or when doing a remote ssh.

    I think it is a conflict with Expose, but who knows.

    Yes ... the new panther X11 is installed corectly.

    Oh well it is really a minor bug, and im sure it will be fixed in some update.

    Oh, YES! Panther is worth $129.00

    Cheers

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:X11 is broken on Panther by twoshortplanks · · Score: 1

      Do you have the same problems when running X11 in full screen mode?

      --
      -- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
    2. Re:X11 is broken on Panther by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for lazy people, farmers would still be plowing thier fields with sticks!

      And we wouldn't have spelling and grammar checkers either.

    3. Re:X11 is broken on Panther by Yosho · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, make sure X11 is set to use full-screen mode -- while it's up, press Apple+H to hide any windows, then go to the preferences for it and change it there. Also, if you're installing KDE through fink, you may need to make a few changes to your .xinitrc file; type "fink info bundle-kde" for instructions.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    4. Re:X11 is broken on Panther by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      I can only assume you are referring to how he spelt plow. It's spelt correctly.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    5. Re:X11 is broken on Panther by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      No I was referring to how he spelt "thier" and how he failed to use the subjunctive "weren't". But yeah, I'd spell it plough because that's what we were taught.

    6. Re:X11 is broken on Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "kharma" is spelt karma. Sort of like "Ghandi" is spelt Gandhi. I could never figure out why people repeatedly spell them incorrectly.

  42. NOT ENOUGH, SADLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many slashdotters are suicidal?

    Not enough, sadly.

  43. Re:Port it, you mofos! by aredubya74 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I certainly understand the history of x86 cloning and developments. The reality is that people wanted home computers, they wanted them relatively cheaply, and they wanted to be able to share apps with friends. Windows 3.1, for all its flaws, gave them this. Win95 made it prettier. Win98 made it (slightly) more stable. Win2K made it much more stable. WinXP dumbed it down so that MS could capture even the biggest dopes (although really, I don't think it's been very successful capturing new users, just retaxing old ones).

    Up to XP, Windows (and most of its apps and multimedia) was easy to copy, and ran on cheap hardware. Longhorn sounds like they're eliminating half of what made Windows so popular, its portability. I'd love to see Apple challenge them on the cheap hardware front.

    Points all well taken regarding MS' attempts at ubiquity, but notice that they aren't dominating in any of their other markets.

    --

    RW

  44. Mac OS Has Always Been Evolutionary by Spencerian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The original Mac OS and its last major update, Mac OS 9, have superficial changes, visually. As most Mac aficionados know, Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS.

    Now, move to Mac OS X. As with the first versions of the original Mac OS, Apple spent a couple of years refining the OS, adding fundamentals while also improving speed and basic functions.

    Panther is the first evolution of Mac OS X, where the updates concentrate far less on OS development and more attention on OS speed, features, and easier foundations for developers to make apps.

    Mac OS X 10.3 is a great step in the right direction, especially given that Apple appears to be listening to both UNIX pro as well as graphics pro and home user alike. Enterprise users as well as home users will find a lot to use in Mac OS X. I personally want to use the improved Active Directory components to see how well I can make a Mac OS X a member of a Windows domain. THAT will show how compatible such a configuration can be to some naysayers in my workplace.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:Mac OS Has Always Been Evolutionary by bpbond · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS

      Umm...as long as you only needed to run one application at a time; were comfortable hand-setting memory sizes for your important programs; had the skill to sort through system extensions and control panels to find problems; had no use for a command line; and didn't need multiple users or serious security on your machine.

      Given all those conditions, yes, 9 rocked.

      --
      "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
    2. Re:Mac OS Has Always Been Evolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That market-drone phrase amused me. The only software that isn't evolutionary are the ones no longer being developed. You can even evolve backwards. Touting its "evolutionary" properties is right up there with gee-whizzing over "Apple Innovations" that other operating systems have had for decades.

    3. Re:Mac OS Has Always Been Evolutionary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The original Mac OS and its last major update, Mac OS 9, have superficial changes, visually. As most Mac aficionados know, Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS.

      Um, no. OS 9 was much slower tha 8.6, at the time OS 9 was introduced I was running a 200Mhz 603ev processor. 8.6 was still very responsive, when I tried 9.0, it felt like I was going back several generations in terms of speed. OS 9 may have been fast compared to the Rhapsody DR 1 that I got a hold of, but there is no F'ing way that it is faster than the previous mainstream Mac OSes.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Mac OS Has Always Been Evolutionary by Jack+Auf · · Score: 1

      > As most Mac aficionados know, Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS.

      Heh, that's either -1 Troll or +1 Funny, I can't decide which.

      My first Mac was a Mac+, and I've been using them (along with Suns and x86 Linux later) since then. Lemme tell ya something sparky, MacOS was not "strong", nor fast, nor "stable". Having used Macs all day, everyday as a graphic artist and designer for over 12 years I can unequivocally state that MacOS was not any of those things.

      OSX is light years ahead of what came before. Your Kaleidoscope doesn't work now, and you can no longer fiddle with extensions for hours on end. Get over it and move on already.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
  45. Re:Port it, you mofos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh dear, the obligatory 'Apple is a hardware company' post. Here is the obligatory follow-up:

    Actually, Apple is a *systems* company. OSX is part of an integrated hardware/software system.

  46. "It's like buying a whole new Mac for only $129" by Hackie_Chan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "It's like buying a whole new Mac for only $129"

    Man... When I hear that I just fall on to my knees with laughter. Worse though is that with Panther, it's basically true! :-)

    --

    What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
  47. Re:Port it, you mofos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think people are proposing they would pick up a new revenue stream (with a higher profit ratio) to make up for it.

    Yup. I'm sure I'm not alone in regarding the price of the hardware as the greatest barrier to using the OS.

    The only moderately cogent argument for not porting is that Apple is quite comfortable with a small but stable portion of the market that has the bucks, that is, they aren't looking to compete for dominance on the desktop. They've got something that works well for them and they aren't going to mess with it.

  48. Just one user here by dynamicfigure · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am just one user here, but after upgrading from 10.2.7 several of the apps that I had working fine before Panther do not want to run any more. For example, I used to be able to hook up my Brother 1440 laser to my airport base station and print just fine. Now that is a no go. Simcity 4 used to play just fine, now it doesn't. Since upgrading, the fancy backlite on my Powerbook's keyboard works sometimes and sometimes not. As a recent convert who was sold on the idea of buying a system that is alleged to be top notch and "stable" (let alone priced near the top of the class) these little incompatibilities are starting to add up to a more and more sour tasting Apple. This combined with the fact that my new Powerbook has a loose lid, and two small dime sized washed out spots in the screen do not do much to build my trust in Apple's Hardware or Software QA.

    Now comes the $129/yr upgrade scheme. One reason I decided to go with Apple was to boycott the Gates empire's idea that someday I will pay an annual fee to keep my operating system/applications running, current and supported. All that Apple is doing by implementing this upgrade a year program is repackaging the exact same Microsoft business model in different colors. They are not forcing me to upgrade through a subscription fee but rather through the idea of incompatible systems, software and user conveniences. If any of you are also planning on switching from a wintel system like I just did. I think that is great, but I would also recommend that you not rush blindly into the switch (or even an OS upgrade) thinking that all problems will be solved and you will have a seamless running system. Experience with Apple teaches me that all you really do is replace one flavor of problems and frustrations with another and that though the Apple problems have a sweeter flavor they still result in a pit in your stomach as you try to resolve the technical problems thrown at you.

  49. Well written by locarecords.com · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ..

    It's a really good article and I have to say from my own experience that I would thoroughly recommend the upgrade. Things like fast-user-switching and expose are just completely changing the way we work at loca. Especially for the Art Director who can have his usual billion windows open and still find things I need urgently by flipping them all off screen...

    Stability wise I am impressed to. The only thing broken was the fact that Apple force you to place certain applications in the Application directory (rather than sub-directories below) which seems a bit stupid...

    --
    ---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
  50. Re:Port it, you mofos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In short, Apple, please port OS X. Or OS XI, if that's what you decide to call it. I'll buy it at retail, and I've never directly bought an x86 OS (other than Red Hat, natch) in my life.

    It's already running on generic x86 hardware though it is not available. Even if Apple decides to make it available, it will run only on very generic x86 hardware. Apple do not have the resource to support a lot of hardware and hardware manufacturer will not do drivers for OS X as they do not do them for Linux usually.

    Next time you buy hardware think about it. Especially for laptops, if you don't intend to use Windows and if portability and battery life are important to you, iBooks are price competitive with brand name x86 laptops. Also, Linux runs fine on Mac laptops.

  51. As a real life OS X User by bodland · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think I will move just yet. I would like too but $$ holding me back right now. I have iBook 400 MHZ and have been stuck at 10.1.5 because I can't afford to pop the 129 bucks. My wife has a Ti G4 notebook and daughter has a iMac 350 Mhz. Both still on OS 9. I have been happily using OS X to record music with a MOTU 828 interface, remotly administer Oracle dbs at work (HP and solaris hosts) from home using VNC, ssh and rdesktop after a VPN connection is established....AND I have been publishing a skateboarding zine with digital photos using iPhoto with Photoshop and Quark running in classic mode. Plug into the network at work and print to the copier, scanner, laser printer combo to create copies of my zine. I close the iBook it sleeps. I open it it wakes up. I think I rebooted it a few weeks ago. I have a hard time justifying spending more money when I already have everything I need. (except a external 30 gig firewire drive)

    1. Re:As a real life OS X User by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Honestly, thats all that matters. If 10.1.5 has everything you need and you are happy with it, don't change. The same thing goes for windows as far as I'm concerned.

