An Answer To "What is Mac OS X?"

XCube writes: "'What is Mac OS X?' is a fascinating article over at KernelThread.com. According to Amit Singh it's a hacker-over-friendly answer to that question and a low-level taste of Apple's OS. The extensive article covers many details on Mac OS X: history, Mac firmware & boot loader, system architecture, kernel, startup, file systems, app environments, programming facilities, available software, and more. A great read if you are interested in Mac OS X, though some stuff is too technical methinks. On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in Mac OS X! The author says he wrote it to introduce Mac OS X to the Linux User's Group at his work."

Comments

Re:OS X 10?

[goober]

I'm sorry but - there's no reason to run OS X - FreeBSD 4.x already offers everything it has for free, and FreeBSD -current far surpasses it.

One word: Photoshop.
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.

Hey, Wait a second

[jetkust]

On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in OS X!

But if I wasn't interested, then why would I be reading it?

Re:Hey, Wait a second

[KillerHamster]

And even if you were interested, you probably still wouldn't read the article. This is Slashdot, after all.

Re:Hey, Wait a second

[BorgCopyeditor]

You know what else pisses people off?

Sticking pins in them! Some people say it's wrong, but that's what makes it fun!!!

Carbon's roots are older

[saddino]

Carbon. This is a set of procedural C-based APIs for Mac OS X that are based on the old Mac OS 9 API (actually dating back as far back as Mac OS 8.1)

To nitpick: actually, a lot of the Carbon APIs go as far back as System 1.0 -- most of QuickDraw for example.

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[frankie]

The article is conflating two different things - either an accidental mis-edit or an intentional oversimplification.

Carbon is based on the classic Mac APIs which go way back to 1984, while the Carbon API actually exists (and is available for calls) in MacOS 8.1 and higher via the CarbonLib classic extension.

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[gwernol]

Carbon is based on the classic Mac APIs which go way back to 1984, while the Carbon API actually exists (and is available for calls) in MacOS 8.1 and higher via the CarbonLib classic extension.

Actually (if you care about all the historical details of Mac OS X's evolution) Carbon was originally based on the QuickTime library, which in turn was based on the classic Mac APIs. I was an engineer on the QuickTime team during the early Rhapsody days up through Mac OS X beta.

When Rhapsody (basically the NextStep OS) was being developed it quickly became obvious we needed to support classic Macintosh applications. QuickTime had already been ported to an early Rhapsody version, and it just so happened QuickTime already carried around an API that contained about 70% of the Mac OS functionality. This is how QuickTime runs on Windows and why porting Carbon/classic Mac apps to Windows is (relatively) painless if you know to call the QTW libraries. So Apple effectively had the start of Carbon on NextStep as a result of the QuickTime port. Rhapsody became Mac OS X, the QuickTime library support was spun out to its own team and became Carbon.

None of which really disagrees with your post, just a little more detail on the exact process.

Re:Carbon's roots are older

[gwernol]

So if most of the Classic Mac's functionality is based on Carbon, which is based on QuickTime, and QuickTime has been ported to Windows...

aaaannnd, most of the NextStep functionality was available to x86 early on, with the YellowBox environment as well as seen in Rhapsody and WebObjects...

aaaaannnd Darwin, the OSX xnu kernel and personalities on Mach run on x86...

We have pretty complete coverage of the state of the Mac on x86. Interesting. I suspect with QuickTime installed, the hardest thing about iTunes on Windows was getting the GUI right. Which really is hard.

Yes, this is indeed the case. However...

First you're missing some important components, for example the Quartz rendering layer and the Aqua UI components. Neither of these are at all trivial.

Second, even ignorning Quartz and Aqua, you now have a set of about 70% of the components you need to build a Mac OS X-like operating system on Intel. As they say, the first 70% of the work takes 90% of the time, the other 30% of the work takes the other 90% of the time. It gives you a head-start, sure but you still have an immense effort ahead of you.

Apple spent (very, very approximately) a team of 1,000 engineers for 3 years to get to Mac OS X 10.0, from about the starting point you describe. That's 3,000 engineer-years of effort to find. Panther is another 3,000 engineer-years beyond that. It could be done, but its not trivial.

That said, when I was at Apple we did builds of Mac OS X (the entire stack) for PowerPC and Intel. From colleagues still at Infinite Loop I understand they still do every build for both platforms. I don't believe that it is technical barriers that are stopping Mac OS X for Intel...

Re:OS X 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what you mean...

Yesterday I was having a great time editing my masterpiece "When Trolls attack" on Final Cut Pro, especially after I finally was done tweaking the shots in Photoshop and After Effects.

Later I enjoyed solving another level of Halo while listening to my iTunes collection.

Thank God for FreeBSD 4! I didn't have to pay for none of this stiffling proprietary OS X crap! :P~~~~

Joe Anoymous.

The question

[CelticWhisper]

It's been at the back of your mind all along, always there, you're always asking...

"What is Mac OS X?"

Do you want me to show you, Neo...er...Steve? Eat the blue apple, and you'll go on living your life, believing whatever you want to believe. Eat the red apple, and I'll show you how deep the worm hole goes. And you'll realize that there is no Mac OS X. It's only your mind that has unfathomably sexy UI elements.

Re:The question

[NaugaHunter]

I took a bit out of a rainbow-colored apple and ended up in a wormhole to my life in the 70's...

What is Mac OS X?

[mac os ken]

Mac OS X is:

stable

easy to use

gorgeous

well rounded

interesting Kind of sounds like the perfect boyfriend/girlfriend. But remember, we're talking about software here... :P

Re:What is Mac OS X?

[CelticWhisper]

So then it's Software vs. Softwear?

Re:What is Mac OS X?

[shunnicutt]

Mac OS X is:

stable

asy to use

gorgeous

well rounded

You forgot "lickable"

Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Spencerian]

If you've been under a rock and haven't read much about OS X, still view Linux as a strong desktop OS, but hate having to fight to get the latest software, hardware, or other common computer accessories working without a call to your other Linux buddies, you should get a kick out of this article.

