Slashdot Mirror


Tiger's 200 New Features

An anonymous reader writes "If this hasn't already been posted, Apple set up a page listing, by software section, all of the new features for OS X.4, or Tiger. Given that every upgrade touts over a hundred features, it is interesting to see all of the enhancements to this upgrade to see what adopters get out of the box. There are a lot which are tweaks, some new non-Spotlight oriented features and a few that are interesting, mostly security related features. 2 words: stealth mode. "

903 comments

  1. Typical by grennis · · Score: 0, Troll
    If this hasn't already been posted

    Of course it has been posted. But slashdot has shown repeatedly that

    a) they dont mind posting a dupe
    b) they worshipping everything Apple does

    Combine (a) and (b) and you have a serious dupe-fest, which is what we have now.

    1. Re:Typical by justsomebody · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yep, I agree. Just as I agreed with Thurrots review of Tiger,

      It's basically 4 new features, others are just a small case improvements, that probably don't deserve being called feature.

      1/3 of them contains Spotlight (addresses, fonts.... being able to be searched in spotlight? This is one feature not a lot of them).

      Being able to compose HTML mail???

      And after all MacFan bashing over gimp??? GIMP Printer Configuration

      Birthday Calendar ??? New feature????
      Calendar Printing ??? C'mon it's year 2005. Now every calendar software should be able to print

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Typical by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 3, Funny

      Calm down man... Longhorn will be here in... hmmm... sometime. ;)

    3. Re:Typical by mike260 · · Score: 2, Funny

      a) they dont mind posting a dupe

      Neither do Apple - "Scriptable Font Book" counts as two seperate features.

    4. Re:Typical by feldsteins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, right. The Slashdot editors and community is known to fall all over themselves on everything Apple does. Not. Shall I count the number of Mac-related articles that include the obligatory smart-ass line indicating the authors disdain for everything Mac? C'mon. Apple has done really well reaching out to the nerd set over the last few years. What acceptance they've gotten here is well-deserved.

      You want to see slashdot get really stupid? See how everything having to do wth Linux is unquestioningly regarded as The Best Thing Ever.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    5. Re:Typical by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This won't change anything! There is still no software available for Macs! They still can't run:

      1) Netsky-P
      2) Zafi-B
      3) Sasser
      4) Netsky-B
      5) Netsky-D
      6) Netsky-Z
      7) MyDoom-A
      8) Sober-I
      9) Netsky-C
      10) Bagle-AA

      What good are they?

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's over 200 New Features.

      The word Spotlight appears in less than 10% of the features.

      Mail

      HTML Message Composition
      Format newly composed email using HTML.

      Printing

      GIMP Printer Configuration
      Easily set up GIMP Print Drivers, which are installed by default and are configured like any other printer driver.

      iCal

      Birthday Calendar
      Always know the birthdays of everyone in your Address Book with this automatic calendar in iCal.

      Calendar Printing
      Enjoy more sophisticated printing and layout options for your iCal calendars.

    7. Re:Typical by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      -1 Flamebait?

      More like honest criticism, and constructive at that.

      And the GIMP Printer Drivers really don't have much to do with GIMP... it's kind of a new printer driver format.

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    8. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean that the "news" site that uses a shiny nice logo for Apple stories but a ugly, photoshoped Borgified Bill Gates for MS stories is biased?

    9. Re:Typical by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      How about the near daily Google updates? Linux has almost become old news.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    10. Re:Typical by feldsteins · · Score: 1

      Aw, you can't fault them for that. A lot more of the people here actually USE Windows ;)

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    11. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much the editors and posters, the main problem are the moderators. I've seen the parent post go from +5 funny/insightfull to now +1 troll. It appears there are a lot of Apple fans who save their moderation points just for the Apple stories.

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

      There's factually false information in the so-called "honest" criticism. How do you account for that?

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

      I'm sick of Windows always getting the best features.

    14. Re:Typical by mp3phish · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Shall I count the number of Mac-related articles that include the obligatory smart-ass line indicating the authors disdain for everything Mac?

      Please do. It would be interesting to show the number of pro-apple articles posted vs the number of anti-apple articles. You can probably count the latter on one hand in the past year or so. saying that slashdot doesn't have an apple bias is like saying macaddict doesn't have an apple bias. The editors cater to apple enthusiasts and fanboys to gain readership from one of the more outspoken tech crowds. The more apple flamebait they post the more hits they get. Thus their bottom line gets bigger.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    15. Re:Typical by jseale · · Score: 0, Troll
      b) they worshipping everything Apple does

      Of course they do. /. wouldn't have set up an Apple-themed offshoot of this website for nothing, you know.

    16. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they can.

      Haven't you heard of VirtualPC?

      I'm sure it will be even more compatible with the most popular software on Windows such as those you mentioned now that Microsoft bought it from Connectix.

    17. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Even if you are keen advocate of other platforms, isn't it just barely possible that the reason for the Slashdot appreciation for Apple's products represents not an elitism, but an educated choice by an especially educated and specialised community for tools they consider to be the best? Isn't it also possible that the (perhaps true) Slashdot-Apple bias represents the very strongest seal of approval?

      I am not a geek, but a supervisor of geeks. I buy what they recommend. I skim Slashdot now and again to see how you - the expert computer community thinks. More and more, they (you) recommend Apple, for more and more applications and situations. Why would I pay their salaries if I didn't pay attention to their expertise? If a car engineer told me that yes, Mercedes DOES build their cars tremendously well, woudn't I listen?

    18. Re:Typical by meehray · · Score: 1

      I, for one, enjoy /. even more nowadays because we recently got an iBook to test out. So now I have something else to read while /. announces the next critical Windows Update patch.

    19. Re:Typical by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      I think I'll drop the funeral bill for the parent's joke in your mailbox. Pay up.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    20. Re:Typical by Nuuskis · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you can always use VirtualPC to get those lovely little programs run on your mac.

    21. Re:Typical by chochos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the best thing is it will be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever.

    22. Re:Typical by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      I am not a geek, but a supervisor of geeks. I buy what they recommend. I skim Slashdot now and again to see how you - the expert computer community thinks. More and more, they (you) recommend Apple

      You post just lost all creadability with that statement. Sorry.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
  2. Wrong intro by NorthDude · · Score: 2, Funny

    If this hasn't already been posted

    I think you really meant : "If this has already been posted"! :-P

    O yeah, My first first post maybe?

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
    1. Re:Wrong intro by puiahappy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Insted of making a corection to the way other people spell english maybe you shuld contribute whit something intresting and more related to the news. Btw. here you can find a detailed list of the new features, whit screenshots, which i think the most intresting is the new Safari web browser whit built in RSS, is not a new thing in browsers but i think this is the first time a built in browser has this feature.

      --
      Think like a hacker, act like a hacker, but never become a hacker !
    2. Re:Wrong intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should spend some skill points in "comprehension" and "sense of humour". His comment has gone so far over your head it's not funny.

      Also, the fact that someone modded him troll shows that your malady is not unique.

    3. Re:Wrong intro by NorthDude · · Score: 5, Funny

      First of all, it was not really a correction of its spelling. More of a rework of its structure. My previous post, you see, was a simple joke about slashdot posting so many dupes. I know, I know, those jokes are getting old these days but I just got out of bed, am on a hangover, have not yet drank any coffee, and found it quite funny anyway.


      So now, In an attempt to calm down the moderators, I'll post another joke (ripped from a newsgroup):

      Linus Torvalds, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates are gathered one night, when an angel miraculously appears. The angel grants them each one question.

      Linus goes first, asking, "Tell me how long it will be before Linux is completely secure and the last bug is squashed." The angel looks into the future, and then answers, "It will be 10 years before Linux is completely secure and the last bug is squashed." Linus chokes up, sheds some tears, and laments, "I may not even live to see it."

      Then Jobs steps forward and asks, "Tell me how long it will be before the MacOS is completely secure and the last bug is squashed." The angel looks into the future, and then answers, "It will be 20 years before Mac OS is completely secure and the last bug is squashed." Jobs chokes up, sheds some tears, and laments, "I may not even live to see it."

      After a while, the two turn to Gates, who is shuffling around and staring at the ground mumbling. "Well, Bill, aren't you going to pose your question?" they ask him. "Oh, all right," he says with annoyance, "How long will it be before Windows is completely secure and the last bug is squashed?" The angel looks into the future, then looks further, then ... the angel chokes up, sheds some tears, and laments, "I may not even live to see it."

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    4. Re:Wrong intro by puiahappy · · Score: 1

      This is a very good one, i think after reading this we shuld all forget your first post. :)

      --
      Think like a hacker, act like a hacker, but never become a hacker !
    5. Re:Wrong intro by peebeejay · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I have no plans to forget the first post. I just wish I had some points to mod it back up! What's wrong with (or should I say "whit") calling people for writing illogically? Spelling, grammar, and sentence structure are vital to the process of communication, and it's a testament to the human brain that we are able to decode some of the language that gets posted here in spite of the errors. If you people wrote code this way, we'd have no software!

      And I am no stickler. I just want to defend someone who had a legitimate question about the meaning of another post.