      I personally like panther. A couple of things seem to be broke though. The connect to server or browse network always detects my windows machine but I can't always access the shares. This never happened on jaguar. Overall I am pleased. (I am another person who loves expose)

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    2. Re:As a real life OS X User by BShive · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't forget, you can install it on ALL of those machines for the price of only copy. Legally!

    3. Re:As a real life OS X User by coolmacdude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not according to the EULA you can't. It clearly states one machine per copy.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    4. Re:As a real life OS X User by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      >Don't forget, you can install it on ALL of those machines for the price of only copy. Legally!

      Actually no. But you can get the $199 "Family Pack" and install on 5 boxes in the same "household"

    5. Re:As a real life OS X User by HSpirit · · Score: 1

      I'm still using 10.1 on the PowerMac G4-800 at work due to my boss' tight purse-strings, and while I would dearly love (and have suggested to him) upgrading to Panther, I'm with you:

      • QuarkXPress 5 works just fine in Classic.
      • Photoshop 7 is a little slow at times, but it gets the job done.
      • We use the Mac to deliver mail with in-built sendmail, receive mail with fetchmail (compiles using in-built gmake), and host a basic intranet with in-built Apache.
      For a small advertising design and booking agency, our two-year old Mac with twice-superceded OS is doing the job just fine!

      (My only major source of grief is the poor Windows file/print networking support in 10.1 - I am looking forward to the day we upgrade for this reason...)

  52. Pennies per hour by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I use my computer about 3,000 hours per year. Even with shipping, that makes Panther cost less than 5 cents per hour. That seems like an amazing deal to me.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Pennies per hour by Knife_Edge · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's nearly eight hours a day, every single day of the year. What do you do for a living?

    2. Re:Pennies per hour by G4from128k · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's nearly eight hours a day, every single day of the year. What do you do for a living?

      I'm a consultant (usually working on how companies can use technology to improve business) who likes his job and likes his Mac. Not all of the 8 hrs/day is spent working. Some of it is spent on /.

      --
      Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    3. Re:Pennies per hour by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Not all of the 8 hrs/day is spent working. Some of it is spent on /.

      And you think that makes you special? :-)

    4. Re:Pennies per hour by sciencewhiz · · Score: 1

      At a salary of $36 per hour, you make 1 cent a second. Do you save 5 or 10 seconds an hour by using Panther?

  53. MS getting better too! by H8X55 · · Score: 1

    MS OS's get better, for the most part. If you're a home user 95 was better than 3.1 Hands down. 98 was better than 95. ME was better than 98 (marginally). XP Home was worlds better than ME.

    in the corporate or advanced user world, nt was fine, for a while, and 2000 was a godsend. XP Pro was nifty, but not much of a 2000 upgrade, decent, worth it, but not a lot of headway. 2003 Server is good. fast, functional, and powerful.

    whether you're an apple fan, linux, unix, bsd, whatever, you don't have to like MS to acknowledge that their product is improving.

    1. Re:MS getting better too! by finkployd · · Score: 1

      95 was better than 3.11 (but much much slower)
      98 was better than 95 (but slightly slower)
      ME was a massive step backwards that MS would love to forget
      XP is worlds better than 98, however it is also many worlds slower.

      Every OS X upgrade so far has very noticeably increased in speed. That is something that Microsoft has never done in its history. To the contrary almost every Microsoft product (OS or not) performs significantly worse than their last version.

      Finkployd

    2. Re:MS getting better too! by H8X55 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i disagree.

      the OS is more complex, but machines have evolved as the OS'es have.

      if you were to try to run Win XP on the same machine you ran 3.1 on, you're right, XP is slower. however, with a few moderate upgrades every once in a while (ram), and new systems every 2.5-3 years, you can keep up with the joneses. my p4 1.8GHz w/ 512MB of ram running XP Pro is quicker than my 866MHz w/ 512 MB of RAM running NT.

      ms is taking advantage of faster hardware and increased hard disc capacity by allowing their OS to grow bigger and more complex. i know this may be a nusince for the beginner, or intermediate user, but i upgrade every so often because i choose so, not for the benefit of the maker of my OS.

    3. Re:MS getting better too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere in the Mac OS X source code, there's a line:

      #define SPEED 0.3

      ...and sprinkled throughout you see lines like:

      sleep(1 / SPEED);

      Every year, Apple increases this number, tosses in a few cosmetic improvements, and sells the result for $129.

    4. Re:MS getting better too! by finkployd · · Score: 4, Informative

      But you are missing my point, OS X is also gaining functionality, and taking advantage of the hardware (Expose is a prime example of this), yet the operating system runs FASTER than previous versions on the same machine. XP is way slower than 2000, which was slower than 98, etc. on the same machine. Obviously it is possible to improve the OS while also making it go faster (Apple can do it) but Microsoft has never done this.

      This also is part of the reason why Apple is not obsessed with MHz. For the vast majority of users (assuming you are not sequencing genes or rendering 3D all the time) it doesn't matter. My 800 MHz iMac has displayed even BETTER performance with each point release of OS X. My 1.2 GHz laptop gets worse with each new verion of windows. While it is entirely subjective, I feel the iMac runs a lot faster (both have 1GB of ram)

      I don't want to have to spend $1000+ on a machine every 2-3 years if I do not have to. I would rather spend more up front and know that it will be usable for a much longer period of time.

      Finkployd

    5. Re:MS getting better too! by H8X55 · · Score: 1

      that, my friend, is wonderful. i've yet not experienced the mac. if that's the case, you're right. i would suggest that aple does this to truly get more out of every ounce of hardware, as it is in it's best interest to do so. it is their hardware, so they want to be sure it is optimized.

      ms, on the other hand, deals with everyone elses hardware, so their code must bloat to include the constantly increasing number of PC hardware venders, and their increasing number of devices.

      good for you, and good for apple.

    6. Re:MS getting better too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. A couple of years ago I may have considered this true. But now everyone uses Intel's chipset/command set for IDE. No proprietary CD-ROM interfaces. Companies which may hardware produce the drivers to sit in the HAL, and eventually MS adds them in.

      A lot of the hardware is condensing down to fewer and fewer protocols. Not many major graphics chips about compared to before. This should mean that the code slims down and gets faster.

      Without an O/S hat on the following is true:

      Apple gets faster
      Linux gets faster
      BSD gets faster
      MS slows down

      And the latter three use EXACTLY THE SAME HARDWARE!

    7. Re:MS getting better too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's speed increase is a completely manufactured phenomenon. It got faster because OS-X was unbearably slow at first, painfully slow next, and has now improved to merely annoyingly slow.

      Linux faster? ROTFLMMFAO! Right. Clearly you are lying here. I've watched KDE and Gnome in multiple distros get slower and more bloated. Nice try, though.

      BSD? Don't know, haven't used it, suspect it's a lie like Linux.

      MS slower? Well, XP is considerably faster than 2K on boot up, and the GUI feels faster. If you compare XP to 98, it may be slower, but then you have to compare OS-X to OS8.x, if you can find a machine that isn't prevented from working on that.

    8. Re:MS getting better too! by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      good for you, and good for apple.

      Not so good. The early versions of OSX were pretty damn slow, so it isn't very hard to improve from a crappy starting position.

    9. Re:MS getting better too! by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      But you are missing my point, OS X is also gaining functionality, and taking advantage of the hardware (Expose is a prime example of this), yet the operating system runs FASTER than previous versions on the same machine. XP is way slower than 2000, which was slower than 98, etc. on the same machine. Obviously it is possible to improve the OS while also making it go faster (Apple can do it) but Microsoft has never done this.

      Uh, that's because MS already has optimized the living daylights out of their OS for x86.

      You do realize that almost every aspect of OSX getting faster with each release is because they sold you an incredibly unoptimized version to start? It's good that they further optimize it (and it will get much faster- just due to compiler improvements alone) but it ain't exactly something to brag about.

      It's sorta like a 500lb guy bragging about getting thinner as the years go by, and laughing at the very thin guy who ads 10lbs per decade as he ages. Gawd.

    10. Re:MS getting better too! by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Granted, but it also runs significantly faster (again, subjective) than windows xp on what is undeniably slower hardware.

      And as a user (and programmer of applications for) Windows since 3.1, I find it hard to believe that optimization has been their goal. They certainly did not "optimized the living daylights out" of it.

      Finkployd

    11. Re:MS getting better too! by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Apple's speed increase is a completely manufactured phenomenon. It got faster because OS-X was unbearably slow at first, painfully slow next, and has now improved to merely annoyingly slow.

      10.2 was certainly not painfully slow, if anything it was much faster than XP on what is undeniably much slower hardware. 10.3 simply flies on my older machines.