While the author disavows the article to a degree, it may be of great use to Linux and other UNIX users who haven't a clue of the true nature of OS X beneath its GUI interface. From the kernel, to a typical Mac's boot firmware, to its BSD origins, this is probably one of the better free web-accessible summaries that Linux geeks could appreciate.

OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.

Will OS X work for you best? YMMV.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[happyfrogcow]

I'm sorry, I'm not using Linux because it's a strong desktop (it's good enough for me, i'd call it adequate). I don't fight to get the latest software, I use what works and don't need to have the hottest, newest bits running through my processor. Most security updates are irellevant as I have hardly any services running, but I update the ones I need. If I had accesories, i'd make sure they worked with Linux before buying them, or were from a company who has a history of devulging enough specs for people to write device drivers themselves.

I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets. They force too much upon me. It's my hardware, not theirs. I use Linux because it is Free. I use OSX at work and MS-Windows at work because I have to. What management decides is out of my control.

"...without a call to your other Linux buddies..."

Half the fun of Linux is the community built around it.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Spencerian]

Makes sense to me, all you've said. Apologies if I sound like I am pigeonholing the typical Linux user.

But OS X is much like any other BSD. Don't want to pay Roxio for a burn app? Just use the exact same CD burn tools you're using now. Same is true for Apache and many, many other tools that are built in OS X as they are in Linux and BSD. Else, compile the darn things.

Just note that not everyone (not even here on /.) are whizzes that can build anything they need or tinker for hours. How much do you consider your time is worth? Some of us just want to buy something, use it, and take the remaining time in the date to do something else, like, hell--I don't know--date or something.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[gamgee5273]

I started using OS X with the Public Beta - in September 1999. And, yes, it was on my production machine. Thus, OS X has been with us for 4 years and 4 months, not 3 years.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[NanoGator]

"Is OS-X available for non-Apple machines? "

A lot of us running Windows wish it was.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[rampant mac]

"Half the fun of Linux is the community built around it."

Half the frustration of Linux is the community built around it, also.

That goes for every operating system. Use what makes YOU more productive. I could care less about free/open source/closed source. I prefer to use an OS that makes me more productive, with the least amount of hassle. Apple gives me that. Microsoft does not. Linux sure doesn't either.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Brandybuck]

And this was the way some proprietary software was going for a while. In the beginning, it was unclear how copyright applied to software, so the proprietarists came up with licensing instead. Like humans coming down out of the trees, this is generally been regarded as a bad move. But once it became clear that copyright applied to software, some proprietarists thought it silly to saddle their users with contracts, or to spend years in court arguing that "read-to-agree" schemes constituted contractual assent. They didn't want to control their users, they just wanted to make sure their software wasn't redistributed. Standard copyright law (plus an attached disclaimer of warranty) was all they needed.

I think Borland was the first major software vendor to use a copyright-based proprietary license (the famous "book" license). Some other companies followed suit, Apple included. Unfortunately, the old unilateral-contract-based schemes required hordes of lawyers, and lawyers love nothing better than to control other people.

Apple's proprietary software is still proprietary. But it's in a completely different class then Microsoft software. Nothing is being crammed down anyone's throat. While I still prefer Free Software, I have no problems buying and using proprietary software if the license terms are based on copyright rather than on some lawyer's delusion of how the world should work.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Spencerian]

I'm sure you know of Darwin, which is the OS X OS core that runs on x86, so I won't discuss a Mac OS X port, per se. It will never happen, having a complete OS X version for x86, since Apple leverages its OS to sell its hardware, not software. Best example: the iTunes Music Store is built not to make money, but sell iPods.

Again, when it comes to buying a basic PC box, assembling it yourself and installing an OS, or buying a Mac box, you get what you pay for. There is a very good reason why Porsche doesn't offer a "build-it-yourself" option for their cars, and Apple feels the same way. Why are Macs a tad more expensive on average? Because they don't use the low-cost crappy commedity parts, and because they add the hardware they know many PC users may skip buying today but will eventually buy later (FireWire, a better video card, and other niceties). The only thing really unique in any Mac today is its chassis, motherboard and processor. The rest is the same stuff you find in any other PC.

The various UNIXes and clones out there all have their joys and laments, but none have hit the overall consistency, useability, and business software availability (Microsoft Office) than OS X--yet. You may be right--but not right now.

I understand truly about the joys of geekhood as well, and I don't think I should lose a point from my Geek License for suggesting that tinkering is a sin. In fact, unlike the original Mac OS (which was mostly closed up), I have gained far more repair and software options with the advent of OS X, since the UNIX side allows me to truly get under the hood of the damn thing in the few instances where it gets cranky or if I need to compile some app that's not included with OS X (like any other UNIX).

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[drinkypoo]

I agree that open firmware is a thing of beauty. However we should eventually attain the same level of convenience with LinuxBIOS. (The problem right now is diminutive EEPROM/FLASH bios.) However on PCs you no longer have to worry about IRQs, DMA conflicts, or IO ranges, as long as you're not using legacy hardware. These days, some machines even have no ISA bus whatsoever - Even the legacy PS/2 keyboard and mouse are on PCI. Macs still have to deal with interrupts and such, they just don't bother you with it, and neither do modern PCs. I haven't had to deal with IRQs and shit since the last time I installed a non-pnp ISA card. Which was a long, LONG time ago.

Mac hardware hasn't been special since PCs went to the PCI bus and apple hardware stopped having the drivers in rom on the card. NuBus was a paragon of autoconfiguration equalled by no one but the Amiga. But now that drivers are in the software and not adapter ROM, that advantage is nonexistent.

It's also worth pointing out that until the G5, apple hardware has had poor bus architecture and slow memory buses. So while the designs are supposedly clean (I have a yosemite so I know that is a lie; I am also familiar with the IIfx, which didn't even follow Apple's standards, let alone anyone else's, and even needed a nonstandard SCSI terminator) they have usually been dated. The G5 is an exception; it sure would be nice if OSX were 64 bit though. Apple finally has the superbadass hardware, and their OS doesn't even take full advantage of it. By the time they have a 64 bit OSX, AMD's hammer chips will have come down further in price, and XP-64 will be running on them, and they'll squander their "lead" once more.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Paradox]

1) KDE, while less polished than Aqua, is much more powerful.