    6. Re:Wrong intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God, can you people not read?

      His "correction" is no correction at all. No-one called anyone out for a spelling mistake, puiahappy just went off on his own personal crusade without bothering to pay attention to what was actually posted (gee, did I just describe 80% of slashdot?).

  3. Awsome. by Pooldraft · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems to run a bit quicker with every release, unlike my poor SP2 machine. Go OSX.

    1. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      SP2 doesn't slow your system down. You've most likely got a shitty and/or slow machine.

    2. Re:Awsome. by Rico_Suave · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering how horribly slow 10.0 was, it could only get faster.

    3. Re:Awsome. by volkris · · Score: 1

      *shrug*

      XP runs slower on my machine.

      That's all the substantiation I need.

    4. Re:Awsome. by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There IS a *slight* *unnoticable* performance hit due to the added security checks in SP2. You'd probably have to run a series of benchmarks to tell its there though. Mac OS X 10.0 was so horribly slow that they have managed to make it noticably faster each release. Kind of telling of Apple's software quality.

    5. Re:Awsome. by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      An SP2 should be blazingly fast. Just get the HIPPI interconnect, upgrade to Nighthawk nodes, and install AIX 5.

      Oh wait, Windows SP2. Nothing to be done for that. Sorry.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    6. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) There is absolutely no substantiation to the comment that Windows XP hasn become "slower" over time. It's convenient FUD from the uneducated, nothing more.

      It's pretty well documented that SP2 runs slower than SP1 or vanilla XP.

    7. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they'd switch from Objective-C to C++, Tiger would be one of the fastest OSes out there. Certainly faster than XP. It's too late for that change though.....

    8. Re:Awsome. by MemoryDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually Windows becomes slower over time, the reason for this, is that Windows has a much tighter integration of the libraries. Once programs start to dump stuff into the system more and more libs are loaded into ram dependend on each other, never to be released, another reason is that versioning is done within the COM objects themselves instead of going the naming mechanism unix does, which means, with every update you basically load another bunch of new minor versions with every com object into never to be properly releasead also.

      Add to that the usual slow down problems like virus scanners, software firewalls, application preloaders etc... and you can see the speed going down the drain.

    9. Re:Awsome. by i_finally_got_an_acc · · Score: 1

      Have you ever installed XP on a crawling win98 machine? It's absolutely amazing. It's like a whole new computer. It goes from being slow, clunky, chuggy, to fast and responsive. I've done this a number of times (people pay me to give new life to their old machines), and the results amaze me every time.

      --
      "I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove."
    10. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What??? What does language choice have to do with anything?

    11. Re:Awsome. by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1
      Hae you ever done a clean load of 98 on the crawling 98 machine? It runs better than XP! On the hardware of (most of) those machines, 98 is the best option. XP just bogs down all the ones I've tried it on.

      P.S.: People pay me to fix their computers, too.

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

      Dumbass. Of course moving from a spyware infested, virus-ridden piece of crap 98 install to a fresh, clean XP install will make the computer feel faster. So would cleaning all the shit off the 98 box. Not that 98 was anything to write home about, but it was certainly faster than XP on identical hardware, in my experience.

      While we're at it, what the FUCK is up with all the shit that comes with OEM installs? I boot the computer for the first time, and I have watch the damned computer throw ads at me from every corner of the screen. It takes me another half hour to turn all the shit off and get the system usable again. Some people really just need to be slapped. That is all.

    13. Re:Awsome. by Rico_Suave · · Score: 1

      Care to link to some of that documentation?

    14. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well. No. But I do think it shows that the original OS-X was rushed out the door long before it should have been. The same thing every slams Microsoft for...

      Why was it, then? Because Perfect is the enemy of good. No matter how much testing you do, you'll never be able to get everything without real world experience. XP SP2 is significantly better than XP, and that would be true no matter how long Microsoft held back and internally tested XP. Similarly, OS X.4 is better than OS X.0, and that'd be true no matter how long they internally tested OS X.0...

    15. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Apple's speed increases come from better code optimization.

    16. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, because 98 just chokes on large hard disks, has a shitty auto-corrupting filesystem, and really has no idea of what to do with more than 128MB of RAM. On the machines I owned of that vintage, Windows NT4 and 2000 always felt "snappier" and more stable than 98.

    17. Re:Awsome. by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      fair enough. But 2000 is much less a resource hog than XP. They're different animals on that kind of hardware

    18. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You had two choices for a meaningless kneejerk karma attempt and thought you'd go with both. Good for you! It's a damn shame you can't lose double the karma.

      If you had paid the $129 for each release you wouldn't be disappointed. 10.0 was so much better than OS 9 it was night and day. I wouldn't touch a Mac with OS 9. 10.1 and 10.2 both delivered useful features and speed improvements. 10.3 I was less impressed with, but 10.4 - Tiger - is quite amazing. You'll probably never know since you criticize without knowledge but even Spotlight would be enough to justify a point release like this. Microsoft may one day deliver this kind of thing, perhaps in three years with Longhorn, but it will only work if you go and fill out all the metadata required to make it work - or if developers submit to Microsofts edicts regarding schemas and do it for you. Spotlight works on existing data such as EXIF data...

      The No. 1 thing that tossers like you need to do is think about FUD. What does FUD mean? The answer is "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" - coined by those critical of IBM's habit of asking "is it compatible?". You use it when you mean "misinformation" because you think it's what clever people on Slashdot do, but you only show yourself to be a fool. You also probably mean "no truth TO the comment" or "no substantiation FOR the comment" than "substantiation to the comment" but let's work on the easy fixes first.

      And by the way you're wrong - NT ran faster than 2000 ran faster than XP ran faster than XP SP1 ran faster than XP SP2. It's inevitable that as features are glommed onto an existing code base that at its core is not being improved that it goes slower. If your hardware upgrades are giving you the impression that things are becoming faster overall, you're lucky, but you're also paying for it, and probably a lot mroe than you think Apple users pay as a premium for getting hardware that "just works (tm)".

      The core of OS X is being continually improved - and if you like you can verify this yourself, with diffs of the Open Source "Darwin" project. That's what is at the heart of OS X. Microsoft don't let you do that.

      Apple users tend to stick with the same hardware for a longer time in part because new machine are announced less often but also because since OS X the speed of new releases on the same hardware have improved, and upgrades have been less necessary.

      How appropriate that you name yourself theborg, stephenjborg@gmail.com. How funny if it's also your real name.

    19. Re:Awsome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried XP SP2 and OSX 10.3 on this machine and can safely say that OSX was definitely slower.

      Or maybe PearPC was at fault? :]

  4. Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 2, Funny
    You guys might all be excited by Spotlight and Dashboard, blah blah blah... But personally I'm really excited for the "Programmer Base 10 math Calculator".

    This new feature allows you to use different systems like base 8 or hexadecimal. Take that Microsoft.

    1. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by imsabbel · · Score: 0

      Was this supposed to be a joke?
      Or didnt you notice that the windows calculator does this if switched to scientific mode since win95?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shall I say it?

      Wooooosh

    3. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1
      $ gforth
      Gforth 0.6.2, Copyright (C) 1995-2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
      Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
      Type `bye' to exit
      on my Mac does that for years ;)
    4. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by scribblez · · Score: 1

      yea it's a joke... and I like it! w00t

      --
      "What seems to be the problem, osciffer?" (pronounced aus-if-fer.. bah forget it)
    5. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Bah. I've been using PowerMops for that since before there was gforth for the mac.

    6. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      calc.exe in Windows has done this since at least Windows 95, possibly earlier. All you have to do is switch it to Scientific mode and it supports binary, decimal, octal and hexidecimal. Microsoft also released a graphing calculator as a part of the Windows XP "PowerToy" collection which does this as well as measurement conversions, stored functions, 512 bit floating point resolution, X/Y and polar graphs.

    7. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Apple-Option-O-F?

      --
      Why not fork?
    8. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to boot the useless graphical MacOS, yes ;)

    9. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The joke ---> .

      o
      You ---> \|/
      |
      / \

    10. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by amdg · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something? Why is Apple calling this a new feature for Tiger? I can do this now with Panther's calculator. Try it yourself! Look for "Display Format" in the Calculator view menu.

      I'm excited for Tiger and all that but I think that list is a bit inflated.

      Tiger: Now with 200^W 199 new features!"

    11. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by alanQuatermain · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's most certainly not the same thing as you can get in Panther. This calculator is designed to be helpful for the average programmer, so it includes:
      1. oct/dec/hex buttons (not just menu items)
      2. A 64-bit binary readout just under the main readout pane (this can be hidden, also)
      3. Buttons to switch the binary readout between 1's and 2's complement representation
      4. Buttons for common programming operations, such as:
        • AND, OR, NOT, XOR
        • Bit-shift left, bit-shift right (also as Y<<X and Y>>X)
        • Rotate Left and Rotate Right
        • Byte Flip and Word Flip (for help with big/little endian issues)
      5. ASCII or Unicode representation of whatever value you enter (especially useful for decoding the Mac's OSType values, which are written as four ASCII chars to produce a 32-bit value, i.e. 'APPL', 'ecom', etc.)
      6. Menu option to choose precision between 0 and 16 bits [digits?]
      7. Menu option to use Reverse Polish Notation (been too long since I studied CS, can't even remember what this should do or look like now - changes '=' button to 'enter', though)
    12. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      "Menu option to use Reverse Polish Notation (been too long since I studied CS, can't even remember what this should do or look like now - changes '=' button to 'enter', though)"

      Hurray!, Amen! and Hallelujah!