      Linux faster? ROTFLMMFAO! Right. Clearly you are lying here. I've watched KDE and Gnome in multiple distros get slower and more bloated. Nice try, though.

      Linux has gotten significantly faster, however you are correct that Gnome and KDE have gotten slower as time goes by. Much worse than windows in fact. I recently switched to xfce4 for just this reason.

      BSD? Don't know, haven't used it, suspect it's a lie like Linux.

      Don't look now, but your uneducated bias is showing :)

      MS slower? Well, XP is considerably faster than 2K on boot up, and the GUI feels faster.

      Faster on boot up? Yes. Gui feels faster? Odd that you would get that impression since it is easily demonstrable that it is in fact slower.

      Finkployd

    12. Re:MS getting better too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Uh, that's because MS already has optimized the living daylights out of their OS for x86.

      Thank you!!! :') I haven't had a laugh like that in a long time!

  54. 129 != $10/Month by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...don't mean to be a maths nazi or anything, but $129 per year equates (==) to $10.75 per month.

    Still, you've made a very good point, I'd never really thought about the OSX upgrades in that way before. What's $10.75 a month? A beer a week. Just put that money to one side and lo and behold next years upgrade is already paid for. Nice :o)

    --
    I am NaN
    1. Re:129 != $10/Month by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1
      What's $10.75 a month? A beer a week

      My college freshman year (1989), I got $15/week from my parents. I'd buy two cases of Shafer for $5 (total), a few packs of cigs at .75 each (often buy 1 get 1 free), eat at Taco Bell 3 times ($2 for 3 tacos and a coke), and had change left over :-)

      Of course this was just prior to the computer revolution (an i386 w/ 1mb ram was maybe $5000), so I typed papers for $3/page, and bought (uh-hum) "extra supplies" with that money :-)

      Kids today ...

    2. Re:129 != $10/Month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with it being 14 months between Jaguar and Panther released, it's more like $9.20 per month... even though it was really about 13.2 months between the two 10.x.0 releases and...

      ahhh hell it's about $10 =)

    3. Re:129 != $10/Month by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      What's $10.75 a month? A beer a week.

      But some of us would rather have the beer than the OS upgrade...

    4. Re:129 != $10/Month by macmastery · · Score: 2, Funny

      Either way you end up with fuzzy text on-screen.

    5. Re:129 != $10/Month by pherris · · Score: 1
      My college freshman year (1989), I got $15/week from my parents. I'd buy two cases of Shafer for $5 (total), a few packs of cigs at .75 each (often buy 1 get 1 free), eat at Taco Bell 3 times ($2 for 3 tacos and a coke)

      Ah, the breakfast of champions.

      Of course this was just prior to the computer revolution (an i386 w/ 1mb ram was maybe $5000), so I typed papers for $3/page, and bought (uh-hum) "extra supplies" with that money :-)

      You sir are my hero.

      +1, Funny

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  55. Is it worth it - a fist timer. by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay.. so last spring, I got my first mac. It was a leap of faith.. for sure. I've always been a low-level systems guy; I like linux, I don't like windows... like most here I guess.

    Now, I'm a mac freak. IT's really that good.

    Is it worth $129? My first reaction was one of feeling ripped off.. I mean, I just bought this not even a year ago.. shouldn't I get a cheap or even free upgrade?

    Well, I bought it. I installed it. Yes, I read about a few quirks, like with firewire, and a warning about filevault.. both of which are not currently things I need.

    Panther is better. It's not a quantum leap, it's not Windows 95 -vs- Windows XP, it's still OS X.. it just has some nice improvements, that I'm sure you've all heard about. More than that, it's smoother, works better.. the eyecandy is just the surface. All the unix stuff I have still works fine too.. I had zero adjustment time in getting to use panther. After the install, I just kept working.. "Oh gee, finder looks different". "Hey, Mail is better!". The odd dialog box from the keychain (which mac apps use to store perseonal information, usually passwords), stating that an application that requested access had changed.. that's it.

    I've come to realize that macs are not cheap. I didn't keep using OS X, or fall for mac stuff because it was the fastest, or the cheapest.. I did it because it's provided me with a work environment like none I've ever used... and if that means paying apple a couple hundred bucks a year for them to keep churning out stuff like this, I'm all for it.

    1. Re:Is it worth it - a fist timer. by thales · · Score: 1

      "Is it worth $129? My first reaction was one of feeling ripped off.. I mean, I just bought this not even a year ago.. shouldn't I get a cheap or even free upgrade?"

      How would you feel if you had bought a Mac 6 days before Panther came out? Yes I got my Mac less than a week before the new release, and I'm not the least bit worried about the upgrade, because I wouldn't be using it right away. I Prefer letting others find any major problems and/or security holes. My purchase was timed to avoid Panther. Spending &129 later is cheap compared to risking a major security problem on my network or compramising my data.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    2. Re:Is it worth it - a fist timer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it worth it - a fist timer.

      So the bottom line is that you have enjoyed being fisted by Apple?

    3. Re:Is it worth it - a fist timer. by zuhl · · Score: 1


      You should be able to get a free (well, US$19.95 shipping) upgrade to Panther if you bought your Mac within a couple of months of the Panther update.

      It's called the Mac OS up-to-date program. One quick search from Apple home page will get you a PDF order from. There was probably a couplon IN the box your Mac came in.

    4. Re:Is it worth it - a fist timer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a Powerbook last week and it came with 10.2.7.

      Went to uptodate page and what I see - US and Canada only. Nice. And Panther is 149 EUR. Even nicer.

  56. How Mac users are won over with "usability" : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make shiny widgets and treat your users like 4 year olds.

  57. Another handy feature I noticed yesterday... by tgd · · Score: 4, Informative

    This one surpised me, and is a *great* improvement if you run X-programs:

    X autolauches now.

    No more opening up X, and starting a program from a terminal window, just start it from its icon like normal and X starts right up.

  58. Yes, I'm a .mac whiner... by DLWormwood · · Score: 2, Informative
    I almost see it as a "montly" subscription to using an OS.

    The only problem with that reasoning is that Apple already has a subscription service that gets about $100/year out of many Mac users. Since much of .mac functionality is part of the Mac OS interface and design now, it seems like Apple is now charging $229 a year for full functionality, almost like that other company in Redmond.

    Personally, I just upgraded to Jaguar to take advantage of the fire-sale pricing, and I let my .mac subscription lapse after the "50% off" first year. Part of my decision to use Macs in the first place was because, for the longest time, the OS upgrades were free. But that ended with System 7.1... (Prior to Microsoft's IP model for DOS, it was traditional to cover OS R&D using hardware revenues, and I thought an integrated "whole widget" approach would continue to use such a model.)

    --
    Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    1. Re:Yes, I'm a .mac whiner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " it seems like Apple is now charging $229 a year for full functionality, almost like that other company in Redmond."

      Since when did MS every charge a yearly fee to users? I'm no MS apologist, but me thinks your completely blind to how Apple treats it users.

  59. Re:Port it, you mofos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up; I mean...honestly.

    So, you want to build a computer?

    Too fucking bad. You're not in Apple's market, go build a PC, cut a window in it, and install some neons. There's nothing else for you to see here.

  60. A Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1: Place bag over head.
    2: Masturbate furiously.
    ??? (Possibly orgasm)
    3: Die like a real troll.

    In Memory Of Wipo Troll

  61. Here's why it is worth it. by juuri · · Score: 4, Informative

    I installed Panther on my alBook and on my Cube. Using Xbench to run a series of benchmarks on the Cube before the install and after, taking the averages Panther system-wide is 21% faster*.

    21% faster for an OS-upgrade. When is the last time that happened?

    * The percentage speed faster was much less on the new alBook.

    --
    --- I do not moderate.
  62. Re:Port it, you mofos! by chigaze · · Score: 1

    Microsoft did not give up the revenue stream of hardware, they never had it. Apple's difficulty here is do they try to maintain the hardware revenue stream if they port to Intel or do they drop it entirely. The latter option may be the only one that they could make money on but would mean a massive change in the business model of the company.

    The reality for Apple is that they are making a profit with their current business model so why change?

  63. Re:Expose - not faster than ALT-TAB by count0 · · Score: 0

    Why?

    Cause a keypress takes considerably less time than mouse movement, particularly if you have to switch from the keyboard to the mouse, then acquire the desired window, then click. Doubtful readers can search Google for GOMS analysis, a keystroke model for determining task times.

    There are advantages to Expose, but speed isn't one of them.

  64. Browsers Crashing by sutekh137 · · Score: 1

    Hey all, just wondering if anyone else is having browser problems in Panther. I had all my home pages set to my.yahoo.com. Mozilla would crash 4 times out of 5 just opening the home page. Safari, 9 times out of 10, and Internet Explorer, every time.

    Whan I set my home page to www.carnageblender.com, all come up OK. Of course, if I go to my.yahoo.com from there, same crashes.

    The browsers appear to be the only thing acting up, so what is the issue here? Java run time? Is there an update for the JRE I need to grab?

    Finally, did anyone try the straight "Upgrade" option when installing Panther? Every place I read said to use the "Archive and Install", and it took me thre evenings to get my system back to the way it was. Would the "Upgrade" option have worked OK, or would I run into upgrade-bloat-hell later on?