Howso? I'm working with KDE in my current job, and I've yet to find anything that KDE can do that Aqua can't seem to. I suppose this depends on your definition of "power" too. GTK+ is very "powerful" as I'd define it, but a triply nested button inside other buttons doesn't seem like power I really need.

In general, I think Apple's rapid development tools and APIs in the Cocoa environment (along with the language used) knock the socks off just about anything else I've worked with for overall usability (both from a user and developer's standpoint).

Especially in the area of rapid development, few environments can even begin to work as well, or produce such clean and maintainable results, as Apple's tools for this job.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[calyphus]

Actually, the author didn't get OS X until April 2003. So, more like 9 Months.

Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up

[Paradox]

A few things about this:

1. Apple has a unified hotkey system. In panther, all the system-wide hotkeys are rebindable. Applications override this, and they can (and do) offer to change the keybindings. There are also tools to change keybindings arbitrarily, and even on regexs of the menu items. :)
2. Apple's text widgets are configurable in the extreme. This can be accomplished both at the application level, or at a global level. Developers can override this functionality in the individual application case. You might notice that OS X text widgets respond to many C-(something) keys (C-a to go to the beginning of a line, etc...). This is because of a global config file which individual users and appliations can override to taste. It's quite possible to make the text widgets perform in almost any manner possible (although it's unlikely that you'll see Emacs or VIM behavior without an InputManager.
3. The component methodology is more pervasive in KDE because developers want it to be. Nothing restricts people in the OS X world from writing their widgets in that fashion (most do!). Few people take it to that level in OS X. Not because it's hard, but because there is seldom reason to. This is nice, I'll grant, but it's not really that much of a benefit.
4. KDE's MDI suffers from the general problems of MDI everywhere. I'd say Apple's minimalistic MDI stuff is a feature. Especially with Expose, MDI is seldom necessary. The notable examples are web-browsers. Even then, I find myself using tabs in Safari less and less. Why, when I get a better idea of what's going on with Expose?
5. KDevelop is probably more mature than XCode, which is quite new (albeit based off the venerable ProjectManager, it's a very different machine under the hood as some Apple developers have intimated to me.
6. NOTHING KDE has comes even close to the awesome power of the Developer suite that you get when you sign on with OSX. When it was designed, it was 20 years ahead of its time, and no one else has even begun to catch up.
7. As a developer, I balk at C++ frameworks. Sorry, C++ is rapidly becoming more of a nuisance than anything else.
   
   This is, of course, subjective. Since I win my daily bread as a C++ and Ruby coder, I'll leave it as obvious which language I prefer to work in.

Re:OS X 10?

[mfago]

One word: Photoshop.
Bzzt...Gimp doesn't count so don't bother.

I agree that Gimp 1.x has a GUI designed by a masochist. Check out version 2 though -- much better IMHO.

Nevertheless, more commercial apps and a gorgeous desktop that is truly ready for grandma and grandpa, with BSD, X11, and GCC for junior. Other than being completely "free as in freedom," and games, what else could you want?

uh

[SweetAndSourJesus]

How much "hacking the code" have you done on Linux? Be honest. Have you ever needed to significantly modify your operating system's source code? Do you even know how?

Are you just bitching because it isn't Free for the sake of bitching?

though i love linux

[spectre_be]

i must admit that i admire apple's os x platform. for example one *can* use the command line as much as one likes but one doesnt't *have* to. i can't say that i love editing my xf86config for example. tho os x is far from perfect (it *is* after all proprietary) but it seems like an evolution of linux in ways of usability. i think however that the major OSS desktop environments aren't that far away from obtaining equally powerfull yet userfriendly operation (having only working knowledge of the gentoo distro) it's been a while since i used os x (10.1 in fact) and i must admit i regret lacking the funds to buy myself a peachy powermac g5 cuz i'm quite tempted by os x panther and the ilife bundle (man garageband look awesome!) sometimes i've wished linux was a bit more 'it just works' although i know huge progess is being made in that field every day (ie getting alsa to work has been a major pita for me) i for one just think os x gives the user still a much smoother computer experience than linux can at the moment. i consider it to be a best of both worlds - operation system. only, personally, i think os x could do with decent skinning features as simple far from everybody likes apple's aqua interface. way to go apple

Re:though i love linux

[GlassHeart]

i consider it to be a best of both worlds

When a company does such a good job, then the intelligent consumer would pay the company so it can improve. Apple does not survive by your applause, but by your purchasing dollars. Even your dollars spent on Microsoft Office for the Mac is partially a powerful vote for Apple.

Point is, if all we are going to do is to sit around and dish out glowing reviews, then we should not be surprised when (not if) a company we so approve of fails. Put your money where your mouth is.

i regret lacking the funds to buy myself a peachy powermac g5 cuz i'm quite tempted by os x panther and the ilife bundle (man garageband look awesome!)

GarageBand requires a G4 with DVD drive for full operations. The entry-level eMac satisfies this at $800 brand new, or under $700 refurbished. The $800 price, if you wait a few weeks, would include the $50 iLife.

Don't get me wrong. $800 is still real money, and is still more expensive than a Dell box. However, it's not $1,800, which is what an entry-level G5 would cost, and the Dell box won't have GarageBand, its big brother Soundtrack, or Final Cut Express and big brother Final Cut Pro.

Re:The core is already...

[scrod]

Really? The GPL you say? Sorry, but no. Parts of Darwin are GPL'd, but Apple's own code is released under the Apple Public Source License.

interesting article...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to explain more of the underpinnings OS X. You see, NeXTSTEP was almost the perfect operating system and development environment.

The NS environment (living on in Aqua today) is just so cool. Well-designed interfaces abound. Design patterns everywhere, created when the term "Design Pattern" had barely been explored in the computer world. For instance: most objects use delegation to extend their behavior. Not subclassing! Just compare building a GUI in Swing to Cocoa, it's like salt and sugar.