      RPN built in to the Mac calculator!

      The 'millennium' *HAS* now arrived!

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    13. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      $ gforth
      Gforth 0.6.2, Copyright (C) 1995-2003 Communist Party, USA
      Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO PAYCHECK; for programmer unemployment and starvation pics, type `license'
      Type `bye' to exit
    14. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      You're preaching to the wrong choir here ;)

      Unlike RMS, I'm a firm proponent of the existence commercial software, as long as data and exchange formats are open. GForth, like many (older) GPL projects, however, is a community project, created by some Forthers, so everyone (including themselves) can use a free, portable Forth. As such, it's very good and I'm very happy that it exists.

      You're free to create your own competing program and sell it. So, not everybody who uses the GPL is Communist.

    15. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by damiena · · Score: 0

      Just for reference:

      Reverse Polish Notation

      Basically, it's just operands first, then operationsn

    16. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by sr180 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Menu option to use Reverse Polish Notation (been too long since I studied CS, can't even remember what this should do or look like now - changes '=' button to 'enter', though)

      Reverse polish notation is stack like...

      Consider

      5 x (2+3) = 25

      In reverse polish notation, it is represented as:

      5 enter 2 enter 3 enter + x

      Simply,

      enter adds the previous number to the stack.
      + removes the top two numbers from the stack, performs an addition operation on them and returns the result to the stack.
      x peforms the same function as + but using multiply instead of addition.

      Hopefully this clears some of it up for you...

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    17. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by __aajqwr7439 · · Score: 1

      PLEASE tell me that this is the beginning of the /. ASCII reenactment players!

      The need is great.

      DN

    18. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Rauser · · Score: 1

      RPN on macs--it looks like the Apple / HP collaboration has finally started to pay off!

      My HP48SX might get jealous though...

      --
      The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    19. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enter adds the previous number to the stack.

      You should be more precise -- enter *pushes* the number to the stack.

    20. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      o
      \|/
      The joke --> (%)
      / \

      (Danger Will Robinson! Your penis and balls are too small!)

    21. Re:Programmer Base 10 math Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      6. Menu option to choose precision between 0 and 16 bits [digits?]

      This is a longstanding and fundamental flaw of the OS X calculator. It does not use arbitrary precision algorithms, so you get to choose IEEE floating point precision. (Something, by the way, you should never use in a financial calculation, yet this is probably what the majority of calculations performed on OS X's calc are used for.) A while back there was an article on the calculator's poor ability to perform conversions between very large and very small units (miles to square inches in this case.)

      This flaw makes it unreliable for financial, very large, and very small calculations, including a variety of conversions.

      If you are attempting to generate 60 frames per second of 3D graphics, the performance penalty of arbitrary precision is not tolerable. The use cases for a desktop calculator have more than enough cycles to handle this even on the most pathetic machines.

      The fact that Apple is shipping a calculator utility in 2005 without an arbitrary precision engine is just embarassing. Ironically, the command line arbitrary precision calculators 'bc' and 'dc' are both available from the Terminal where the average user is least likely to benefit.

  5. Coincidence? by empty+drum · · Score: 5, Funny
    Every time Apple improves upon OSX, Microsoft delays the release
    of Longhorn another 6 months.

    Coincidence?

    I think not!

    :)

    --
    Creative Commons music that doesn't suck: emptydrum.com
    1. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Coincidence?

      Actualy it never happened. M$ schedules are moved back and forth with their progress on .Net and WinFS (which depends on .Net progress). WinFS has nowhere near such little goals as Spotlight (remember Spotlight is desktop utility, while M$ is trying to make WinFS client/server capable).

      I'm neither WinFanBoy nor MacFanBoy (I hate both). Own G5 and G4. Own windows too. But avoid them if only possible.

      Features like WinFS are being on M$ table much longer then from 10.3 to 10.4. It's Apple who is copying not M$.

      M$ has promised this feature back in 2002 (if we forget Cairo failure). Oulook can print calendars and compose HTML mail. And spotlight is the only real change in Tiger. Safari RSS? I still think it is better to keep RSS separated from browser. Tried this feature in Tiger preview and it has't converted me. I still use liferea on linux and freereader (haven't tried thunderbirds feature of this) on windows (every time once a month that I boot in Windows).

      Now name another, that is not present in XP (or can be added with completely free software). Almost everything there is a free replacement. So who is copying?

      God, I can't believe I was commenting favorable to M$??? Well, that's a first one for me:)

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Coincidence? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny
      Every time Apple improves upon OSX, Microsoft delays the release
      of Longhorn another 6 months.

      Don't forget removing 5 more features. :-P
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so to anihilate Microsoft all we have do is persuade Apple to up the release cylce to every 6 months or so Mewhahahahahahaha

    4. Re:Coincidence? by dirty · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure SpotLight is a bit more than a desktop utility. It does live indexing which would need some hooks into the OS to know when files are changed, either that or it would re-index everything constantly, which would suck.

      --

      -matt
    5. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Never argued how integrated it is, it probably is very well, that's one of the features of closed software. But it is still not client/server, which it makes desktop and as such much simpler piece of code.

      M$ is making WinFS client/server capable, which is a lot bigger plan.

      Reindexing constantly is not needed, that is why kernel hooks for watching file system serve. You just hook on notifications and process when and where changes occur.
      Second whing you need is that filetype is supported and provides possibility to describe it self.

      Having everything working on client/server is a completely different case. You have to take case of privileges, network locations and client cooperation. If you do something on neighbours computer and store there?

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    6. Re:Coincidence? by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      WinFS has nowhere near such little goals as Spotlight (remember Spotlight is desktop utility, while M$ is trying to make WinFS client/server capable).

      M$ has promised this feature back in 2002 (if we forget Cairo failure).

      Apple already had fast client/server search capability in 1999, with Mac OS 8.5. The old version of Sherlock running on an AppleShare file server could index the content of server volumes, and those indices could be used by the copy of Sherlock running on the client machines, if the user wanted the network volumes searched for something by content. The only difference is, the drive indexing did not occur in real time, it would have to be updated at intervals to remain useful.

      This feature is not mentioned on either the OS X Client or OS X Server feature list page, but I would not be surprised to see it appear in a future point release of Tiger-- especially since the features pages says Spotlight in 10.4 can index and search a network home directory. Adding server volumes is the logical next step.

      ~Philly

    7. Re:Coincidence? by beelsebob · · Score: 1
      Actualy it never happened. M$ schedules are moved back and forth with their progress on .Net and WinFS (which depends on .Net progress). WinFS has nowhere near such little goals as Spotlight (remember Spotlight is desktop utility, while M$ is trying to make WinFS client/server capable).

      Actually... Microsoft axed the client server capability bit, while Spotlight *can* search network volumes :)

    8. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 0

      Searching network volumes and client/server is not the same. It just means that every computer has to index network volumes for its self, while client/server is just running query and getting result

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    9. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 0

      Apple already had fast client/server search capability in 1999, with Mac OS 8.5

      Yeah, and it was the first extension turned off. It was running up to 4 hours until canceled. No live results.

      How do you compare this with WinFS, Spotlight, Beagle? It is completely different topic, accidentaly having the "SEARCH" word in common

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    10. Re:Coincidence? by sambira · · Score: 1

      You forget. The Longhorn release date is set.. What is that, May, 2006? And they will go out whether it works, or NOT!!!!!! It has been decreed from on high.

      : )

    11. Re:Coincidence? by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Informative

      It just means that every computer has to index network volumes for its self,

      No it doesn't, it means the server creates the index of its volumes and the client machines have access to that index. As I said in another post in this thread, Apple was doing that back in 1999 with Sherlock, except the index was separate instead of part of the file system, and the indexing ran at intervals instead of happening in real time.

      ~Philly

    12. Re:Coincidence? by znu · · Score: 1

      Spotlight can search network-based home directories.

      Given the way it works, it doesn't seem like there are any really major technical barriers to giving Spotlight full client/server support. When the user queries against a network volume, just send the query to the server. The server searches the part of its local file system which corresponds to the share the user has mounted, and returns all the files the user has permission to see. Spotlight already understands and respects permissions (unlike, say, Google Desktop Search), and can be told to only search a subset of the file system. So really, this doesn't seem very complex.

      Now, if you want Spotlight to work for, for instance, SMB shares, that might be problematic. But is WinFS going to support that anyway? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing Microsoft would be very interested in supporting.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    13. Re:Coincidence? by phillymjs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, and it was the first extension turned off. It was running up to 4 hours until canceled. No live results.

      On a server, you scheduled it to run at midnight, and who gave a shit how long it took to run? That was only for the initial indexing, anyway-- subsequent updates of an existing index took much less time.

      How do you compare this with WinFS, Spotlight, Beagle? It is completely different topic, accidentaly having the "SEARCH" word in common

      It's not a completely different topic, it is exactly on topic-- you were trying to say that some aspects of WinFS were Microsoft's idea first, and I called you on it by showing that Apple did them in 1999. And yes, the way they did it had shortcomings, but that doesn't change the fact that they accomplished it 6 years ago. Now Apple is improving and reviving those features in OS X, while Microsoft has stricken WinFS from the feature list of their newest version of Windows, AGAIN.