    1. Re:Browsers Crashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you screwed up an OS X install so bad it took three days to recover it? No wonder things crash on you. Perhaps an "Idiot" book would be in order?

  65. They couldn't get any slower than the original X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding, after the POS known as OS X was released first they were missing basic functionality and rand slower than anything I've seen in recent history, they was no place to go other than up. If you deny this you really are stuck in your RDF. No wonder they made up a term for you.

  66. Re:Port it, you mofos! by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    No problem. BeOS was ported to Intel and now you have a choice of operating systems on your build it yourself intel box. You don't have to use Windows, you can use Be.

    Oh, they went out of business? What's that? Failed business model? Microsoft threatened to kill any OEM that shipped Be?

    Was that the sound of Bill Gates laughing? Or was it Jean Louis Gasse sobbing (played backwards)?

    Seriously, Be proved that you can't compete with Microsoft with an OS on commodity hardware. Not when Microsoft can kill you before you ever get started just by making a phone call.

    Obviously they can't kill Linux because there is no company to kill. (And that's what scares them.)

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  67. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by bahamat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Let me guess, you haven't actually ever *used* Expose, have you? Or even seen it, I'd warrant.

    Hmm, Expose. Nice innovation. Nevermind the fact that X has had multiple desktops for years, and most window managers have a "clean up windows" command. And again, ignore the fact that Windows has a "tile all windows" command.

    Yea, Expose makes you work faster. The reality is that Expose is finally bringing a feature to the Mac OS that other people have enjoyed for many years. We just never had an ad campaign about it.

    Expose. BFD.

  68. X-Pee by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

    I usually use Macs at work, but my wife bought my son a Dell with XP. It couldn't even modify a photo file. First of all the extensions are hidden so you can't see what type of file it is and you don't have access to the hard drive so you can find applications. We tried to open the photo from the editing software when we did find it, but it didn't see the file, even when it was on the desktop. I'm just glad my office manager likes Macs, otherwise I would get a job raking leaves.

    1. Re:X-Pee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) Your programs are on the Start menu.
      b) You do have access to your hard disk - you just need to read the text that's displayed and click the "Show Files" link
      c) Perhaps you were using the wrong program to edit the actual image (or the program did not support the image type you were attempting to edit).

      Sounds more like user ignorance than any fault of the XP software itself.

  69. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  70. Re:Fat people - disturbing news by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 1

    scales that go up to 1,000 pounds? Maybe now Cowboy Kneel will learn how fat he really is!

  71. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by Jason+Hood · · Score: 0

    Want more than one button? Get a logitec optical.

    Does this replace the pad and button on the laptop? Nope. Since most of the time my laptop is usually on my lap, this typical zealot response still does not help solve the problem, just hides it at additional cost to the consumer.

    I know a mac is a mac and has always had one button mice. The GUI interaction is different than windows and probably doesnt really require a two button mouse. If apple truely wants people to switch(tm) though, it should be as painless as possible, just like they claim the rest of their OS is.

    My question is, if 80% (according to the mac store where I live) of the people that buy macs replace the mouse immediately why wouldnt apple just "give in" and start distributing a two button scroll mouse with all their systems?

    --
    Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
  72. Oh, and by autechre · · Score: 1

    I should also mention that in E (and Windowmaker, IIRC) the desktop doesn't do anything except provide a blank spot to allow you to launch menus. So a "show the desktop" function wouldn't make much sense.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  73. SAMBA? by greenskyx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone been able to mount samba shares at all? Our Mac has had a HORRIBLE time trying to load a Samba share off our E-smith (E-smith.org - Redhat 8.0 based) Linux Machine.

    It's able to view/browser files just fine, but copying them goes about as slow as a 56k modem and sometimes crashes the finder...

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

      The reasoning I've been hearing about this issue is that Panther is using SAMBA 3 and Linux boxes are using 2.somthing And Panther is a little slow about realizing it needs talk down to Linux servers.

      I don't know how accurate any of this is. But, maybe it'll point you in the right direction.

    2. Re:SAMBA? by akiro · · Score: 1

      Works fine for me, both against linux samba boxes, and windows boxes. Sometimes the "browse the network" feature has a bit trouble seing all the machines, but "connect to server" saves the day.

    3. Re:SAMBA? by greenskyx · · Score: 1

      I did upgrade my machine to Samba 3. I'll try tinkering some more and see what happens. Thanks for the tip.

    4. Re:SAMBA? by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      I'm having major problems trying to mount off a FreeBSD 4.9 box running Samba 2.2.8a.

    5. Re:SAMBA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've run into the same problems. Using RHL 9 as the server and Mac OS X 10.2.8 as a client, I had persistent problems with the mac client. It could mount the smb shares in the Finder->Connect->smb://server, but then the mount would time out after about 10 minutes and I couldn't reconnect (-1 error, or something, I forget now.)

      So, I thought I'd upgrade the server to RH 10 oops Fedora Core 1, and the client to Mac OS X 10.3. Since they are both using the same verison of samba, I thought that might help.

      On the RHL/Fedora boxes, you have to punch a hole through the firewall for smb traffic in iptables. Here's a way to do that:

      iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 137:139 -j ACCEPT

      I relize this isn't super cool from a security standpoint, but I use this line in /etc/hosts.allow to enforce a local-net-only connect policy WRT samba:

      smb: 192.168.1

      Where, of course, /etc/hosts.deny is ALL:ALL.

      Anyway. After this, I've had not problems with either linux or mac os clients. This stuff just works, solid as can be. None of the odd timeout/reconnect failures on the mac side.

    6. Re:SAMBA? by sakusha · · Score: 1

      Macwindows.com is tracking SAMBA interconnectivity issues.

    7. Re:SAMBA? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      The reasoning I've been hearing about this issue is that Panther is using SAMBA 3

      ...as its SMB server, but not as its SMB client.

      For one thing, Samba is an SMB server; the client that comes with it is a command-line program similar to ftp, not a VFS.

      For another thing, the Panther SMB client is derived from the FreeBSD one; see man mount_smbfs (Boris Popov wrote the FreeBSD SMB client).

  74. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by ajm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep, you've never used it, or you wouldn't be making the comparisons you are.

  75. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The fact that you were marked as a "troll" shows that there is no more intelligence left at /.!

    I was an Apple employee, in fact, and I quit in disgust not too long ago when I woke up and realized that the company was 100% bullshit!

  76. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    You obviously haven't used Expose.

    BTW, there were gobs of popular "tile all windows" add-ons for classic Mac OS in the past.

    Expose is not simply a couple keys bound to "tile all windows" and "expose desktop".

  77. Panthor from Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As anyone ordered Panthor through Amazon.com?

    It's only $106.99 there.

    Why is it cheaper at Amazon?

    1. Re:Panthor from Amazon by Laplace · · Score: 1

      Amazon loses some money on every sale, but they make up for it in volume.

      I bought the media only (CDs that is), education version for $15 at the University of Oregon.

      --
      The middle mind speaks!
  78. Mac OS 9 by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    If you do more than one thing at a time (or if you browse the web), then Panther is faster than OS 9.

    OS 9 is a great OS for running Photoshop by itself, but once you have more than a few applications running, the thing becomes an unstable mess.

    Browsing the web with OS 9 is painful. PAAAAINNFUL. MSIE 5 for Mac is about as bad as it gets. There is no modern version of Mozilla for OS 9. And, even if you back up to Mozilla 1.3, it's still awful because OS 9's poor thread management makes the browser crawl.

    Panther is smooth sailing on anything with a G3/350 and 256 MB RAM or better.

    Macs have long shelf life blah blah blah, whatever. Save a couple old macs for some of the classic games (Harry the handsome executive!!!) but retire the rest.

  79. Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 5, Informative
    Hmm, Expose. Nice innovation. Nevermind the fact that X has had multiple desktops for years, and most window managers have a "clean up windows" command. And again, ignore the fact that Windows has a "tile all windows" command...Yea, Expose makes you work faster. The reality is that Expose is finally bringing a feature to the Mac OS that other people have enjoyed for many years. We just never had an ad campaign about it...Expose. BFD.

    Anyone who posts this statement has not seen Expose. Or you are willfully ignorant.

    Expose performs a vector transform on all your bitmap windows. It animates and scales them using nearest-neighbour interpolation (I'm sure Bicubic is coming in.. er, Ocelot?) and parks them in an arbitrary, non-overlapping arrangement on the screen. Do you get this?

    Imagine a stack of photos on your desk hovering up 1 inch and flying out in a neat arrangement, then back again. 1 click.

    Tile All Windows is a pale, pale shadow of this functionality.

    One of the other perks I love about Expose is you can leave it turned 'on'... if I want to monitor a bunch of webcams, I don't have to laboriously arrange them, I click my thumb mouse button. All windows update live, including quicktimes and DVDs with virtually no lag. I could never go back.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by bahamat · · Score: 0, Troll

      Expose performs a vector transform on all your bitmap windows. It animates and scales them using nearest-neighbour interpolation (I'm sure Bicubic is coming in.. er, Ocelot?) and parks them in an arbitrary, non-overlapping arrangement on the screen. Do you get this?

      Ok, it's "clean up all windows" with eye candy.