Objective-C is a wonderful semi-dynamic language, much nicer than C++.

Programming the mac is a true joy, even if all this dynamic dispatch is a little slow and hardly anybody uses macs. :-)

Re:interesting article...

[cosmo7]

I've worked for Apple and I can tell you just about all the new core stuff is being done or being converted to C or C++.

If you've worked for Apple you'd know that all the CoreFoundation classes have always been written in C/C++ and are (mostly) "toll-bridged" with their corresponding Objective-C Foundation classes.

If you are writing in Objective-C and discover a performance hit from the dynamic binding there is nothing to prevent you from using the CF classes (other than having to write C/C++) and including it in your Objective-C code.

Re:interesting article...

[WatertonMan]

"Maybe in look and feel but it performs like crap. It's too disconnected; too much stuff done at runtime; too dynamic to be used for core components."

As others said you can optimize individual areas in C++. Also you are now discussing core components which seem a different issue to the person using frameworks. They don't care how the framework is written. Certainly even obj-C advocates don't think it the solution to everything. Other languages have their place.

I wonder though, why you criticize obj-C when even Microsoft is moving to a more runtime oriented system with .NET. It seems obj-C's main competitors are C#/VB.net and Java.

Tired of linux?

[OmniVector]

I loved some of the concepts behind linux, but I think Linux's greatest advantage is also it's greatest weakness. The fact that there is no central governing body for most projects means that you get lots of fragmentation (X11: freedesktop.org, fresco, XFree; Distros: Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake, Redhat, etc) which makes it very difficult to stick to one standard. Thankfully, over time some projects fork (gcc) and wind up becoming the project that takes over. It's this fragmentation that helps linux adapt so rapidly. However because of all this, developers can't code for one toolkit api, one kernel api, etc. Mac OS X, to linux users, is like linux controlled by ONE group who says yes or no to all issues so that the complex fragmented software base can concentrate on one goal: a good consistent end user experience. I honestly would say Mac OS X couldn't exist without Linux or BSD because it wouldn't be where it was today without the OSS community. People complain that OS X is too proprietary, but i believe it is the perfect mix. On one hand you have OSS software. On the other hand you have commercial software. It's truely the best of both worlds! Isn't this what many linux users want? Linux grandma can use? Companies to write native software? Games? Gaim and KMail side by side with safari and photoshop? You don't have to wait if that's what you want. Linux is a great server OS, but mac os x has it by leaps and bounds as a good desktop platform. Am i saying Gnome and KDE should die off and we should all just use mac os x? of course not. But i am saying if you want a usable unix desktop now, not later, you don't have to look much further.

Re:Tired of linux?

[OmniVector]

bogie, you have a really negative attitude towards a system i don't think you really understand much yet.

a lot of users tried to get away from windows because linux works better from a day to day basis for getting work done. just about any linux advocate with agree with you there. what most linux users won't say is how wonderfuly nice and easy to setup linux is, or so what if i takes 5 hours to compile KDE from source.

you're confusing philosophical matters with an argument that's not predominantly philosophical. for people who want to *completely* escape proprietary software, yes linux is the answer. for people, like myself, who want UNIX, want it to WORK easily, and want to spend more time getting word done than compiling/configuring/installing linux then os x might be for you.

switching to mac os x is NOTHING like windows xp. lets take a brief look:
kernel: open source under an apple license. just got OSS approved if i remember correctly.
rendevous: open standard (zeroconf) for allowing instant networking
xcode: based off gcc, and is completely FREE unlike visual studio .net.
preferences system: no harry registry in os x. preferences are done in xml files, and each program has it's own xml file (~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.Addressbook.plist ) for example.
open packages: i can right click on Safari, choose show package contents, and naviagte to safari's gui file. i can open up safari's gui and MOVE buttons around. i can rebind keys, i can delete menus, i can do a heck of a lot. isn't safari closed source? yep. but GUIs in os x are extremely easy to hack if you install XCode.
build in tools: os x ships with perl, ruby, python, and many standard unix tools. for what you can't get in the base system, you simply install darwinports and install it similar to ports in BSD. i can type sudo ifconfig en1 down and turn my wireless off. i can type ssh -X user@host and forward linux apps to my powerbook with apple's built in x11 server.
build off standards: os x's rendering system is based off opengl and displaypdf. it also has nfs and smb built in so i can mount shares off my linux machine.

you complain about how much more expensive macs are, but you get a hell of a lot more "built in" and free software compared to windows.

if your issues are that you don't have complete control over your environment, then stick with linux. if you are fed up with the day to day ease of use of linux, then consider ponying up the extra cash to get a machine that does all your unix goodness and everything "just works"

GIMP

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

These features Photoshop has that Gimp does not have just hasn't given anyone a sufficient itch yet.

Oh?

From the developer of FilGimp: "Film GIMP developer Caroline Dahllof, a programmer at Rhythm & Hues, "Photoshop handles more layers with big images better". Matte painting artists at Rhythm & Hues create large backgrounds with perhaps forty layers and use a lot of specialized plugins. Working on single large images is quite different from the typical Film GIMP tasks of retouching film frames to remove dust or wire rigs. To get rid of Photoshop completely would require investing a lot of developer resources."

Re:OS X on x86, I wish

[JudgeFurious]

Well, then I'm thinking your best bet is to go out and find yourself a used blue and white G3 (can be had very reasonably priced on ebay IF you take your time and don't rush it) and follow that with a CPU upgrade. They're coming down to a fairly comfortable price for those machines. Get that B&W going about 500Mhz and add Panther. Don't worry about the price of Panther (I figure if you're going to pirate XP then why pay for Panther?) and you got your firsthand look at OSX.

I pretty much did it that way and then decided I loved this shit enough to give them $3K to see it run on their new machines. I'm not the least bit disappointed either.

Everybody's different but as far as I'm concerned to hell with Windows and screw waiting on Linux to get it's collective desktop shit together. OSX beats both.

Excellent read!

[Tor]

This is one of the very best "OS Review" articles I've ever come across - especially the way that it brings in all aspects of history, influences, etc to address ignorance & common misconceptions.