      ~Philly

    14. Re:Coincidence? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      WinFS has nowhere near such little goals as Spotlight (remember Spotlight is desktop utility, while M$ is trying to make WinFS client/server capable).

      Client/server capable? Do you mean sending around meta data? If so, realize that even in the mid-90s, when people were dying for long file names, it still took a few years before long file names were standardly supported in most applications on the x86 PC. Assuming meta data is a hit (which I doubt), it'll again be a few years for such support to be widespread in programs, especially as a lot of protocols will have to be rewritten to support it.

      Now, you may ask why I think meta data won't be a big hit. In simple terms, meta data fails for two primary reasons. One, most people are too lazy to fill in every bit of information on a file; this means it'll primarily be the paid-for products and the warez products that'll be tagged. Two, since this meta data is primarily for searching, there's no known way to compute context to really make good use of the meta data; you basically need to know the filename already to search. Google only works well because it uses references. Spotlight probably has the same failings I mentioned above as WinFS meta data, unless it's using a frequently updated synonym/relationship database for the words entered/matched against.

      And just a small FYI, the idea of extra meta-data is pretty old (OS/2 v3 had extended attributes in '94). Of course, searching it was another matter. But locate/updatedb are copyright 1989-2005, so the idea of at least some metadata (filenames) being easily accessible isn't a new idea either. The only things Cairo seems to be is a joining of the two ideas, which seems pretty obvious. It's so obvious I really question if Cairo was the first to suggest it. So far, BeFS is the only filesystem I've heard of that actually implements all this.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    15. Re:Coincidence? by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      I believe the point is that Spotlight is an evolution of an Apple technology that existed prior to M$ even conceiving WinFS, contrary to your earlier statement that Apple were copying M$.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    16. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Taliban were making fun of the "big and slow" US army right before they were obliterated? When Longhorn does get released no one will remember those "inbetween years" when Linux and OSX gained a one percent marketshare. ;)

    17. Re:Coincidence? by Durandal64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Never argued how integrated it is, it probably is very well, that's one of the features of closed software. But it is still not client/server, which it makes desktop and as such much simpler piece of code.
      What do you mean, it's not "client/server"? Metadata can easily be transferred among machines running Tiger.
      M$ is making WinFS client/server capable, which is a lot bigger plan.
      And currently, a plan that is vaporware.
      Reindexing constantly is not needed, that is why kernel hooks for watching file system serve. You just hook on notifications and process when and where changes occur.
      Which is exactly how Spotlight works. There is an initial indexing period, and that's it. Applications which support Spotlight directly will write metadata automatically when saving their files, and plug-ins for applications that do not (like Word) will be notified when that app saves a file and then write the appropriate metadata out.
      Second whing you need is that filetype is supported and provides possibility to describe it self. Having everything working on client/server is a completely different case. You have to take case of privileges, network locations and client cooperation. If you do something on neighbours computer and store there?
      Of course you need supported file types. The operating system isn't psychic. In the case of unrecognized types, only basic metadata (like Date Created, Date Modified, etc ...) will be written out. But I still can't decipher what this "client/server" rambling of yours actually means.
    18. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Apple can keep up a 6-month upgrade cycle, Longhorn will never come out?

      I'd keep buying a new OS X for that.

    19. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      200 new features in Tiger, 5 less features in Longhorn multiplied by 6 months delay...

      We should be able to get Windows XP SP2 in 20 years. Cool!

    20. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Ok, Norton Utilities Fast find for windows 3.1 if you'd like to play like that

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    21. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope, client also has to post his index to server. And index of network volumes was local on OS8.x

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    22. Re:Coincidence? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, it's not "client/server"? Metadata can easily be transferred among machines running Tiger.

      True, if you don't care about security, whole thing would be simple. Client/server demands a bit more than plain metadata

      Here I was explaining difference between client/server and spotlight (being able to access network drives)

      And currently, a plan that is vaporware.

      Based on what, I hate M$ and I'm developer, but after reading their papers, I must admit it is not bad in design

      Reindexing constantly is not needed, that is why kernel hooks for watching file system serve. You just hook on notifications and process when and where changes occur.

      Which is exactly how Spotlight works. There is an initial indexing period, and that's it. Applications which support Spotlight directly will write metadata automatically when saving their files, and plug-ins for applications that do not (like Word) will be notified when that app saves a file and then write the appropriate metadata out.

      Second whing you need is that filetype is supported and provides possibility to describe it self. Having everything working on client/server is a completely different case. You have to take case of privileges, network locations and client cooperation. If you do something on neighbours computer and store there?

      Of course you need supported file types. The operating system isn't psychic. In the case of unrecognized types, only basic metadata (like Date Created, Date Modified, etc ...) will be written out.


      Now this bugs me, did you wanted to confirm what I said about how spotlight works? I was commenting difference between spotlight, beagle... against older search engines.

      But I still can't decipher what this "client/server" rambling of yours actually means.

      Being able to access to network search based on the network system policies, where clients store their queries (again with network system policies, some parts of your metadata should be visible for you from anywhere, but JoeSixPack shouldn't even get them visible as possible results) on server (if server is present).

      That maybe?

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    23. Re:Coincidence? by mellon · · Score: 1

      Longhorn is actually a picture in Mac OS X's closet...

    24. Re:Coincidence? by Durandal64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Being able to access to network search based on the network system policies, where clients store their queries (again with network system policies, some parts of your metadata should be visible for you from anywhere, but JoeSixPack shouldn't even get them visible as possible results) on server (if server is present).
      Tiger's metadata is stored on a directory-by-directory basis. In other words, if I mount a share point from a Tiger server on my Tiger client, I can only search metadata in that share point. So, if you don't have read access to a directory, you don't have read access to its metadata either. Queries aren't stored on the server, but the metadata associated with a share point is stored on the server, not duplicated by the client.
    25. Re:Coincidence? by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Nope, client also has to post his index to server.

      Why? Isn't the idea that all data is stored on the server?

      Also, posting a local machine's index to the server would have been asinine in OS 8.x. If any shared volume on any machine was indexed by Sherlock, you could use that index in a search simply by mounting the volume on your machine.

      ~Philly

    26. Re:Coincidence? by phillymjs · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with anything? Norton Utilities is not bundled with/part of the OS. Sherlock was.

      And Norton Utilties for the Mac had existed in 1991 and had Fast Find as well, I had it on my first Mac back then.

      ~Philly

    27. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to hear the latest bull? A Tiger with real balls is about to 'steer' Longhorn in a new direction.

    28. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have never played in the mac market. Yes large applications may not take advantage of all the technology available under the hood of OS X, but OS X's developer community is propelled forward by the lifeblood that is Cocoa developers. Cocoa developers are the new guys that are fillig sufficient needs in the Mac market.

      Applications liek NetNewsWire, Transmit, even Escape Velocity, and Omniweb leverage Cocoa. Cocoa small ISVs like Delicious Monster are the new hotness that make amazing software that matches Apple's skill in crafting quality UI because more time can be focused on useability and less time on program logic.

      You say that it will take forever for Spotlight metadata to catch on, but that isn't true, anyone can write a metadata importer for any format assuming they know how to extract whatever data they find interesting. I work on three different Open Source Cocoa applications and all of them already have Spotlight data importers written and waiting for the release of Tiger.

      You also speak as if the burden of file metadata is on the user, but in fact it is on the application or file itself to provide. For example, in one importer for IRC logs, the metadata extracted is server, username, room members, and conversation start/end. The user didn't fill any of that out, because it was part of the file itself, but now when he remembers that little gem user foo said, he can do a quick spotlight search and have that log show up.

      Spotlight works well because of the way it interrogates the data given to it, and searches for pure textual matches from teh data provided. Hence why a picture of paris can be turned up when a search for paris is done despite teh file being called really_annoying_french_town.pdf.

      P.S. the author of BeFS himself works for Apple.

    29. Re:Coincidence? by netsrek · · Score: 1

      The metadata is stored in a directory.

      If the user(s) have write access to the sharepoint, the metadata each user creates by virtue of indexing will be shared amongst users.

      if not, the metadata gets stored locally.

      Not true client/server, but it's similar to the old way Sherlock did it, just fast. :)

      --

      i don't read slashdot anymore.
    30. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotlight is nothing like WinFS. It's closer to MS Index Server, which shipped for WinNT before MacOS 8.5 came out.

      MS Office Fast Find did something similar, but I believe that shipped for both Mac and Windows at about the same time in the mid 90s.

    31. Re:Coincidence? by master_p · · Score: 2, Funny

      So Microsoft has fallen into a Duke-Nuke'm style situation, right?

    32. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh yeah, I'm just going to leap at the chance to get DRM applied to every piece of media on my machine. That will be so great!

    33. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you had to love MS's reaction to Spotlight: "Quick, go buy something that looks like it does that!"

  6. Stealth mode?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stealth mode?!

    Oh yeah, like Zone Alarm and every other Windows firewall since forever hasn't been able to do this.

    1. Re:Stealth mode?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Windows does it out of the box? If so, why do you need those firewalls?

