Slashdot Mirror
Tiger Slideshow: Pretty Mac OS X Pictures
RAMMS+EIN writes with a good followup to the recent WWDC preview of Tiger, the next version of OS X. "eWeek has a slideshow illustrating some of Tiger's new features with screenshots. For a textual description, you can visit Apple's Tiger page."
People that use Linux don't like to pay for software or deal with adware and shareware, so they have free second rate versions instead.
People on Macs actually pay for software, so Mac software (of you can afford to keep up) outclasses that of of the competition.
Apple also makes more software than Microsoft, and OSX comes with more free high quality tools. All that power in an OS and it still comes with a real comand shell. For the small market share Apple has, they seem to be doing a fine job of producing quality software.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Looks like you can turn on and off a private browsing feature.
Sure beats creating a second firefox profile and clearing all your privacy info just to go surfing for pr0n...
Like 64bit support, and the return of metadata. While Tiger is sure to boast some nice GUI improvements, such as Dashboard, some of its greatest strengths are not visible in pictures.
Jaguar seemed pretty polished to me, and Panther is simply the bomb. Tiger, I think, is going to be utterly and undeniably HOT. And consider this: It's not coming out for probably almost another year, and MANY more goodies will likely be unveiled in that time.
Who said Apple was really just a hardware company? I don't think so -- they are a computer company, and that means hardware and software, at least as far as they're concerned. And the synergy is simply amazing.
The most interesting thing is that this is the third Mac OS X release to include more than 150 new features.
Apple is already anticipating Microsoft will copy them, just check out the Shirts from WWDC!
Also notice how little features each windows released comes with, even though they are released every 3 years. Well according to MS 'longhorn' will be more stable, of course only if you have 2 gigs of RAM.
If I used OSX I'd want a minimual install option
If you used OS X, you'd know that such an option already exists. Just click on the "advanced install" button and deselect the packages you don't want. Couldn't be simpler.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
Yes, OSX used to be slow, but that's not an issue I've had with Panther.
My computer got 25% faster between 10.2 and 10.3. That's a service pack?
Windows 2000 = WinNT 5.0
Windows XP = WinNT 5.1
Is that a service pack too?
Yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls...
I didn't say it was new.. I said it was being brought to the masses :) This is a Good Thing!! And I'd assume (not having used BeOS) that it does it differently (allowing all types of files to be browsed interactively through a real time search..)
:D
The obvious advantage is that it takes less time to find what you're after - but when hundreds of thousands of users start using this on their desktop, what will be next.. ? Perhaps a move away from straight hyperlinked navigation on the web - perhaps real time searching (as opposed to search engine type searching) for moving around websites may be possible.. ? I would *love* this.. So often I have to drill down through 10 levels of a website to find what I'm after, when a simple Go To: "geforce4 driver linux" or "contact address map" would give me want I wanted straight away...
More exposure to this sort of facility through something like OS X will only spur on development in other areas.. Bring it on
For the last time:
There are more games available for mac than you can ever play in one lifetime.
Yes, you can't build an awesome gaming rig for a cheap, and there are some games that will never make it over. Likewise, you will never be able to play Halo on PS2.
However, thousands of games are ported/written for mac every year, and while the video cards in most macs aren't anything to brag about compared to PC, they'll still play every game that comes out for them.
No, not breakout, or even super-breakout. I'm talking Halo, Unreal Tournament 2k4, Battlefield 1942, Age of Empires II, Dungeon Siege, etc, etc, etc. No, you can't play Counterstrike, but there's a lot more to gaming than CS.
Gah. Yes, buying a mac to do nothing but play games is stupid. However, "I like to play games" is *not* a good reason to not get a mac if the rest of your computing experience is at least as important.
XP is snappier in some ways, but it's also easier to totally grind it to a halt. OS X almost never gets to the point of a frozen UI
Maybe that's because Apple hasn't repeatedly abused the trust of its users and its software doesn't call home without the user's knowlege or consent?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
When launching applications, hard drive speed is the limiting factor. Laptop drives are much slower then those in a desktop. If you want to speed things up just get an external 1394b drive and more memory. Memory is essential because OSX uses a lot of it and more memory prevents VM swapping to the slow laptop drive.