Good Job!
-tor

Re:OS X 10?

[DreamerFi]

And if you think it's just the UI that makes GIMP less powerful, you've clearly never seen a pro work on PhotoShop.

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[daeley]

Yeah, it's too bad that Apple forces you to use its LCD monitors and wireless hardware.

Oh wait, they don't.

Go away, troll.

That's funny

[subtillus]

Because I was just at the website and the store says 799$ for the emac right now. Shipping included.

Airport may be expensive, but you don't have to get it. In my laptop it was cheaper than the PC equivalent.

The initial cost of 800 does cost more than a PC, but they also don't become obsolete AS quickly so it's a neat trade off.

Minor things to update (Nits)

[WillAdams]

Misses the ``sturm und drang'' over Adobe's promising a free, then low-cost, then no-way-what's-your-market-cap license for Display PostScript (originally co-developed by NeXT and Apple), as well as the free ``Yellow Box'' run-time which went away at that time, as well as the moving target of the up-dated APIs when Apple ceased to think of Mac OS X as an OpenStep implementation.

Apple's support for PDF/X gainsays the claim the pdf support isn't a replacement for Adobe Acrobat to a certain extant. By tweaking a few settings one can get a press-ready .pdf out of pretty much any app. If one needs access to other features, well, there's always pdfTeX....(which provides access to things which the Adobe Acrobat GUI _doesn't_)

And the author misses Gerben Wierda's spiffy iInstaller.app which is a neat way to install iInstaller packages (which includes TeX, xfig, imagemagick, Ghostscript &c.). This was developed to work around (then limitations) of Apple's Installer.app and to make updating packages more efficient---way cool stuff.

osx.hyperjeff.net is a way-cool app tracker....

Also misses Macromedia FreeHand MX and the irony of NeXTstep's premier drawing / page-layout application having come to Mac OS X as a Carbon app :(

But a nice, informative article naetheless.

William

I know what OS X is.

[Anonymous Coward]

FeeBSD.

On the Subject of Games

[Spencerian]

The largest flaw of the article involves the availability of games for Mac OS X. The writer admittedly didn't know of many, so I'll list a few, past, present, and near future. Games that cannot play with their PC or Linux counterparts in a multiplayer mode will be marked with the number sign (#)

-Return to Castle Wolfenstein (original; the Enemy Territory MP expansion is not yet available) (Multiplayer DOTH ROCK.)
- Diablo 2 (including all expansions)
- WarCraft 3 (including all expansions)
- Neverwinter Nights (original; expansions not yet available, but can be hacked to work)
- Baldurs Gate II
- Icewind Dale
- Star Wars: Jedi Knight II
- Star Wars: Jedi Academy
- Lara Croft: Angel of Darkness
- No One Lives Forever 1 and 2
- Halo
- Soldier of Fortune 2
- Dungeon Siege (#) (Legends of Arranna expansion not yet available. This game is made in part by Microsoft and uses proprietary software to make MP work for PCs)
- SimCity 4
- The Sims (including all expansions, excluding Online)
- Splinter Cell (coming soon)
- Command & Conquer: Generals
- Star Wars: Battlegrounds
- Call of Duty (coming soon)
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Spearhead expansion (new editions not yet available)
- Unreal
- Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
- Quake 3 (duh--its the engine for most of the games listed)

About the only big game that never hit the Macintosh in recent years was Half-Life. I built a PC just to try that baby out, and I wasn't disappointed.

Usually, you have to wait 2-6 months for a successful PC game to be ported by companies such as Aspyr, but the wait is usually worth it because the game has been patched and runs much smoother than when it was first introduced on the PC.

I jokingly consider PC players as my beta testers, since a PC game that sucks ("Bloodrayne" notwithstanding--that turd got through the quality control somehow) is never ported to Mac OS X.

So, if you gotta play everything, the Mac isn't for you. If you want to enjoy the best of the games in a year, it's a sure bet it'll be ported soon.

Some companies, like Blizzard, ship boxes that contain both the Mac and PC versions of the game, such as WarCraft 3.

Re:On the Subject of Games

[eclectic4]

I apologize, I just have to ditto the above.

With regard to Half-Life, it is THE only game that I have envied PC users for. The only one. I use my Mac for gaming and have otherwise been very well fed, thank you very much. Your points are dead on, and it's something that most don't realize. To add, you can't even purchase a Mac without an exceptional graphics card built in. My wife uses it for her design work, I use it for gaming. Frag on.

Re:On the Subject of Games

[artemis67]

So, if you gotta play everything, the Mac isn't for you. If you want to enjoy the best of the games in a year, it's a sure bet it'll be ported soon.

Well, two problems with that statement.

One, there are still a lot of A-list games that never make it to the Mac. Battlefield 1942 and Serious Sam are two of my favorites.

Two, by the time the Mac port comes out, the PC version is usually in the bargain bin, so Mac players are paying $50 for what PC users are now paying $20 for. And if you're like me, I never buy a new release when I know it's going to be half price in 6 months.

I've been a Mac user since 1984, so believe me, I know the Mac gamer's anguish... hope, pray, sign petitions, send emails, etc. Things have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY better in the past few years... I mean, LucasArts actually released Jedi Knight II for Mac! Wonders never cease. But the situation is a far cry from being "satisfactory".

Re:On the Subject of Games

[Spencerian]

I generally agree. The speed that the Mac ports are handled do vary, but I tend that see that, while the PC version that arrived is already marked down, the game is usually not in the bargain bin yet, nowandays.

Yes, Battlefield 1942 is a good example of a great game not yet ported to Mac OS...but it might not be because of a lack of trying. There are still a few games out there that might be resisting a port due to a technical snafu, if not from good lawyers to negotiate the licensing of the port for Mac OS. Any PC game that heavily leverages the DirectPlay and DirectX tools from Microsoft could render a Mac port hard to do.

Another point you somewhat hit...while the PC version of the games do drop in price, the Mac versions of the games tend to stay at full price much, much longer, or hell, never even drop in price. What's up with that?