    2. Re:Stealth mode?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes! Windows XP does. With Windows XP, there is no need for third party firewalls.

      Why is it that zealots, such as yourself, are only wiling to compare new products, like OS X, with Windows 95 rather than Microsoft's new product, Windows XP?

      Nat Friedman said it at BrainShare 2005 and it never ceases to amaze me, most Linux users bashing Microsoft haven't used Windows since Windows 95. Here comes the clue train, there have been a few changes.

    3. Re:Stealth mode?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a firewall, does it stealth (IMHO, stealth doesn't mean much more than "closed" anyway, there's no real gain)

    4. Re:Stealth mode?! by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With PCs it's somewhat a matter of survival - if a malicious hacker finds your windows box, well, it's his.

      With Macs, it's simply a matter of privacy. And tiger does this out of the box, no need to buy any additional software as you point out.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:Stealth mode?! by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Panther could do this too; after all, it uses ipfw. But Tiger just adds it to the graphical interface for the firewall.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    6. Re:Stealth mode?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if a malicious hacker finds your windows box, well, it's his

      I see you're a dumb, unintelligent mac user who can't figure out to install OS updates, so your Windows box is naturally unsecure.

      Dumbass.

    7. Re:Stealth mode?! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      With Macs, it's simply a matter of privacy. And tiger does this out of the box, no need to buy any additional software as you point out.

      It's not like there aren't security holes in OSX (Apple has released plenty of patches). And considering how lax the typical OSX user is at applying those patches, I would say a firewall for OSX is a good thing for most users.

    8. Re:Stealth mode?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This came as a suprise to me. i've been using sunShield for a while now, and it's a great prefs panel app for configuring ipfw. Give it a shot!

    9. Re:Stealth mode?! by diverman · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not so sure about that. Almost every Mac user I know (especially the less technical ones) apply the Software Updates to OS X quite regularly (ie. when they pop-up).

      However, I actually know far more people skeptical and very hesitant to apply their Windows updates because of fear of it ruining their system. Heck, entire corporations banned SP2 until the last minute. Now MS is actually saying that SP2 needs to be applied. I just had a big meeting on the upgrade to SP2.

      So, while I admit their are Mac users that do not apply updates (stupid them), I see it to be far more common (percetage wise) with the Windows users to not apply patches. In each case, the user is at fault... but I wouldn't go using that metric as a comparison of "typical" users, if I were you.

  7. Re:2 words: by Klanglor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    that would be 3 word.

    it is apple ['s is a word too] :P

  8. 200+? by plumby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There looks like there will be some great new features in Tiger, but I think they are stretching it with things like "Import contacts into Address Book in a variety of formats, including tab-delimited and comma-separated text." and "Print a handy pocket address book to take with you anywhere."

    By including this type of thing in the list it threatens to swallow all of the real new features like Dashboard and Spotlight.

    1. Re:200+? by patsalov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of the new features may be a stretch, but you must also admit that there are hundreds of new features in Xcode 2 alone, which is only mentioned once.

    2. Re:200+? by scribblez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yea, but a lot of other companies also stretch their 'features'. You kind of get used to it.

      --
      "What seems to be the problem, osciffer?" (pronounced aus-if-fer.. bah forget it)
    3. Re:200+? by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      your right. but the best new feature IMHO, Core, is not very sexy or easy to explain to the less savvy user. I think its worthy update, but i too find the counting every minor thing as feature to be disingenuous. but thats marketing 101.

    4. Re:200+? by sabinm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I'd be inclined to agree with you on a lot of these points, what I'd add as some justification is that a lot of the features that will be included as _default_ in Tiger are not available by default in a ready-made usable form in windows. A quality photo manager, excellent chat client, a usable mail application, decent file management (the one thing all modern OS lack), dvd playback, multimedia playback suite, all these things microsoft sells as a additional product (did anyone go out and buy XP Plus)? Or you must download or buy as stand-alone anyway. So, yeah. Saves me tons of time and money by purchasing Tiger for the program suite alone, and makes the improvements worth the time, money and effort. (Where I live bandwidth is metered and capped at 2gig so I don't try all the quality free software or even quality commercial downloadable software I want). Once a year and a half I upgrade my OS for a hundred and thirty bucks. I think it's worth it. Plus, I know that if I don't upgrade, no one is slowly trying to push me out of usability of my old programs by making them imcompatible with the next version of whatever the that company decides to push.

      --
      http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
    5. Re:200+? by intmainvoid · · Score: 1
      real new features like Dashboard and Spotlight

      and Automator, kind of like applescript that is actually usable.

    6. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy Printing Supplies
      Easily purchase supplies for your printer right from Mac OS X Tiger.


      Oh, great. Through Apple's choice of vendor, I assume. No wonder operating systems are so bloated these days...

    7. Re:200+? by not_anne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Before Tiger, you could not import tab-delimited or comma-separated files into Address Book. Since most mail programs and address book programs could export as these two formats, this is a big step forward for Address Book.

      These two new features may be minor to you as compared to Spotlight, but for a lot of users, including switchers, these are very important features that they've been waiting for for a long time.

      --
      My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
    8. Re:200+? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 0

      I've seen some pretty irrelevant-looking stuff in there. 64 bit audio format? What the heck? The dynamic range of human hearing is something like 18 bits, I know audio is mastered in 20 or 24 bit. It is physically impossible to reproduce 24 bits per channel audio in the analog world with air, speakers and so on. Recording with much more depth than 20 bits would be just recording more noise, so I don't see the point in going beyond 32 bit even for authoring.

      I think I'll go through the list and try to sort it by relevance.

    9. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! Not a single line of code to redirect you to the Apple Store when you click a button! BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT!

    10. Re:200+? by Nicky+G · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try again -- human hearing isn't measured in bits at all. And a 24-bit and 16-bit audio file can easily be differentiated by anyone with any ear at all. Also, the 64-bit music file seems to be referring more to the size of the file, and how much can be addressed by memory.

    11. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect? This is from a company and a community that touted Expose as a major new feature. Useful? Sure. Major new feature? Get a grip.

    12. Re:200+? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about:

      Dashboard Keyboard Activation Preference
      Easily change the default key that activates the Dashboard.

      That's my favourite so far :)

    13. Re:200+? by plumby · · Score: 1

      The problem is that glancing through the list and seeing this kind of thing, all I think is "oh great, it's adding a load of features that every decent app has had for about 5 years".

      Now, don't get me wrong - I've got a Mac, which I love, and I will probably be upgrading to Tiger at some point, but for non Mac fans, much of the list quite probably looks pretty underwhelming.

    14. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never used Expose - it's the best application switcher ever, and worth probably a quarter of the price of Panther on its own.

    15. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I uprade OS X, I am not always looking for the "big" features. It is all those little things Apple does to make the average user experience just that much simpler and easier to use, and are not often even listed.

    16. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that is bad wait until until you see the marketing spin when Apple decides to move into the late eighties and make a two button mouse. :)

    17. Re:200+? by Council · · Score: 1

      Because bundling applications with an OS is what marks a company we like around here.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    18. Re:200+? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      Actually, TSV and CSV import into Address Book was one of the most requested features on the list. Previously we only imported vCard files, which while great are not that compatible with third-party databases and such.

    19. Re:200+? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    20. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, the best would be

      Buy Printing Supplies
      Easily purchase supplies for your printer right from Mac OS X Tiger.

    21. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait until they move into the late seventies and make a three button mouse.

    22. Re:200+? by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with bundling applications. What we have a problem with is bundling applications and then making it extremely difficult (or impossible) to remove them, especially when doing so will probably void any warranty/support you might've had. With that said, having only used a Mac roughly three times ever, I can't say how easy it is to remove the bundled software...

    23. Re:200+? by midknight32 · · Score: 1

      Some of the things that really impress me, searching and Dashboard aside, are the extensions to the GUi-handled user permissions and proxying.

      Creating limited user accounts is nothing new on the Mac or OSX, and windows has had parental blocklists for IE since, IIRC IE5.

      I can't tell if the methodology for creating the blocklists on the Mac will be easier or harder than IE/win, but unlike my children's w98 box, it will only apple to THEIR accounts.

      The OS will also log all websites visited, will also allow AIM blocklists via iChat, and email blocklists/whitelists for mail, with redirection to the parental accounts for approval.

      It will also log all iChat threads.

      In addition, the previously existing feature of specifying exactly which apps an individual user can and cannot run, are still present.

      I'm tempted to get an mac mini and hand my 400/sawtooth over to the girls...

    24. Re:200+? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      It's trivial.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    25. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzt, wrong. I've used Expose. It's nothing special. Even if it was "the best application switcher ever", it's just an application switcher, FFS. Get over it already.

    26. Re:200+? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 0

      I did not use expose until recently, I now put it onto my middle mouse button (wheel pressed), in combination with that one, it is simply awesome, much better than any taskbar I have ever seen.

    27. Re:200+? by Chmarr · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's trivial.

      And, in addition, what also counts is how the OS supports using applications other than the one shipped with the product.

      With Apple's Safari, Safari's own preferences page allows you to select a different browser as the default to handle HTML pages.