      Again, why do you think this is innovative?

    2. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's "clean up all windows" with eye candy.

      Bzzzt. Wrong again.

      Again, why do you think this is innovative?

      See my post below.

    3. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by NickV · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not just "clean up all windows with eye candy". Jeez, are you afraid to even try it?

      Clean up all windows ruins your original window layout (because it literally rearranges your windows) Clean up all windows makes all your windows so small (if you have alot of them) that you can't see anything because your web browser is now 100x100 and the scroll bar is taking up all it's space. (it doesn't actually minimize the content of the page) Clean up all windows doesn't let you just click on one of these windows, bring it to forefront and then put everything back exactly as it was.

      I've NEVER used clean up all windows because of those pitfalls on ANY os. I use expose' constantly.

      Man, you anti-mac-zealots are just as bad as the pro-mac ones. You revel in your ignorance. I was at the apple store playing with the machines and after 5 minutes, I found how expose is more innovative than anything I've seen on any OS lately.

      How about looking at it before actually commenting?

    4. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by faaaz · · Score: 1

      Again, why do you think this is innovative?

      Ok, who else has done this? Or is doing this?

      Granted, I've never tried it, but I think I'd like the feature very much. Something for the WMs to work on, perhaps?

      --
      we come in peace / shoot to kill
    5. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is: xfree on linux doesn't allow for either true transparency or hardware acceleration for regular window drawing operations (the RENDER extension, even though it was meant to do this, is not accelerated right now). As a result, you'd have to do the entire effect in software, and PC's just aren't fast enough to do that.

      As a result, expose isn't feasible right now on linux/xfree.

    6. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I've heard a lot of people praise this Expose feature, and for all the attempts to explain it (with words), I still don't really get it.

      Is there no video/flash demo available?

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    7. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by Matthew+Austern · · Score: 1

      See Apple's Expose page for a demo. They've got a Quicktime movie showing how it works.

      And yes, I'm biased (I'm an Apple employee), but I find it a really useful feature.

    8. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

      Any OS function that finds uses for the Function keys is instantly innovative.

      I'm guessing you've never used it, or seen it work. It's one of those features that makes you wonder, 'why did no one else do that?'. It will become ingrained in your expectations of a windowing system withing hours. Therein lies it's innovation. I actually don't find it all that useful, I usually have a pretty good idea of what applications are open, and use alt+tab to switch between them efficiently enough. 'Clean up all windows' with eye candy it's not. Anyone foolish enough to use that feature of a windowing system will quickly realize it's shortcomings.

      --


      TallGreen CMS hosting
    9. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      Is there no video/flash demo available?

      Yes - Apple's site has a QuickTime of it (click the 'Try It' icon). But to do it justice you really do need to try it, see how it works with drag-n-drop, etc.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    10. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Apple's website has a couple demos and if you read the arstech article, you'll find he links to some rather impressive demos of it (including one with a DVD and iTunes vizualizations updating in realtime.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    11. Re:Expose is *not* Tile All Windows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People compare Apple "Expose'" to Windows "Tile" or analogous systems on other OS's:

      Many Mac users say Panther is better because it has Expose'.

      But I've never heard anyone bother to say Windows is better because it has Tile.

      Actually, I got tired of Tile on my old Windows system and forgot I even had it. I doubt most Windows system owners use Tile much. The limitations of Tile are discussed by other posters so I don't have to go into them. Several of these limitations are overcome by Expose'

      One might say Expose' is innovative because people like it better and get more use out of it.

  80. Re:Expose - not faster than ALT-TAB by SlamMan · · Score: 1

    Alt-Tab's still there (Apple-Tab), but Expose also's works as keybased (F9, F10, F11 by default, but you can change that), so you can F11, then arrow to the one you want.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
  81. Re:Expose' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the article you moron.

  82. 10.2 - 10.3 was a huge step by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mac OS has always been evolutionary, yes, but 10.3 is a huge step from 10.2. Apple just uses that goofy naming scheme because they want to keep the roman numeral "X".

    10.3 kernel is significantly different from 10.2. They even upped the Darwin kernel number from 6.x to 7.0 for this release. Large parts of the kernel and most of the userland has been synced up with FreeBSD 5.x. Perl has been upgraded to 5.8. Gimp-Print has been rolled in. Sendmail was replaced with Postfix. The whole OS is faster, especially the GUI. The GUI widgets have been tweaked, most of the pinstripes are gone or made more subtle. Quartz has been totally overhauled. PDF rendering (the whole GUI is displayPDF based) is more than 3x faster (try it, open a large PDF in Preview). Features like Expose are now possible. Fast user switching is now possible for other reasons. Lots of changes, both obvious and under the hood.

    There's even a new developer suite included in the box!

    It's not "OS 11" but it is still is a huge leap forward.

  83. Minimize all in NT/XP? by Soulfader · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Windows+M minimize all under XP?

    1. Re:Minimize all in NT/XP? by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      Doesn't Windows+M minimize all under XP?
      Yes. And Shift-Windows-M reverses it. Copernic's WinKey is a terrific little app that extends the Windows key functionality.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  84. Re:Port it, you mofos! by swartze · · Score: 1

    Porting OS X to x86 platforms makes absolutly no sense for Apple. They make hardware. They make tons of money off of that hardware and then make software so that their hardware will continue to make them money. Porting would take away some of the value of Apples main product (ie that it runs OS X). Why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot.

    --
    Bleep
  85. Re:To they're is human, a their there is divine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How bout:

    "They're there for THE taking"

  86. MPG Bug? by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

    I love Panther, its greater in almost every way, except for one. I have mp3s playing constantly and when I also have mpgs playing in either quicktime, mplayer, or VLC I can get a complete freeze. Is anyone else seeing this?

    --
    Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
  87. Reporting Panther bugs... by alispguru · · Score: 1

    Have you sent them feedback yet?

    Not yet - I had seen this problem intermittently since I upgraded to Panther around November 1st, but didn't see it repeatedly from two different applications until this morning. I thought it might be hardware until I saw it on my laptop, too - my B&W G3 has had a hard life.

    Would you believe someone from Blizzard has already contacted me? Solely from reading the previous post?
    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  88. Re:New standards applied to an older system by ianscot · · Score: 1
    You're applying OS X-era standards to an OS of the previous generation. Doesn't seem like much of a rejoinder to "Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS." It was. Ask anyone who used it.

    as long as you only needed to run one application at a time

    The idea that you could "only run one program at a time" wouldn't sound right to any Mac user after OS 7 came out -- in, what, 1990 or something like that? For the vast majority of users "preemptive" multitasking was perfectly fine. (The difference is largely one in stability, from a desktop user's POV.)

    were comfortable hand-setting memory sizes for your important programs

    Someone running PageMaker or a photo editor as a serious designer maybe needed to do that. I used to support a twenty-person office in my spare time, and I was the only person around who even knew about those settings. Didn't come up much. Occasionally you'd re-set games to use more memory, for speed, but that was about it.

    had the skill to sort through system extensions and control panels to find problems

    Again, maybe the troubleshooting sorts needed to know about Conflict Catcher, but typical users didn't. (Frankly from my experience in support I think the whole "extension conflict" angle was much overblown. I can't recall coming across any significant problem that resulted from tussling control panels or whatever. Help lines always guessed extensions when something was mysterious. They'd have you rebuild your desktop, too. Didn't usually accomplish much.)

    had no use for a command line

    Ask a typical corporate W2k user how often she uses the command line.

    and didn't need multiple users or serious security on your machine

    I'll give you that one. Really all the W2k boxes here in corporateland don't do that either, though... Gosh, all those mysterious user-specific settings in my Windows folder don't seem all that secure...

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  89. Multiple Desktops by sellout · · Score: 1

    I agree with you on the focus-follows-mouse, and when I got the Mac, I switched my Linux boxes to click-to-focus, just to be a little consistent.

    However, if you want to try multi-desktops on a Mac, take a look at CodeTek's VirtualDesktop. I love it, but I find that with Expose, I use it much less than I used to. Expose makes my 1024x768 desktop seem much bigger.

    --
    "Whatever can go wrong, will." --Finagle's Law
  90. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by dipipanone · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nevermind the fact that X has had multiple desktops for years

    And just to add to what everyone else is saying, Expose has nothing to do with multiple desktops. Multiple desktops are a pain in the arse. Got them on my linux box, got them on W2k (via my Nvidia card). Never use them on either, because they're shit. They simply spread the problem over multiple desktops.

    I want immediate access to all my windows so I can find the window I'm looking for, when I've got eight or ten open on-screen. single keyboard click. Expose gives me that with a single key press. Multiple desktops and tile all windows doesn't come close.

    But hey, thanks for playing. Better luck next time...

  91. Re:Expose - not faster than ALT-TAB by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 1

    You really have to have Expose set to a mouse button to get the full benefit. It is much faster for me to hit mouse4, move an inch and click than go to the keyboard and do a cmd-tab.

    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  92. And this is better than a 'TaskBar' how? by FatSean · · Score: 1

    I dunno, but my w2k taskbar shows all my windows, and I can access any one of them with a single mouse click.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:And this is better than a 'TaskBar' how? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Correction, it doesn't "show" your windows, it "lists" your windows. You have a name and an icon.