Re:On the Subject of Games

[inkswamp]

Two, by the time the Mac port comes out, the PC version is usually in the bargain bin, so Mac players are paying $50 for what PC users are now paying $20 for. And if you're like me, I never buy a new release when I know it's going to be half price in 6 months.

I'm not sure how long you've been using Macs, but I've watched that gap closing rapidly in the last few years. Game companies have shown and startlingly renewed interest in getting the Mac versions out either simultaneous with the PC version or hot on the heels of. I can't think of many top games that haven't had a Mac version out in a matter of days.

There are still some, however, I admit. One issue to consider is that some game companies wait to see if a game is big enough to bother porting to the Mac. True, that causes some lag, but it effectively weeds out most of the garbage and if you're a casual game player, that's a small blessing. I've played a lot of the games that PC users brag about having and IMO, it's not impressive. It's like the old Dennis Miller quote about KMart clothing (you know, back before he became Bush's little bitch): "Dontcha love these cheap clothing stores? Two of shit... is shit. If they really wanna fuck you, they'll give you three." Lots of shitty games doesn't mean much to me. I'd rather deal with a gap in the release times and know that most of what's available is actually worth buying.

And yes, I'm well aware of Half-Life, but those kinds of situations are few and far between.

Re:Hi Steve,

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, nice mouth--while it's really impressive here on slashdot, somehow methinks you don't get any of the real thing;>

i think the REAL issue is that Apple users are much more likely to have actual sex, while all the *nix trolls get is goat.se(x)...

Dirty post-stealing whore!

[teamhasnoi]

I posted that! Get your own sense of humor, you dirty, dirty whore!

You might also want to steal comments from someone who doesn't have 1765 comments, and does have a life...

Re:The story behind OSX

[anactofgod]

Exactly right.

So, tell me again *why* Apple would want to push their elegant and easy to use OS to the jerry-rigged x86 PC platform. To cope with all the problems that prevent innovation within Linux OS development community with a fraction of the resources available to Microsoft?

I think not.

---anactofgod---

Re:Adobe and Microsoft..

[larkost]

And this is opposed to Windows users that rely "heavily on Adobe (Photoshop, Illustrator, Go live, et al) and Microsoft (Office, Outlook, Messenger, Media player, el al)"? I think you over-estimate the diversity of applications on any platform. Most people don't go much further than the software that is already installed on their system for most uses (games being the biggest exception).

Of the applications currently running on my doc I have 3 from OmniGroup (Web, Outliner, and Graffle), 4 Apple apps (the Finder, Mail.app, Terminal.app, and TextEdit), and 4 other applications from other companies (a tn5250 emulator, Comcastic, Chicken of the VNC, and NetNewsWire Lite).

And I think you need to do some research before saying "profound cost of owning an Apple". Make sure you know what you are talking about before you say that again.

Re:OS X 10?

[NanoGator]

"only a dipshit thinks that photoshop is better than gimp. "

Either a dipshit or somebody who sits down, uses Gimp, and finds out it's missing a LOT of what Photoshop has.

There are a few things that Gimp does just fine. However, those of us that make a living by knowing every nook and cranny of Photoshop find Gimp to be virtually unusuable in many areas of image creation and adjustment. There's a reason why Photoshop is the de-facto leader in that market, think about it.

Re:OS X 10?

[NanoGator]

"ree Software Camp: But Photoshop isn't Free. so "bzzt" to you too."

Sadly, I see this argument all too often. Price isn't everything, folks. If I save $600 by using Gimp instead of Photoshop, but the result isn't good enough to get paid for the project, then Gimp effectively isn't free.

I'm happy to spend the money, especially when it makes the task of making more money a lot easier. GIMP has a long ways to go before it actually saves a lot of us artists money.

try OS X on a cheap iBook

[SideshowBob]

If you're interested in trying OS X, Apple's online store has new iBook G3s for $799 (look in the Special Deals section). I bought one for my wife and 'borrow' it liberally ;-) OK so it isn't a PowerBook G4 but it has to be one of the best values in laptops. Its fast enough to do reasonably sized software development, and its more than enough for couch-born web surfing and email. Unix + great GUI + lightweight portable = bliss.

Not trying to sound like an advertisement, just giving a heads up to people that want the cheapest way possible to run OS X. (well, on new gear, on the same page you can get factory refurbs for even cheaper)

Why would someone be tired of Linux?

[porkchop_d_clown]

Personally, I got tired of having to re-locate the the set of arcana I needed to get my USB and DVD stuff working again on my Linux box after each kernel update. When the time came for a new machine, I bought a Powerbook.

I still have my Linux servers, but for daily use, my Mac is a dream.

I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[Art Tatum]

It's called GNUstep. And yes, there are applications that build cleanly on both platforms. GNUMail.app, for example. There's also a project called Renaissance that allows you to craft your interface with XML, avoiding even issues with Apple's proprietary .NIB files.

There are also clones of NeXT/Apple's InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder and a host of end user applications. GNUstep builds on Linux and other UNIX systems. The Foundation classes work fine on Windows and there's serious work to perfect the GUI classes on Windows as well.

Re:I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE!

[Art Tatum]

A couple times per year I check in on the GNUstep stuff. I'm always suprised to see there are still people working on it... doing stuff... but I can never figure out what the purpose of it all is.

Well, there are several purposes it seems (everybody has different goals and desires). Many are old NeXT programmers who didn't want to lose the beauty of the Objective-C language and API. Others are OS X programmers who also like Linux or other UNIX systems and like to have the same tools, API, and language to work with. Still others are completely new to the paradigm and just think it's nice technology. There are also quite a few people who are professional software developers and want to release their software or libraries on more than just OS X. (One guy ported his special software to OS X and is also going to release it on Linux and Windows XP).

I mean, you never hear anything about GNUstep. There are no distros that I know of that use it on the desktop.

Yes, there are several reasons for that. One of them is that distro integrators have never heard of it or don't think it's really being maintained. The other is that the number of end-user applications has only recently started to grow. But there are some Gentoo ebuilds, I understand. Might be some packages for other distros as well. I don't really know much about that since I always build from CVS, since there are so many changes and commits. :-)

Hell, to this day I'm not 100% sure what exactly GNUstep is or what it does. I mean, is it a X11 replacement? Something like KDE/GNOME? Some widgets? Just some API's?