      (And, while that's cool, and demonstrates how Apple aren't trying to tie everyone into their own components, I think it was a dumb way to do it: That particular setting used to be in the System Preferences. Now, you have to open safari to tell the OS that you dont want to use safari. Dumb)

    28. Re:200+? by solios · · Score: 1

      Stuff like that cracks me up. I've been running OS X since Public Beta and have NEVER had a use for Address Book (beyond the extent that certain system tools 'n shizzle mandate) or (after a real, non-shitty Find hit the Finder) Sherlock. Hell, Sherlock's never even been LAUNCHED on this machine.

      Meta-data awareness of certain common CLI apps such as rsync, cp and tar is HUGE, worth the upgrade all by itself, and gets a one-line mention somewhere near the bottom. Ditto for Core Data. And those are, imo, new features. As opposed to improvements on things they've been trying to get right since 10.0.

    29. Re:200+? by telbij · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By including this type of thing in the list it threatens to swallow all of the real new features like Dashboard and Spotlight.

      If you read the overview page or read any of the thousands of reviews around the net you'll get the major features. Of course, everyone here already knows them...

      This is exactly the kind of detailed list that geeks should appreciate. All the Apple haters want to spin it as propaganda, but those of us seriously considering the upgrade might like to know these things. For instance, I don't consider OpenEXR support in Preview to be a major feature by any stretch, but it's something I'll use every day.

      Now if they said 200+ new features and didn't list them then there would be a problem. Let the people judge for themselves I say.

    30. Re:200+? by bayvult · · Score: 1
      Mine is:

      - Control the audio in the DVD player with a powerful equalizer

      An equalizer!.

      Not just an equalizer, an innovation never seen before on a personal computer, but a powerful equalizer! Take that, Redmond, Penguinistas, etc etc.

    31. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It might be half-useful if OS X didn't both hide and minimize windows.

      "Looking for that lost window? Oh, you can't find it in Expose? Well try looking on your Dock... There, I knew you'd find it in the end."

    32. Re:200+? by synx · · Score: 1

      I read a reason for this once, and it makes kinda sense. The idea is that by putting it into syspref, you need a new syspref (system preferences) icon for each kind of 'thing', like one for email, one for web browser, etc... instead by making the individual programs responsible for indicating whom will be called by the os to do things, you don't have to expose lots of things in the syspref. having said that, i think it is confusing, and it should probably stay or move back to the sysprefs.

      -ryan

    33. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not trivial to remove Safari or QuickTime. The core libraries are part of the OS.

    34. Re:200+? by sc00p18 · · Score: 1

      I don't think iphoto comes with Tiger. Other than that, I agree with you.

    35. Re:200+? by plumby · · Score: 1

      You're right, I guess. I think the problem was more the way it's splashed across the Slashdot main page which makes it looks like Apple are making a big deal out of there being 200+ new features.

    36. Re:200+? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Because, obviously you couldn't have a Preference Panel called 'Preferred Applications' or somesuch, could you?

    37. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may not be an important feature to you but I know several journalists and marketing pros that still use the old MacOS 9 "Address Book Plus" program because they've not been able to import their massive address book into the OSX address book.

    38. Re:200+? by telbij · · Score: 1

      Well if you wanna jump on the Slashdot hating bandwagon, count me in :)

    39. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are third party preference panes that do just this, I don't quite understand why Apple doesn't do this.

      Also, to change the application that startups when a digital camera or media from your digital camera is mounted you need to use Image Capture, again, not a straightforward thing either.

    40. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, things like vendor lock-in. Try getting your photos and meta data out of iPhoto sometime :)

    41. Re:200+? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      We recently added RCDefaultApp to our standard build. It's a preference pane that lets you set protocol handlers and edit the default application for each extension. Very handy.

      I just got tired of launching Mail.app every time the system decided one of Entourage's helper apps was the default mailto: handler.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    42. Re:200+? by Squozen · · Score: 1

      It's nothing to do with the bitstream that you listen to as an end-user. Having more bits allows for greater headroom while mixing. Most software has 32-bit precision, Apple improves on this. This is a big deal for film mixing and sound design.

    43. Re:200+? by burns210 · · Score: 1

      iLife '05 ships with all macs, IIRC. So yes, it is a separate entity from the Tiger 10.4 disc if you purchase as an upgrade, but does come with new macs.

    44. Re:200+? by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Webkit is part of the OS, Safari is just an application that uses Webkit's rendering libraries. The only thing I know of as being a problem is that Apple made the moronic decision to place the 'default web browser' setting in Safari's preferences and not in System Preferences... so deleting Safari would get you into trouble there, theoretically.

      Quicktime I can't speak to, but yes, it could get hairy if you just went and deleted it.

    45. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they can't exactly sell yet another point release for $129 if they don't trump up the huge number of new features...

    46. Re:200+? by jcr · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Apple's CoreAudio framework works in 32-bit floating point format until you get to a physical device. So nice not to have to worry about quantization errors until the very end...

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    47. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing libraries with applications. There is no "Safari" library.

    48. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were just a little bit smarter you might realise that people use expose INSTEAD of minimising windows? But thanks for playing.

    49. Re:200+? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      A quality photo manager, excellent chat client, a usable mail application, decent file management (the one thing all modern OS lack), dvd playback, multimedia playback suite,

      Excellence and usability are matters of opinion, but they do include MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player (except where prohibited by antitrust rulings), and pretty much every DVD-ROM drive is bundled with software (the one I recently bought for one of my Linux servers did) so the fact that it's not included with the OS is basically irrelevant.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    50. Re:200+? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I saw several items on that list that specifically address complaints I've had about 10.3 (e.g. iCal birthdays, group management and profile editing in iChat, Safari bookmark search, per-account signatures in Mail).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    51. Re:200+? by Bwanazulia · · Score: 1

      You are missing out.

      Addressbook:
      - Syncs with .Mac and multiple computers
      - Holds pictures, dates
      - Can link people via spouse, relation, etc
      - Can export in vcard
      - Has iChat integration and awareness
      - Has a powerful search
      - Integrates with OSX Mail
      - Syncs with iPod, Palm etc.

      Adding Smart Groups, better imports, more syncing options and better searches makes it better.

      BZ

    52. Re:200+? by burnunit0 · · Score: 1

      Well, right now the address book only imports LDIF and vCards. That pissed me off a great deal, so knowing that .csv is going to be supported is important to me. As it stands, that's one of my top 5 "New Features" (..eatures...eatures...) in this release. Thanks for the great news!

      --
      yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
    53. Re:200+? by Nalkar · · Score: 1

      Unless your refering to Tiger, you still can set the system browser from System Preferences its under the Internet Peference Pane is 10.3.8

    54. Re:200+? by solios · · Score: 1

      My address book a list of phone numbers written on the back of my notebook.

      Nice to know the software is there, on the off chance I'll ever actually need it for anything. :-)

    55. Re:200+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vCard and LDIF.

    56. Re:200+? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. You're right. Prior to Tiger, we imported two largely useless formats. ;-)

    57. Re:200+? by Amorya · · Score: 1

      Any web browser can place the selection menu in their prefs. OmniWeb does.

      Re Quicktime, you can delete the player app just fine. You can't delete the underlying technology, because so much of the OS depends on it.

  9. Burnable folders by digidave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like they took the burnable folder feature straight out of Gnome.(eg. the burn:/// folder in Gnome)

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    1. Re:Burnable folders by Frankie70 · · Score: 1


      Looks like they took the burnable folder feature straight out of Gnome


      Next time, the Gnome people can have billboards like "Cupertino, start your photocopiers".

      But they have to be careful, because Apple being a litigious company, may sue them.

    2. Re:Burnable folders by Shachaf · · Score: 1

      Windows XP does this too.

    3. Re:Burnable folders by remahl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except Apple used this model before. When you insert a CDR, it gets mounted on the desktop and you add to it like you would with any other disk. When you eject it, the contents is burnt.

      The new thing is that "burnable folders" can be at any location in the (user's view of the) file system. At least that's my guess. I'm not familiar with burn:///, but it sounds like it is always in a specific location?

    4. Re:Burnable folders by totoanihilation · · Score: 1

      Actually, ever since OSX has had burning capabilities built-in, we've been able to place a 'burn' button in finder windows. Don't know what they're referring to here.

      Perhaps it's to program a dynamic-contents (a.k.a. spotlight-generated) folder to have that button while other folders don't?

    5. Re:Burnable folders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the world would laugh their asses off at them like everyone is at you retard.

      Apple has had this feature in a different form for a long,long time dumbshit.

    6. Re:Burnable folders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understood why burning a CD in the Finder needed to:

      1. Drag files onto the (virtual) disk to copy (takes ages)
      2. Burn the disc.

      This is very very slow.

      Why couldn't this just work like Toast:

      drag files (just referenced where they are on the file system, not copy them to a new location) and burn !

    7. Re:Burnable folders by macmastery · · Score: 1

      The difference is that it doesn't use a disk image as the backing store any more. This means you can burn a DVD if you have less than 4.7 GB of free space on the hard drive.

      Also, the "burn folder" uses aliases instead of copying files to a temporary "volume". That way it always burns the current version at burn time. Furthermore, you can save it and re-burn it, always with the current version.

    8. Re:Burnable folders by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      probably because it is organizing the files on virtual disk to optimize the files for the disc burning. Same is true when i burn a dvd from DVD Studio pro. I have to build it first. I assume this allows for fewer disk errors, and thus i wont have to burn disk a 2nd time if it fucked up.