      Expose will show your windows, in miniature. It will take your windows, shrink them, and spread them all out for you like a deck of cards. It will even keep them near to where they were.

      Then you pick the window you want, and it'll collect them all up just the way you had it--except the window you picked is right in front of you.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    2. Re:And this is better than a 'TaskBar' how? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Read the Ars article for a better explination, but just to give you the short and sweet version:

      open up 12 or 13 IE windows, each with different pages. Now find which window has each page. With only one click.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  93. Mod parent up!! by greenstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I couldn't agree more about the functionality of expose. Most people that criticize it have never even seen it. I'd like to add that it completely changes the way you can drag and drop files. You can drag a file, activate expose, and drag it into the window you want.

    1. Re:Mod parent up!! by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I'll go further. No one who has seen it has criticized it. It's perfect.

      Siracusa mentioned that he'd like a little shelf thing, but that would be icing, and isn't really necessary since you can continue dragging while Expose is on.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  94. Re:Port it, you mofos! by kitzilla · · Score: 1

    > They want you dropping $2,000 on a new Apple computer. What they'd *really* like is your $3k + for a dual G5.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  95. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by PhoenixK7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Expose provides different functionality to the features you've mentioned above. Tiling and "clean up windows" functions generally permanently resize and move windows. with Expose nothing moves except what is brought to the foreground. To perform the same functionality with tiling as with Expose you'd have to tile and then resize and reposition your window of choice.

    So in actuality this is not a feature that people have enjoyed for years. You can use both in a similar way, but this is more efficient for bringing things to the foreground.

    Hit F9, click on desired window, desired window comes to the front. Easier to get what you want than Alt-Tab (what if I don't want to tab through a long list of apps). Faster than selecting a menu option to tile, finding the window you want to work in, resizing that window, moving that window into position.

    (And yes, i used the word "Expose" a lot in there. It's easy to add accents on a mac.. option-e e)

  96. Re:Excellent news, friends! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, the EU is considering proposals to break countries up into more pieces in an attempt to bring the total number of EU countries up to the same number of states in the US plus one.

    Also, there've been reports that the reason the UN doesn't want to get involved in Iraq is that it leaves the entire rest of Europe totally defenseless. The whole continent is practically unarmed with the exception of blue helmeted UN soldiers, whose oath is to the UN and not to the countries they came from.

  97. But how's it stack up against OS 9.2.2? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

    I'm currently running a "five flavors" iMac (333 MHz processor) which is now several years old. Has anyone tried OS X vs. OS 9 on a machine of this age?

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    1. Re:But how's it stack up against OS 9.2.2? by afantee · · Score: 1

      On my 400 MHz iMac, OS X has been perfectly usable since 10.1, and Panther is definitely faster than jaguar in every way, even Expose feels fluid.

    2. Re:But how's it stack up against OS 9.2.2? by idsofmarch · · Score: 1

      It's definitely less responsive, however it contains all the extras that OSX offers, so I've really enjoyed using it on a 333mhz PB. The most important thing is memory, 356+ to really make it work.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
  98. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure haven't, and I'm sure as hell not going to make the $1500 investment required to test drive it, either.

  99. Re:Port it, you mofos! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Unless they port it to only run on Apple-branded x86 hardware.

    Apple is quite capable of building x86-based hardware, and to make the software proprietary enough that it requires the uniquely proprietary features of Apple's x86 platform so that Mac OS will only run on the machines they make.

    But it would risk opening up Apple's platform to OS competition with Microsoft.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  100. Re:Port it, you mofos! by aredubya74 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, Be proved that you can't compete with Microsoft with an OS on commodity hardware. Not when Microsoft can kill you before you ever get started just by making a phone call.

    To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with this statement that MS is the 800 lb. gorilla through which all x86 OS competition must pass. However, to be fair, Be was working with from the absolute bottom. They had nothing but a slick OS, and few application developers beyond their own people. That, coupled with MS's illegal OEM tactics, is what killed Be.

    On the other hand, Apple has a lengthy history of producing quality hardware and software. They've held a varying-sized niche in personal computing, and I'd love to see them take it to the next level. With a BSD core, we know x86 portability is considerably easier now that it's ever been. I bought an IPod, and I'm buying iTunes through Windows. I'd rather be giving all my money to Apple, but I can't see myself spending the premium for their hardware.

    --

    RW

  101. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
    Let me say something here. And this is going to piss a lot of people off, it's not flamebait, it the truth: Mulitple desktops are a bad hack to a problem.

    Having multiple desktop allows you to group windows together, it's basicly a way to arrange/group windows. You don't nessesarity need acctual multiple desktops to work around this problem.
    Expose shows us that there are solutions to a lot of the problems we have with current GUIs, it just takes a bit of work. Maybe the Linux community will come up with a proper alternative to mulitple desktops in the future.

    And saying that Windows "tile all windows" feature is the same as Expose is a joke. "Tile all windows" can't even put you windows back the way they were when you're done. The two simply don't compare, and the only person who would even compare them would be someone who knows nothing about UI and usability.

  102. Re:Port it, you mofos! by digital_franciscan · · Score: 1

    The notion that office workers are all happily exchanging their Microsoft files with no hassles isn't playing out in my world. The lack of compatability between various versions of office (including Publisher, and all the other miscellaneous crap) is a real PITA and a major productivity drain when you have to constantly ask people to save something they just sent you in an earlier format. Bleh. In fairness, though, what happens as OpenOffice.org makes improvements to Writer, say, that necessitate changes to the .swx format? Or is there something about XML that obviates the problems we see with mixed versions of Word?

  103. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    Such a shame that Slashdot doesn't preserve the accent mark...

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  104. Re:No VNC on Mac OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that a troll? Where are the current VNC applications on Mac OS X? Answer me that whoever modded this as troll.

  105. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad there's no moderation point called "liar".

  106. Re:Port it, you mofos! by dipipanone · · Score: 1

    They've got something that works well for them and they aren't going to mess with it.

    They've also learned the lessons of the past. When they allowed a selected few manufacturers to sell cheaper clones that ran MacOS, the experience damn near killed the company. The first thing Jobs did when he went back to Apple was kill the clones.

    Don't expect to see OSX on x86 any time soon.

  107. Re:Expose - not faster than ALT-TAB by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    There are advantages to Expose, but speed isn't one of them

    Aside from the already mentioned - setting the functions to extra mouse buttons, and the keyboard arrow selection - the speed benefit really comes in when you have a *lot* of open windows.

    I usually have some finder windows open (not many, like 3 or 4), Mail, iTunes, some messenger app, maybe a P2P app, a Terminal window, and usually anywhere between 4 and 15 browser windows open (using Safari's "open in background" function is great. I scan through Slashdot and tell it to open all of the articles and thread lists I'm interested in. Then, while I'm reading the summaries, the first article has loaded - and by the time I'm finished with that one, most everything else has loaded. I'm only on broadband.)

    Trying to command-tab through 5 or 6 apps, then command-tilde cycling through 5-10 windows is quite slow, compared to just being able to click (or keyboard) one button and then clicking again to choose my window.
    It's even worse on my Windows machine at work - I hit alt-tab, and a box appears with 10 identical Internet Explorer icons (plus mail, explorer, excel, etc.) Trying to find which one of the 10 that I want, particularly when they don't always appear in a rational order, takes a lot longer than it should.

    -T -T

  108. Translatroll Translator-o-matic by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

    "...let's see what they really mean..."
    Yes, I am the only one person in this planet who is able to translate everything into the so-called plain language. I can see thru any ideological bias. I am absolutely objective and rational. In fact, the United Nations Security Council just called in to offer me a job settling the conflicts in Belfast, Middle-East and Africa, but I said in plain language "hell no, I have better things to do. Like posting on Slashdot".

    "...[the other side] Zealots..."
    Translated into plain language, anyone who has any opinion different than mine is a Zealot. Me? I am not Zealot, my opinions are fully rational. I can defend them in discussion. I am not ashamed to do it. That's why I post anonymously.

    "...blah blah..."
    I can translate what the other side says, but I don't listen to it and I am unable to reproduce it accurately. After all, it is just "blah blah blah". They are Zealots, remember? Of course I can translate that even without remembering what that was. Don't you trust me? I'm the bloody Translatroll here.

  109. In defense of OS 9... (wasn't so bad) by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    I love OS X and I'm never, ever going back to OS 9. That said, I do have to say that OS 9 was not all that painful, especially for average users. 99% of Mac users never had to (nor ever needed to) tweak their memory allocation. Multitasking was fine, so long as you didn't mind the foreground application sucking up most of the CPU cycles. Again, fine for the average user. But... if you're like me or the typical slashdot geek, you'll want several applications grinding away hard on the CPU at the same time... and that, on OS 9, became painful.