The GNUstep core is just a set of object oriented APIs. It's an implementation of Cocoa. But there are also other packages, like dev-apps, that includes clones of the Apple/NeXT development tools, as well as some other frameworks for development. There are lots of 3rd party frameworks and applications too, like the MusicKit.

I mean, what the hell is it for? Are there any applications that let me "do stuff" which make me more productive?

There are some. At this point, it's mostly just your typical desktop stuff (a media player, a mail client, dev tools, a GPS app, a few games, some other stuff). Somebody is doing a port of Apple's WebKit and working on an HTML view class that will make it pretty easy to write a web browser.

They really need to do some marketing legwork here because right now the whole project is off in some dark corner (as it has been for many years). Maybe collaborate with some other well-known projects or something.

Yeah, that's a problem. I'm trying to do some of that myself by posting here. The GNOME and KDE projects have such prominence that it's difficult to get the general population interested. Personally, I think the attempts to create an integrated desktop system could be superior to what GNOME and KDE are doing. Both of those projects tend to be over complicated. It seems like they just want to throw in everything including the kitchen sink. It ends up just being a big mess.

Unless you want a laptop

[0x0d0a]

if your buying a computer based on how many buttons its OEM mouse has, you have some major issues.

There is one really, really big issue. Apple is famous for their laptops. Apple's desktops are not (IMHO) particularly exceptional or cost-competitive, but their laptops have traditionally been near-PC price and well-built. Most people I know that want Apple hardware want a laptop.

However, if you purchase an Apple laptop, you cannot simple snap in a new trackpad. You are stuck with a single button. Yes, you can can purchase an external mouse, but then you're stuck using an external mouse with your laptop. This is a pain in the ass, and something that you can avoid on non-Apple laptops -- you can get nice three-button laptops elsewhere.

This is not something that Apple is unaware of or incapable of fixing. However, they have made a conscious (and much-protested) decision to not natively support multiple buttons in their hardware, even as an option. While I can respect their reasons for doing so, it does make their hardware much less appealing. The reason people get so bent out of shape about this is partly because Apple *insists* on forcing you to use their hardware to use their software, and *insists* on not providing an option for more buttons for the (many) folks that are unhappy with their default setup.

If this is not a problem for your uses, that's fine. For me, it would be a major issue -- having to find a flat surface and carry along a big clunky external device to use the thing *is* an issue. Please do not call this "nitpicking" -- it is an entirely justified criticism that Apple has chosen not to address.

Re:Unless you want a laptop

[0x0d0a]

My attachment to three (not two) button mice is due to the fact that I use X11 software, and would even on a Mac. I do also like contextual menus.

Control-clicking is not a reasonable solution. It is a good, understandable way to transition people to multiple-button mice, and it was what I expected Apple to be doing. However, Apple has ended up presenting control-clicking as a good long-term solution, which it is not. They have decided to go with contextual menus, but to force you to use both arms to bring one up, is silly. I do not deny that a computer can be used in such I way -- I do so when I'm using a Mac. However, it's decidedly irritating. On my Linux box, I can use either the mouse or the keyboard at any given time. I can even comfortably eat while web browsing. On the Mac, I'm forced to constantly use both arms.

Also, I have seen few folks arguing that Apple is doing the *right* thing, or the *superior* thing, but rather that they are doing something that is not as bad as people are making it out to be.

I've had the pleasure of being able to talk to some engineers working at Apple when OS X was in production, and happened to bring up the multiple button issue. Both grimaced, and laughed. Apparently, from what they told me, the One Mac Button is a decision that comes straight from the Top -- Jobs is firmly married to the vision of a simple, easy-to-use single button mouse. I feel that he's wrong here. His idea was somewhat justified two decades ago, when folks were not familiar with computers, much less multibutton mice. However, whether Jobs wants to admit it or not, just about everyone has run into Windows, or at the *very* least, an OS that uses multiple buttons. Multiple buttons are just not a foreign concept that average Joe cannot understand any more. There is no significant ease-of-use issue present any more, and there is a functionality difference -- and a lot of peeved folks. The time has come to make the switch.

Apple occasionally has a "We Do Things Our Own Way, Dammit" moment. They provided only SCSI interfaces for an awfully long time, for instance. They insisted on using those darn little eight-pin serial ports for ages. They won't change their single button mouse style. In the PC world, people that do this quickly go away, because people simply use a competitor's product. However, you just don't have such an option in the Mac world, where Apple is the only game in town. So, while Apple is a Pretty Good hardware provider, if they insist on maintaining an absolute monopoly, they have to be The Best hardware provider to compete with the PC world, where people can simply choose hardware to suit their tastes.

OS X is ...

[josepha48]

.. the GUI that UNIX could have had.

I guess I'm suprised that UNIX just accepted the CDE and never really extended it to be something really cool. At its base OS X is BSD, and Panther actually comes with a version of X one could install. Personally I like OS X, but macs hardware is just to expensive for a poor man like me. IMHO Mac OS X is the uppermiddle class mans extra friendly UNIX. I'll take Linux cause I'm poor ;-)

Re:OS-X Quartz display blows away X-Windows

[be-fan]

Um, what crappy widgets, and what horrible fonts?

Widgets are the domain of the toolkits, and I think Qt's are quite pretty. And FreeType is a much better font-renderer than the Apple one. Apple's renderer hints too little (leading to uneven color weight on normal-res screens) and Microsoft's hints too much (very forced, distored glyph shapes). Freetype has a nice mix balance between contrast and proper glyph shapes.

Re:Cutting but true

[Raffaello]

Apple does not "get it" WRT open source in anywhere near the same way that Red Hat and friends do.

Apple "gets it" much better than Red Hat and friends do. Apple "gets" that open source needs to be part of a profitable business plan if you are going to run a company based on it. Why do you think Red Hat is no longer maintaining a user distribution? Because you can't make any money by giving things away. You have to charge for something. Apple knows that they will only be able to charge for hardware if part of their software (the GUI parts and the iApps, etc.) is closed source. Otherwise, people would just download the source, compile it for x86, and Apple's hardware sales would go in the toilet.