    9. Re:Burnable folders by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 1

      At least they got something from Gnome...

    10. Re:Burnable folders by strider44 · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. He means a burn-on-the-fly feature where if you paste a file to that folder it immediately starts burning.

    11. Re:Burnable folders by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not quite the point - burnable folders are persistent and can appear anywhere in your filing system. You create a burnable folder, 'copy' your home directory to it (which actually just leaves a marker to tell it to copy your home dir) and then burn it. Two weeks later you come back to do another backup and the contents of the burnable folder have changed to reflect the contents of your home directory - so you just press burn.

    12. Re:Burnable folders by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
      Except Apple used this model before. When you insert a CDR, it gets mounted on the desktop and you add to it like you would with any other disk. When you eject it, the contents is burnt.

      Yeah, I had to use this the other week when I met up with someone to transfer some sensitive data from their Mac onto my PC. Couldn't just copy it across to my USB flash drive, as the filenames has unsupported characters, so we went the CD option (I'd brought a few blank CDRs in case). All pretty easy to use (similar to XP in fact, but slightly nicer), but of course it didn't actually work. The Mac sat there for ages finalising the disc, and after 20 minutes we killed it.

      I think that's just CD burning - seems like whenever you need to rely on it, it will screw up...damn technology in all its forms!

      Luckily I'm a geek so after a couple of minutes' thought, I made a dmg of the data and copied that onto my flash drive. The Mac didn't have StuffIt on it or anything (only Expander).

      All under intense time pressure too, of course. Damn CD burning. You think they've sorted it all out, then when you really need it, you're back to 1995 levels of reliability again.

    13. Re:Burnable folders by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, Googleing shows nobody seems to be able to make sense of "burn:///", but here's a descriprtion of burnable folders.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:Burnable folders by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      Why would you want it to immediately start burning? I'd think it would be simpler to just load everything you want burned into a location in ram or on disk or whatever and burn it all at once rather that starting, stopping, restarting, etc routine. I must be missing something. :)

    15. Re:Burnable folders by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, burn:/// is a virtual location in the filesystem (eg, it's a "folder" that you can browse with nautilus, but it's not actually mounted into the normal filesystem heirarchy like you'd expect unix to do... This is normal for gnome, it's called the gnome-vfs layer (KDE has something similar called kio_slaves), you get all kinds of fancy stuff like smb:// for browsing windows shares, ftp:// for ftp, etc etc.

      By default, when you put a blank CD in the burner, burn:/// just pops up and then you can drag files into it, and click burn, then it burns.

    16. Re:Burnable folders by solios · · Score: 1

      The big question is "how do these types of folders work on the command line" ? Can I make a "burnable folder" of my dotfiles and ~/Library and make weekly tarballs of that burn folder with a cron job that scp's them to a linux server on the other coast? Can I create these "burnable folders" on the command line?

      And if not, why not? Seems like it would be fantastically useful from an administrative standpoint, for things like automated backups, etc.

    17. Re:Burnable folders by Kesh · · Score: 1

      You gave up too quick. Yes, finalizing takes a while... and then it has to verify the disc, which takes about half-again as long. I've yet to see it actually fail, though.

    18. Re:Burnable folders by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      It didn't say it was verifying. I know finalising doesn't take 20 minutes (if it's working!), which is why I killed it.

      Now, if it was verifying, then it should have told me, in which case...

      Bad OS! Back in your box! :)

    19. Re:Burnable folders by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's exactly what has been in OS X for ages. Burnable folders is something different. You don't have to insert a CD first and they can be dispersed throughout the file system.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    20. Re:Burnable folders by Kesh · · Score: 1
      Right. I'm just saying I've seen finalizing take more than 20 minutes, especially if you're using less than a full CD. I don't know why but it does. Yes, that seems to be a bug. :)

      Still, it seems to work. Just takes a lot longer than it should.

    21. Re:Burnable folders by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Right. It was only about 200Mb on the CD, actually. Maybe they've fixed it now.

      Hey, maybe it's one of the 200 new features? ;-)

      Thanks for the tip though (I may have to do this again in the future).

    22. Re:Burnable folders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, ever since OSX has had burning capabilities built-in, we've been able to place a 'burn' button in finder windows. Don't know what they're referring to here.

      After you tell it you are done picking stuff to burn to disc it asks if you will want to burn that same set to disc again, and if you do it makes a "burn folder" so you can re-burn that same set of things a few more times.

  10. Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's essential for any respectable firewall, and both e.g. Kerio and ZA even for Windows should have this, and both are available in free versions.

    And firewall log?? Hmm, excuse me, but is the news Tiger just got a standard quality firewall or what? That's be more reason to blush than be overjoyed IMHO.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's essential for any respectable firewall, and both e.g. Kerio and ZA even for Windows should have this, and both are available in free versions.

      As usual, the Wintards miss the point. The only firewall you should be comparing is the one that is included with Windows XP, because the firewall in question is included with Tiger. So does the built-in XP firewall have logging and stealth mode?

    2. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by remahl · · Score: 5, Informative

      OS X's firewall is very competent (ipfw). However, Apple's GUI for it was quite rudimentary, for good and for bad. It basically had a button to turn it on or off and one to open ports.

      Most consumer-oriented firewalls overdo the configurability and impose the log on users who would be better of not knowing how many malicious and non-malicious "attacks" are directed towards their computers, as long as the firewall blocks them. It's the attacks that aren't blocked / logged that should be interesting.

      Apple always strives to strike a balance between "user-friendliness" and power. Apparently they decided they should give stealth mode to those who need it and make it easier to view a log.

    3. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by emidln · · Score: 3, Informative

      The news is that they just got built-in tools to configure it. In comparison to Windows, third-party programs have been available to configure (not really install, since OS X uses IPFW from FreeBSD) the firewall in a user-friendly way since its release. The firewall has always been available in OS X, its just that you had to use the UNIX underpinnings or find a third-party program to use advanced features.

    4. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Client firewalls are of limited utility. I don't understand why people bother with them.

      If you need to provide access to a service, then you have to open its matching ports anyway. If you need to protect a port/daemon/service/wakilix from attack, just don't run it. The only reason for a firewall is to protect you when you can't turn one off for some reason, and if that's the case then you're probably using Windows.

    5. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sometimes you need to provide access to a service on one network adapter and not another, and the software in question doesn't provide for that.

      Sometimes there are oversights in software that you need to work around, and a software firewall can help (yes, this mostly applies to windows).

      A client firewall is often more of a hindrance than a help for the experienced user, but you seem to be forgetting that a huge chunk of the world is made up of inexperienced users.

    6. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Bastian · · Score: 1

      If you need to protect a port/daemon/service/wakilix from attack, just don't run it.

      On a certain unnamed desktop operating system which happens to be getting a lot of press lately and which isn't Windows, it isn't always so easy to "just don't run" services you don't want, either. And I think you forgot the "threat from inside" angle. I think one of the big reasons for personal firewall software that you overlooked is to keep things from getting out. Maybe I don't want any spyware that manages to get a foothold on my computer to be able to phone home. Plus, most 3rd-party personal firewall software that I've seen gives you the ability to grant permission to use a port to some programs but not others, or to grant temporary permission to use a port to a program - nice for giving the user some modicum of protection without interrupting some wanted service. And no, there aren't any major problems with spyware and viruses on said desktop operating system yet, but you can bet your ass that they are coming. Some of us like to put our raincoats on before we step outside.

    7. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by pla · · Score: 1

      OS X's firewall is very competent (ipfw).

      So competent (hmm, I know it technically works, but why does that word seem somehow wrong here?) that you need to manually tell it to use a shabby hack to pretend it has stateful rules?

    8. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      What services that require network access can't be turned off?

      The first thing I did when I got my new Mac was hook it up to the LAN and port scan the sucker. Took 15 minutes, and not a damn thing was open.

    9. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by nahdude812 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, yours is an optomistic view. Refreshing :-).

      The idea isn't to protect against attack on all those services you have running but don't use, it's to minimise potential damage if you are compromised. If the firewall blocks port 31337 on a windows box, and BackOrifice gets installed, the user is compromised but not exposed.

      Also, as another user mentioned, there's the issue of spyware that might set up a listening port, or just any other software which fails to protect itself well, but which you need to run locally. Put holes in the firewall only for those things you know for sure you want the outside having access to, and no matter what crap happens on the client machine, its exposure is still the same.

      Also, there's selective access that happens on a client firewall. My database server has a firewall in place to protect its copy of MySQL. Only my http server can connect on that port, anyone else, the OS simply drops the packet (which is the old term for this fancy new "stealth mode").

      Firewalls do more than simply provide all or none access to the world, even client firewalls.

    10. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by cortana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stealth mode essential? Please. It doesn't make you much more secure--it just pisses off legitimate users of the network.

      http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/cm ti ps/security.html#stealth

    11. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why people bother with them.

      If you need to provide access to a service, then you have to open its matching ports anyway. If you need to protect a port/daemon/service/wakilix from attack, just don't run it.


      Because most people don't understand that a firewall should only be a secondary protection mechanism for your computer or network. It shouldn't be your sole line of defense.