    The average user very rarely ran into extension and control panel conflicts. But, I'll tell you what, the 30 control panels and 120 extensions that made up OS 9 was complete childs play to maintain and tweak. Most had long, descriptive names and good icons. Extension Manager would even group extensions so you knew what required what to work. Put the control panel or extension file into the proper folder and it was installed. Remove it and it was uninstalled. Obscure conflicts were very quick and easy to find and fix in OS 9. Doing the same in OS X or Windows requires sorting through thousands of files! (Or, at the very least, some futile attempts at running uninstallers). At least OS X is well documented in the BSD sense... and most of the OS code is open source for the complete guru. (Remeber when 10.3 Panther came out and people were talking about the file system tweaks... such as the auto defrag? Several folks dug into the source to see just how it worked and reported the details to their websites/blogs. Try that with Windows!)

  110. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by biostatman · · Score: 1

    Multiple desktops are a pain in the arse. Got them on my linux box, got them on W2k (via my Nvidia card). Never use them on either, because they're shit. They simply spread the problem over multiple desktops.

    Really? If you have a bunch of windows / apps open, expose doesn't seem to scale well. I have used both, and I much prefer multiple desktops vs. expose. The difference is that you can organize things much better with multiple desktops. I have desktop 1 for web browser, desktop 2 for email, desktop 3 for work related xterms, desktop 4 for spreadsheets / wordprocessors, etc...

    Benefit 1: I can drill down much faster to what I am looking for.
    Benefit 2: Much easier keyboard navigation to get the window I want
    Benefit 3: Apps like photoshop / gimp that really require their own desktop can have their own desktop without closing everything else down

    The expose thing is certainly cool and handy when the # of windows is relatively small, but squinting at 10-15 (or more) thumbnailed windows does not seem to be ideal.

    --
    For the love of $DEITY, loose != not win!!!!!
  111. Cheaper then Windows XP by Dog135 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Looking on PCMall:

    Windows XP Home Ed: $198
    Upgrade: $98
    Additional Licence: $189 (save $10!)

    XP Pro: $299
    XP Pro upgrade: $199

    Mac OSX v.10.3 Panther: $108

    So OSX 10.3 is only $10 more then a WinXP upgrade. Sounds like a good deal to me.

    --
    "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
    1. Re:Cheaper then Windows XP by westyvw · · Score: 1

      Huh? I just bought XP Pro for one of my clients (I would never use it myself) and paid $139. So whats the deal?

  112. Re:Port it, you mofos! by zhenlin · · Score: 1

    Actually, Windows 2000 eliminated portability. (x86 and alpha only)

    Windows NT 4 was supported on 4 or 5 different platforms, I think: MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, x86.

    Cheap hardware is always a factor - people don't like spending money on things they don't understand or like, it seems.

  113. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by dipipanone · · Score: 1

    The expose thing is certainly cool and handy when the # of windows is relatively small, but squinting at 10-15 (or more) thumbnailed windows does not seem to be ideal.

    I agree that in these circumstances, multiple desktops may be preferable. However, I've avoided using them in the past because I hated having to scroll across three or four desktops to find the document that I was working on.

    As a result, I rarely have more than eight or nine windows open at a time, and Expose copes with these fairly effortlessly.

  114. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was an Apple employee, in fact, and I quit in disgust not too long ago when I woke up and realized that the company was 100% bullshit!

    That surprises me. I'd heard they treat the janitorial staff extremely well...

    So how's the job at Mickey D's going?

  115. Two cases of Shafer?!?! by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    The thought of taking two sips of that stuff gives me the shakes. It tastes like Natural Light that's been poured through a stewbum's socks to give it extra "character". Sheesh man! How did you manage to choke that shit down? I'd have to shellack my tongue and drink a whole bottle of Pepto first.

    I'll grant your main point. Keeping Mac OS X up to date could suck for a poor student. "Cheap" MS software is subsidized through many students fees. Hmmmmmm.

    1. Re:Two cases of Shafer?!?! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Well, poor students only have to pay $69 for it, which would work out to $5.75 per month. Even better yet!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  116. Whoa there cowboy..... by bigBlackSabbath · · Score: 1

    Apple's been offering a new OS once a year for $129 for awhile now (since OS 8 I believe), so this is not something new or sneaky. It's a fair price for a great product which you do not need.

    However, if you don't want to pay somebody to keep your OS up to date, then you have to do the work yourself. Apt-get or port collections are certainly options, but I'm assuming you're either not familiar with linux or bsd, or you don't want to get muddy trying to learn more about them. They involve work(however theoretically, everything could be run via cron...). Resolving dependencies (for me) is rarely as simple and straightforward as promised. Apple makes updating very simple - especially for a unix derivative OS.

    Beyond simply updating packages, KDE and GNOME don't evolve at the same pace as OS X in terms of Aqua as well as it's libraries Cocoa & Carbon. Apple pumps a lot of man hours into working with the user interface (as well as programming interfaces) and trying to constantly evolve it (expose being one visible example). They fund those man hours through your $129.

    Is that important to you? No, then fire-up black-box or KDE or GNOME - you can do it using fink right on top of your 10.2.7 (or 10.2.8 rather) if you want, right alongside your Photoshop or your Excel or your Word.

    Heck - if you really want to purge yourself, just boot straight to a commandline by logging in as >console and run X11 from the commandline.

    But if you want to run a new application which has different requirements then what you currently have (e.g. newer hardware, newer/different OS, more memory, other software, etc.) you will make the choice whether or not this application is truly worth the additional investment of time and energy.

    And all that has nothing to do with your hardware problems. If you've got hardware issues, you're covered for 90 days - call Apple and have it taken care of. If it's past 90 days, then the question is why did you wait? Or do you think wear and tear could have contributed? Laptops are so easy to break....

    The printer issue sounds weird. Try printing straight over ethernet. If that works, do a software update to make sure you have the latest airport version, then run the airport admin utility in the utilities folder in applications, configure your base station, and see if it prompts you to update itself.

    Just email Aspyr about SimCity 4 - they're a great company - they won't let you hang.

    Good luck....

  117. German Newssite MacGuardians put it best: by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "John Siracusa, professional nagger and user-interface-purist, attends to Panther and disects it in the usual Arstechnica manner. On 14 long, eye-cancer causing white-on-black pages (why does he never get aroused over that?) [...]" (my translation). ;-)

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  118. The real question... by rthille · · Score: 0


    Is it worth the phone call to my friend who works at Apple...
    Maybe I can get him to get me a copy of Final Cut Pro and a cheap Powerbook 15" at the same time.

    Hell yeah, where's that cell phone of mine...

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  119. Isn't it funny... by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    Isn't it funny that Ars(e) is always being so anal about good GUI design, and their own website is white text on black background?
    That pretty much destroys all credibility about their competence in good interface-design..

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  120. Longhorn sounds like they're eliminating half of what made Windows so popular, its portability.

    You have heard of .NET, right?

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  121. Re:Port it, you mofos! by rthille · · Score: 1

    Buy a Mac you Mofo! Trash all that over-evolved, but still has an ISA bus and a super crappy BIOS burried deep in the excrement and BUY A MAC!

    See, no need for Apple to port OS-X :-)

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  122. A few further panther problems by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 1
    • Creating a folder in icon view lets you type in its name directly after the creation (good), while creating a folder in list view never lets you type in its name directly, you need to press enter first (I'm not kidding!). This is better than in 10.2, but still ridiculously bad.
    • In list view, a selected item shows up as a horizontal bar, but to move this item, you still need to start dragging where there is some text - not the whole bar will allow dragging
    • file dialog boxes: They have the same left pane the finder has, but one cannot add a folder to the left pane by drag&drop here. Inconsisten!
    • Finder: Maximize button now often toggles a window between 3 (three!) sizes (I haven't found out what is needed to start this behaviour), and often times, none of them fit the files "just right": They are all either too big or too small (I'm not joking!)
    • Finder: Spacing between files in icon view has increased even more compared to Jaguar. If you want your icons nices sorted, you need to manually "tidy up" every folder because the newly created files won't fit into the old grid
    1. Re:A few further panther problems by gaderson · · Score: 1
      Finder: Maximize button now often toggles a window between 3 (three!) sizes (I haven't found out what is needed to start this behaviour), and often times, none of them fit the files "just right": They are all either too big or too small (I'm not joking!)
      I also noticed this "back to annoying Windowz" 'feature' that just showed up, what's happening!!!
      --

      Some days I feel like Schrodinger's cat.

  123. Expose not quite there by xjerky · · Score: 1

    I like to minimize my windows to avoid clutter, but it appears Expose does not act on minimized windows, which really kills the effectiveness for me. Does anyone know of a hack that will turn this on for me?

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    1. Re:Expose not quite there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The point of Expose is so that you don't have to minimize windows. It's easy to find what you're looking for without minimizing anything.

  124. Panther does break some things by Arcturax · · Score: 1

    I've had a few apps break in Panther, but nothing to cry over and anything major has been patched now.

    However there is a known issue I'd like to point out to anyone who uses gaming sticks. CH Products equipment will not work with Panther at the moment. This mainly affects those of us who use the Flight Sim yoke and pedals but I wouldn't be surprised if other CH Products equipment or even other joysticks/wheels/gamepads are broken either. So do take note of that before you install Panther if you have any gaming sticks you might want to make sure they work ok in Panther first.

    As it is, Apple is aware of the issue and has promised to fix it in their next OS release.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  125. modded down? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    Don't mod me down, reply. I wasn't bad mouthing the author. Perhaps you need to read more of his mac articals?. He quite oftern critizises the finder in OS X because it isn't like the one in OS 9, which was much better IMHO (and his), for the detailed reasons he gives.