I have the same Powerbook, and upgrading to 1Gig made a noticeable difference. By the way, Safari is under 2 seconds if it has been cached in memory. Granted it's slower when launched for the first time, but this just shows that initializing the app doesn't take long, it's loading it into memory that is the problem. This is a problem for all computers using 2.5" drives.
Why is everyone so concerned with searching for files these days? I honestly don't understand why database like file systems are major features of both Mac OS X and Longhorn. I guess it makes sense if you are talking about someone who is computer illiterate, someone who saves their files wherever the default location is and has no concept of file systems. But I don't think I've had to search for more than three files in the past year. That figure might be slightly affected by the fact that searching for files on Windows is quite slow, but if you just organize your files to start with I don't see what the problem is.
Why would you spend $800 an a 1.25 Ghz (!) machine and even more for 512 MB ram (!!) to do email, internet, documents, etc.? If the "etc" is not too heavy, any second-hand $200 PC or $300 laptop is enough.
Because OS X doesn't run on x86 laptops from 1998, and that's what he wants to run?
Nothing wrong with a 1.2ghz G4 by the way, though I hate to get into the whole 'megahertz myth' argument, so maybe next time.
My dad bought an eMac a few months ago. The extra $200 for a system that runs OS X makes up for the hours I'd have to spend removing spyware, patching, and keeping anti-virus definitions up to date. Not to mention those wonderful moments when nothing but a complete reinstall will do.
OTOH, you might want to take a look at my other post in this article--among professionals, a signifigant number have stuck with OS9 because osx gui etc and overhead is so much heavier than in os9 that programs like photoshop, illustrator, quark, etc run a lot slower.
Part of it is GUI overhead, but a lot of it is probably having a proper scheduler, memory protection, and all the other trappings that go with a modern OS. Plus all the apps are made with higher-level libraries that incur more overhead themselves, but lead to better software in the end. I'll bet Win95 would be pretty snappy on my Athlon too.
See you, space cowboy...
Perhaps the most significant improvement is what seems to be the integration (finally) of complete HFS+ file-system functionality into the mainstay command-line apps such as cp, tar, rsync etc:
It's been a long time coming, but I think finally we have a fully scriptable Mac at all levels of system administration.Anecdotally, I find the interface under OS X to be faster and easier to use, and OS X as an OS considerably more stable. It handles greater loads for longer periods of time than my XP machine at work.
I won't claim that OS X and the iApps are perfect (I file bugs about interface problems all the time), and quite a lot of people don't like the way the finder works, or how the dock is implemented. However, I wouldn't say that XP works 'equally well'. At best, I find it performs adequately well. It manages to stay stable enough for me to do my work for a few days before I NEED to reboot (or it kindly arbitrarily does it for me), but I often find myself looking for menu options that aren't there, or trying to do things that may as well be entirely impossible. (The 'services' menu option that's available in every OS X application by default is something that's terribly useful now and then, and drives me nuts that XP doesn't have.)
In any case, everybody's personal experience is just that - personal. I could contest your points one by one, but I'm not really trying to convince you. I couldn't really let that comment go, though.
Given that I don't think that they work equally well, I would advise potential switchers to find an OS X machine and sit down and see if it does what you want, and if you can live with the differences to XP. As long as OS X stays on this track, I'll never buy another Windows box. I can work faster, longer and more enjoyably on a Mac.
alright, the moderator who modded this interesting should be shot, hung up by his balls, fucked in every body cavity by 15 black men, 4 horses, and an elephant, then finally defenestrated on a cliffside falling a very steep 3km into shark infested waters. ITS FUNNY, NOT INTERESTING. Sheesh.
I'M NOT ANGRY!