Re:OS X 10?

[0x0d0a]

The major things I've seen that Photoshop has that GIMP doesn't are:

* No neat duotone tool. I like duotones.

* No non indexed/RGB color model support. Very, very bad if you're doing output for professional printing.

* Not sure, but I suspect Photoshop has better color matching support.

* Photoshop has a nicer warping interface.

* There are more plugins available for Photoshop. They're often quite pricy, but if you're a professional designer (the sort of person that would care about four color work and hence want to use Photoshop instead of GIMP), you're probably going to make back the cost pretty quickly.

There are only a few things that I know of that GIMP can do that Photoshop can't. Among these are:

* Better support for many languages to write plugins in.

* Some researchy plugins that go well beyond what Photoshop can do; Resynthesizer is one.

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[MoneyT]

Hmmm, damn I could have sworn the PowerMac we just bought is working absolutely fine with our nice Sony CRT and our NEC LCD monitor, both of which use standard VGA connections.

And I could swear that the D-Link wireless card I have works very nicely in my Powerbook.

I must just be dreaming though.

It's compiled! DAMMIT!!

[The Muffin Man]

Hmm, he lists Lisp amongst the interpreted languages. I hope the rest of the article is more accurate...

Edi.

== Programming Language Myths ==

BASIC Myth: People who learn BASIC go on to learn other languages.
Reality: Most people who learn BASIC go on to find less nerdy ways of writing "Mr. Gzabowski is a lame teacher" over and over again.

C Myth: C programs are insecure, full of buffer overflows and such.
Reality: C programs are only insecure if written by imperfect programmers. Since all C programmers know that they are perfect, there's no problem.

COBOL Myth: COBOL is dead.
Reality: It stalks from out the ancient vaults of death, its putrid mind drawn to the blood of the living.

Forth Myth: Forth makes no sense.
Reality: backwards. think to have just you sense, perfect makes Forth

Java Myth: You need Java to do business applications.
Reality: You need Java to get a job.

Lisp Myth: Lisp is an interpreted language.
Reality: Lisp is COMPILED DAMMIT COMPILED! IT'S IN THE FUCKING STANDARD!!!

Pascal Myth: Pascal is a toy.
Reality: Oh, wait, that is not a myth, it is true ...

Perl Myth: Perl is impossible to read.
Reality: You are not taking enough psychedelics.

Python Myth: Python's only problem is the whitespace thing.
Reality: Python's only problem is that it is fucking slow.

Conclusion from reading the article

[Overly Critical Guy]

OS X is the UNIX desktop Linux has been trying to be for 10+ years now. If OS X came out for x86, would the drive for desktop Linux effectively die?

Re:NTFS Read support(!!)

[aristotle-dude]

NTFS read support has been in there since Jaguar. IIRC. Jaguar and onward also has read/write support for FAT32.

Re:It isn't MacOS X that turns people off of Macs.

[phillymjs]

It's the fact that apple only sells LCD monitors, starting at $699.

Yes, and nobody else makes displays that work on the Mac. I'm just imagining the two ViewSonic LCDs that are connected to my G4 right now.

It's the fact that airport (which is a fancy name for 802.11b/g) is much more expensive than what is available for PCs.

Yeah, and no other wireless hardware works with the Mac. Those pesky hallucinogens pumped through the air ducts at my office only make me THINK my iBook is connecting via the company's Compaq wireless access point.

It's also the fact that systems have high initial costs ($1299 for JUST A BOX!).

Well, it's not Apple's fault that people are cheap, short-sighted idiots. I've gotten significantly longer usage out of the Macs I've owned than the x86 hardware I've owned. I got six years out of the last Power Mac I bought new, but I've rebuilt my x86 box with newer hardware three times in that same time period. You might be able to get a PC for 1/3 the cost of a Mac, but chances are you'll have purchased two more before I'm ready to replace my Mac.

~Philly

OS X does most of these things!

[Paradox]

Mac OS X's environment already has almost all these things.

The configurability is a Mac vs. Linux philosophy thing. Don't tout it, you'll start a flamewar. Suffice to say, Apple has decided that for UI, One Consistent Way is better than a huge amount of configurability.

You need CocoaGestures to get system wide gestures. The hotkeys support is already there.

The system-wide password manager? Prithee, sir, what then would we call KeyChain?

System wide spellchecking is part and parcel of the very good Apple text widgets. You use their widgets, you get it for free. You can configure it specially, or you can let all the code in NSApp just do it for you (usually what you want).

Apple doesn't do things like auto-completion in a generic fashion (although you never see it mentioned, they do provide a completion service, and other people have cheerfully extended this functionality with supplemental abilities.) because they haven't decided on their One Consistent Way to do it. Until then, we have a plethora of software, free and commercial, that does most anything we want. The OS X software community is very happy correcting any perceived flaws or blank spots a dozen different ways.

UI is a very subjective matter, so Apple (that makes money off of their good, consistent user experience) takes the middle road in most everything. It's smarter for them that way, since it's so incredibly easy to extend their input mechanisms.

Re:Why Mach?

[rmlane]

Why combine the loss of performance and added complexity of Mach with the lack of flexibility of a single (BSD) server?

Your premise is incorrect. I worked at Apple as an Enterprise SE, and asked the same question of the kernel engineers which they answered as follows: (errors all mine, accurate info all theirs)

The Mach microkernel and the BSD kernel stuff actually live inside the same memory / process space. There is no task switching performance penalty (the performance issue from "standard" Mach implementations), as you don't task switch to get from the Unix kernel to the Mach microkernel.

What you do get from having Mach is a well debugged, small set of OS primitives that the rest of the kernel can call with the performance penalty of a function call rather than a task switch.

Effectively, XNU uses the "single server" model from a performance perspective, and the BSD on Mach model when you're talking about stability, extensibility and debuggability. In addition the Mach primitives are available when you don't want to use the *NIX ones.

So you DO get the best of both worlds.