  126. Vomit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think I'll vomit.

    You'd think that /. could calm down a bit when it comes to reviews of Apple products, but no.

    And if the review is negative, then it's biased and FUD; if it's positive, like this 'read the back of the box' Ars review, then it's bloody brilliant work.

    Bollocks, I say. And all you ass-lickers out there are only making it worse: for by incessantly sucking up as you do, Apple are not getting the feedback nor feeling the pressure to do better.

    Panther is a MESS. There is no way this excuse for an OS should ever have made it out the door, especially when Jobs personally oversees everything.

    Take the UI as an example: this weak attempt to make the old pinstripe look obsolescent is a total failure. Not only is the new look not functional, it's downright ugly. Yet someone higher up in the organisation had to approve of it. And if Jobs is going to send Ive back to the drawing boards with the first design of the iMac, you know for sure he's not going to let an OS out the door that looks like this.

    Virtual memory: all you morons here say Panther is so fast, and the 'read the back of the box' reviewers say the same thing, but no one has done any true benchmarks. Instead, Panther has proven to be a memory GLUTTON, easing you up to a gigabyte of swap in no time flat. Jaguar, that slow as molasses OS, by way of comparison used rarely more than one 80,000,000 byte swap file.

    File Vault: the concept itself is flawed. You can't mount an entire drive representing every file the user has from a single encrypted blob at login. It's too touchy. Any computer scientist worth 1/10 his salt would react and back off from such a loony idea at the onset.

    And what happens to all the media files? Users trying to make File Vault work put links to /Users/shared in their media directories instead. Which is 'great': at least in the old days, an intruder would have to crack their login to see their media files; today they can just go to /Users/shared and it's all there for free. Some security.

    And then there's security. Overwriting a file several times with itty-bitty bits does not constitute secure delete, and overwriting like this leaves the user wide open to a full forensic attack. Better to have no shredding at all than do it this way.

    FireWire: this is unbelievable. So many people have already commented that it's a scandal that Apple could let this monstrosity out the door. And the reason they have this opinion is that it's a valid question. All of this should have been tested thoroughly before the release. It's not like Apple are drowning in hardware compatibility issues like Microsoft; they have a very finite set of hardware components to test. This time around, with the $129 Panther, they couldn't even do that.

    Panther bites. And the best, most thorough, most honest review up to now came from CNET. But of course, as this review is negative (and how often do any of these zines dare print anything negative) then it's biased and FUD. Which is bullshit. It's spot on - but you ass-lickers have more invested in waving your Cupertino banners than seeing the truth.

    You're customers of Apple like everyone else. Apple are not a football team. You don't root for them - you buy their products. And if their products don't meet quality tests, then they're bad and should be recalled. Stop worrying about Microsoft, and see Apple just as another vendor. If you do, odds are QA at Apple will improve.

    OK, now mod this way down as a troll. Self-censorship is the meanest of human activities. Go for it!

    1. Re:Vomit by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      Apple already released 10.3.1 last night, fixing the problem.

      You might get taken more seriously if you didn't call people names too.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  127. Re:No VNC on Mac OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.macdevcenter.com/lpt/a/4203
    http://www .apple.com/remotedesktop/

  128. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    If you're using a track pad, your second, third, forth and fifth buttons are right there. Though we call them modifiers, and they're the ones labled "shift" "ctrl" "option" and the one with the funky flower and apple symbol, we call it the command key. Since the likely hood of you typing and using the mouse at the at the exact same time is almost 0, and given that the keys are within distance of the trackpad and button, it seems fairly reasonable to assume you would be able to operate it as well as you do any two button mouse.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  129. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    Damn, where the hell do you live that it costs $1500 to drive to the nearest CompUSA or other Apple carrying store?

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  130. Huh? by rixstep · · Score: 1

    I came away from this extensive article with the feeling that I had not got the review I had been promised. With all that advertised hardware running and testing Panther, why mention it at all, if it doesn't come up for discussion again?

    And this obsession with the Finder - if you don't like it, don't use it!

    I think there are a lot of other things that could have been done here. If I want to know about all the new features in Panther, I can read an ad page at Apple. But a review is supposed to test these features, not simply mention them.

  131. Yeah.. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    I think his point was more that he purposely didn't want panther, so he bought his mac early.

    The dude shoudl go get his free upgrade now though... he won't be able to later.

  132. Re:There's a fourth group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to mention people like me, 4) Mac users who switched to OS X grudingly because Apple gave us no choice, and absolutely HATE how Apple has forgotten everything it learned about user interfaces just to gain some stability and eye-candy.

    Actually, they probably didn't forget. They just had a huge brain-drain when their best programmers bailed after Copland was canceled.

  133. Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To this day, Taco Bell only serves Pepsi products.

    In 1989, Taco Bell was a wholely owned subsidiary of PepsiCo. (Some years ago, Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut were spun off under the "Global Tricon" corperation; of which, PepsiCo still owns a healthy portion.)

    Conclusion: You're full of shit.

    Fuck off and die, liar.

    1. Re:Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harsh, man.

      Maybe he lives in one of those backward podunkville towns where they call any old soda "a coke." I notice he didn't capitalize it.

    2. Re:Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct sir. As opposed to one of those faggot towns where they call it a pop or a soda :-)

  134. Re:New standards applied to an older system by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    >For the vast majority of users "preemptive" multitasking was perfectly fine ....

    Yes it is, but MacOS 9 didn't have preemptive multitasking. It had cooperative multitasking, which is why one program could crash the whole OS.

  135. Re:Mac Zealot Translator a go-go! by Jason+Hood · · Score: 0

    Thank you (or anyone) for finally confirming what we already know, powerbooks do not have two mouse buttons.

    I rest my case.

    --
    Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
  136. Re: Off-topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just bizarre! How DARE they mod you off-topic! I, for one, understood absolutely everything said about the Ars Technica review of Panther. Your insight was nearly overwhelming. In fact, I enjoyed your opinions and thoughtful recourse (obviously from first-hand experience) so much that I'm going to acquire Panther today! Thanks again for a wonderfully intuitive essay on the Ars Technica review of Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther).

    Hugs and kisses,
    H8ingMindlessIdiotsWhoCouldn'tLocateAClue IfItBitTh emOnTheAss

  137. Re:No VNC on Mac OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the response, but "Remote Desktop" is NOT the same as VNC -- it has limited functionality compared to VNC. VNC allows one to do _everything_ one could if one were actually sitting at the console whereas "Apple Remote Desktop" allows only software installation, some admin tasks etc. Also VNC is _free_ but ARD is $300!!

    Your first link is more to the point in that it points to VNC solutions -- however those are the UNMAINTAINED since 2001 solutions that I mentioned in my original post.

  138. Re:No VNC on Mac OS X by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

    Do a search for VNC on www.versiontracker.com. Happy now?

  139. Re:No VNC on Mac OS X by Dragonmaster+Lou · · Score: 1

    Might I suggest OSX VNC? The last release was September 17, 2003, so it would seem that it is currently being actively maintained. Of course, that's only the server. If you need a client, well, there's Chicken of the VNC. Last version was released January 16, 2003.

    Looks like you lose here.

  140. I guess that is better... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    ...but I rarely have multiple instances of the same program open, so I wouldn't need it.

    --
    Blar.
  141. DRAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My order WAS cancelled...

  142. Ambrosia's Example by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    <a href="http://www.ambrosiasw.com/news/upcoming/ima<nobr>g<wbr></wbr></nobr> es/spx2_panther_expose.mov">Ambrosia's Posted Demo</a>.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  143. Re:Port it, you mofos! by rixstep · · Score: 1

    ... so basically you're saying there's no money in selling operating systems and software, and Bill Gates will never be a billionaire if he doesn't do the same as Steve Jobs?

    That makes a lot of sense...

  144. Cooperative multitasking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to do serious multitasking in MacOS 7 all the time. It was great. I would have a big compile going in the background, and a big download coming in through FTP, and a telnet session in the foreground (running trn on the ISP's Unix box, so I could read Usenet while waiting for the compile to finish. Of course I also could have used a graphical Mac newsreader; I just happened to like trn).

    The telnet window had no noticeable latency, and the FTP download kept the modem's throughput maxed. The compiler went very nearly full speed, using all the cycles while the FTP was waiting for serial interrupts and the telnet was waiting for keyboard input. Very smooth.

    You say one program could crash the OS? Yes, that's true, but it wasn't a problem; all you had to do was use good software that didn't crash. Sure, once in a while you would download something and it would crash. So you would just delete that program and use something else! There were always plenty of alternatives, good programs that would NEVER crash.

    Then one day, all this joy went away and was replaced by pain. What happened? The rise of Netscape. Navigator was an extremely low quality program, with hundreds of bugs and frequent crashes. But you couldn't just delete it, because so many web sites required it and could not be navigated without it! After many years of only using good software, I was forced to start using one piece of VERY BAD software on a regular basis.

    That was the day I began to wish for protected memory and preemptive multitasking. Before that day, those two features were really completely unnecessary on single-user computers. Until Netscape brought us the deadly combination of crash-prone software and "HTML lock-in."