Given that both OS have their quirks, given that they both work just about equally well, Mac OS X is still better because it allows you access to the BSD layer. As an added bonus you also get X-11. In other words you get to run all the Mac software and all the nix software you have come to love.
Having said that I do think that OS-X is much better then XP. Expose alone is enough to give it the edge over windows. Once tiger comes out it won't even be close.
evil is as evil does
Actually Macs are a developers dream. They come with Xcode and a gui builder bundled for free. Xcode is a pretty good IDE and the next version (tiger) will be even better. The interface builder is awsome. They also let you program in java and objective-C. Using pyobjc you can even do python development. On top of all that they provide you with a very rich API that takes care of all the hard work.
What they have done now is to make it even easier for ordinary people to write little applets.
If you are kid learning to program I can't think of a better platform for you to learn on.
evil is as evil does
``Actually Macs are a developers dream.''
Oh, yes, I very much agree.
``What they have done now is to make it even easier for ordinary people to write little applets.''
Well, what's easier than designing an interface with Interface Builder, and putting in some Objective-C code to tie it together? Certainly not writing HTML and JavaScript...
``If you are kid learning to program I can't think of a better platform for you to learn on.''
Again, same point. Why is HTML+JavaScript _better_ than Interface Builder + Objective C? Last I checked, Cocoa/ObjC was a lot cleaner than DOM/JavaScript.
As an added benefit, Objective C can use all the system has to offer, rather than some subset of it.
If you really want to describe your user interfaces in XML (like me), you can always use Renaissance. This makes your apps work on GNUStep, too, meaning they can run on Linux, BSD and even Windows systems.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Some things I can't say were related to these displays... There were at least 3 (nda) sessions I attended where I kept thinking mentally. "It's about time. I wonder if the 30" displays made the engineering teams decide to finally add this to Mac OS X". The Mac has always said that they have a well engineered foundation for graphics, but I think making these displays a reality will be a nice impetus for getting some of those ideas out of the realm of theory and into reality as well :-)
These displays are a great thing that will benefit Mac users even if you don't have a 30" display.
I'm guessing that you're talking about resolution independant graphics for GUI elements - Menu bars, buttons, scroll bars... perhaps even icons.
I'm only guessing this because I was bitching to a coworker yesterday that this is a feature that Windows and Mac OS X should have had from the beginning. If I'm right, it's the start of a new age in GUI technology... And it will allow Apple to use super hi-res displays on their laptops without making the OS look stupid (something Sony and Dell don't seem to mind)
___ www.lingo24.com Language and translation solutions - online
...in my opinion, apple would make A LOT more money if they released a PC version of OSX
No, they wouldn't. It would cost much more than $129 because it wouldn't be subsidized by Apple hardware sales. That would drive all the Wintards to pirate it (actually they'd probably still pirate it if it was only $129), making Apple no money. Apple would also see a huge slowdown in sales of their hardware, which is their major source of revenue. In short, releasing a version of OS X that ran on x86 would kill the company. Were you not paying attention in the mid 90's when Mac clones almost killed Apple? Apparently not.
OS X will never, never, never run on any hardware that Apple has not produced-- so surrender the fantasy of running OS X on some homebuilt x86 shitbox, or even a Dell. The major selling point of the Mac is the "it just works" factor-- the tight integration between Apple software and Apple hardware. They won't be able to deliver that if they suddenly have to support hundreds of varieties of commodity hardware flying out of factories in East Bumblefuck, Asia. Microsoft has blown through umpteen billion dollars over damn near twenty years in their attempt to do it, and they still haven't got it right. And if you think Dell would offer OS X as a preload option on their machines, think again. Microsoft would revoke their Windows license in a heartbeat and try to put them out of business.
Apple is a hardware company, period. Their software is just a selling point for their hardware. Look at iTunes and the iTunes Music Store as another example-- iTunes is a free download, and they barely make a profit on the sale of iTMS music. The whole thing is set up to sell iPods, and ideally induce some satisifed iPod buyers to switch to the Mac.