      Personally, I make sure my machines don't have anything running or listening that doesn't need to be. Really, that's security 101. I also use firewalls, both on the host and at the network perimiter, but those are just there for backup in case I'm messing with the initscripts or something one day and start up something I shouldn't have and don't notice right away.

      The other important functions of any firewall should be egress filtering & monitoring. That means doing the rest of the world a favor (and yourself too, by extension) and blocking port 25 outbound except to where it needs to go, dropping spoofed packets from your network, limiting the rate of outbound SYNs, and similar things.

      The firewall can also serve as an intrusion detection mechanism when watching outbound traffic. IE, if you one day start seeing your firewall drop all kinds of traffic to random SMTP servers and it isn't a mail server, that's a red flag.

    12. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      And I think you forgot the "threat from inside" angle.

      A firewall can not prevent attacks from inside its own security boundary. Now I admit that OS X is better off than Windows here, in that you actually need to find a local privilege escalation attack before directly opening a port, but if I were writing a trojan or botnet client for OS X I wouldn't bother with that... I'd use one of the many stealth tunneling techniques that have been developed. IP over DNS is pretty much unstoppable without a proxy firewall, for example.

      Some of us like to put our raincoats on before we step outside.

      But... in the shower?

    13. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you need to provide access to a service on one network adapter and not another, and the software in question doesn't provide for that.

      In that case your computer is part of the security boundary between two unequal trust domains, so your computer is a firewall. Multi-homed hosts are a different kind of flying altogether, but that's not the usual context where people go on and on about how great their Windows firewalls are and express astonishment that I don't maintain a client firewall in everyday use.

    14. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      What services that require network access can't be turned off?

      A lot of them, on Windows. Which is why Windows firewalls are critical... because they're not a redundant layer of protection... they're the only layer of protection.

      It's a good thing that Windows firewalls are getting better. And a firewall is a useful tool on any system. It's not, however, the kind of critical necessity elsewhere that it is on Windows.

    15. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      Well, yours is an optomistic view. Refreshing :-).

      Realistic, not optimistic. Client firewalls are a useful tool, but no more.

      My database server has a firewall in place to protect its copy of MySQL. Only my http server can connect on that port,

      Sounds like a job for UNIX domain sockets and proper file system permissions.

    16. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      Since most enterprises have business partners who come in behind their firewall, host-based firewalls are still important. You can use them to allow specific people on your network specific access to specific resources.

      --
      I do security
    17. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      Since most enterprises have business partners who come in behind their firewall, host-based firewalls are still important. You can use them to allow specific people on your network specific access to specific resources.

      Um.

      That's one of the specific situations where client-based firewalls are of limited value. We have a DMZ for our customers, with its own firewall, and connections to customer networks are through VPNs that each have their own DMZ and a separate firewall on our side *and* on their side.

      I can't see how a client based firewall, either on their hardware or on hardware they use long term but owned by us, would provide more than homeopathic levels of security. What am I missing?

    18. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And firewall log?? Hmm, excuse me, but is the news Tiger just got a standard quality firewall or what? That's be more reason to blush than be overjoyed IMHO.

      YES. Exactly. Apple made a dogs dinner of IPFW logging and management in Panther. It didn't log anything by default and didn't even log to ipfw.log but to system.log. You needed to do a bit of jiggery pokery to get it to log and log in the right place.

      Also Apple's GUI for configering IPFW is sadly lacking and easy for newbies to make insecure choices. For instance there is no way through their GUI to turn on AFP filesharing or Remote Login only for a local network. It's either on (local and internet) or it's off. That just plain sucks. Who in their right mind would leave their machine with these services on to be accessed across the internet ?

    19. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by chrysalis · · Score: 1

      ipfw is obsolete and I wouldn't qualify it as "competent" in year 2005.

      Darwin is a very good operating system, but the firewall is a weakness.

      I really whish Apple will merge pf, just like all other *BSD flavors.

      --
      {{.sig}}
    20. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The idea isn't to protect against attack on all those services you have running but don't use, it's to minimise potential damage if you are compromised. If the firewall blocks port 31337 on a windows box, and BackOrifice gets installed, the user is compromised but not exposed.

      Oh, well, I guess that BackOrifice cannot disable the firewall, no it cannot...

      (posting anonymously since ./ banned my ISP's forced proxy's IP)

    21. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by John+Whitley · · Score: 1

      Client firewalls are of limited utility. I don't understand why people bother with them.

      Sigh. Look up "defense in depth" as it applies to system security.

      If you need to provide access to a service, then you have to open its matching ports anyway.

      What about folks with laptops in varied network environments, but who want to run services for local consumption? The Mac OS X Sharing pref pane in Panther either leaves your web server open to the world, or else turns the whole damn thing off. Offhand examples where localhost-only access are useful include any sort of web-based content work or development, as well as web-centric tools such as a laptop-local wiki installation.

    22. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      > My database server has a firewall in place to protect its copy of MySQL. Only my http server can connect on that port...

      Sounds like a job for UNIX domain sockets and proper file system permissions.

      Only if his webserver and database server are running on the same machine.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    23. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Look up "defense in depth" as it applies to system security.

      People typically aren't using client firewalls as part of "defense in depth". They use then instead of properly securing their services, then something funky happens, they turn off the firewall just to work around a problem, and zap.

      I've seen it more than once.

      What about folks with laptops in varied network environments, but who want to run services for local consumption?

      Bind the services to localhost. If you can't do it through the GUI, then tweak the config file or replace the daemon with one that can do the job. If localhost isn't good enough, bind it to a UNIX domain socket. If that can't be done, well, you HAVE the source code. Fix the real problem, first. Client firewalls should be your last resort, not a replacement for the "defense in depth" you're talking about.

    24. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like a job for UNIX domain sockets and proper file system permissions.

      Only if his webserver and database server are running on the same machine.


      If they're not, you should be using SSL or an SSH tunnel.

    25. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Probably would have been a lot easier to just run 'netstat'...

    26. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it just pisses off legitimate users of the network

      How? All commonly probed/hacked ports on my residential gateway are in stealth mode. The rest are closed. There are no persistent service I offer to any outside user. Any one who comes knocking on any of my ports is not a legitimate user. If they waste their time waiting for a connection to materialize - that's good. If it pisses them off - that's better.

      As for the +5 Insightful - the mods are on crack as usual. Or they don't know, and they don't know that they don't know. And I don't know which is worse!

    27. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Realistic, not optimistic. Client firewalls are a useful tool, but no more.

      So are computers :-).

      Sounds like a job for UNIX domain sockets and proper file system permissions.

      Different machines. A client firewall doesn't protect communications across the loopback interface (unless you've got some really wonky stuff going on).

    28. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by pod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What? No!

      Why all this elitism and defensiveness whenever the topic of client firewalls comes up?

      Why would the guy want to run an SSH tunnel on his network to connect two systems? Look, I have the same situation. I'm running mysql on the Linux box, and a web server too. So those hook up over loopback or domain sockets or whatever. But to admin it I have a nice tool that runs on my Windows machine. So I need to expose the mysql port. No big deal, just allow the Windows box access to the necessary port, block off everyone else. Same with POP. I run POP on the Linux box. No one except the Windows box needs access, so same setup. A local mp3 streamer? Same deal, except an extra allow from the proxy at work, so I can listen to it there. A file share? Same thing. Why in the world would I run a file share over my nice Gige network and hobble its usefulness (ie speed) by running it over SSH?

      Yeah, I could probably do the same via application configs and TCP wrappers. One is completely different for each app, if it exists at all, AND exposes the port, which presents risks on its own, the other is clunky and not always appropriate. Centralize all the access in iptables config, and it's done.

      And the last thing I want is a jet engine, err... sorry, a Cisco router, sitting in my room.

      It's a home network, not the friggen CIA.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    29. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      If they're not, you should be using SSL or an SSH tunnel.

      They are different machines, unless you have a really wonky setup, you'll never be firewalling the loopback interface, and yes, if they are the same machine, then you're right, a UNIX domain socket is much faster. But they're not, so it's TCP for me.

      The firewall isn't intended to protect the data against sniffing, it's intended to protect against unwanted connections. SSL or SSH don't do this, they only protect the data against sniffing. Each provides a separate type of protection, and there is no overlap in what their intended protections are.

      Even with ssh'd data, someone else can still connect to your database server, and if they manage to establish a connection (brute force, or perhaps with authentication information they acquired in another way), you're still compromised. With a properly configured firewall, my database server and my http server can talk to each other transparently, and the rest of the world can't even know the database server exists unless they are the switch between the two. In this model, even if my database username/password gets stolen, they still can't connect to my database server.

      Finally, not all connections need to be protected with encryption. My machines sit on the same switch in a trusted lan, and dealing with non-sensitive data. Average daily data throughput between the machines is 500k/s, and it peaks over 1.5m/s. Processing the encryption for that much data is overhead I'd rather leave to improving the two servers' performance since it offers no real benefit unless the switch is compromised. But since the switch is also properly firewalled, this won't happen unless it's done by a human being in the data center. If that's the case, they can simply take my machines offline and reboot them in rescue mode, having full access to the data anyhow.

      Face it, client firewalls are an absolutely essential tool in properly securing a box. If you plan for the worst, then all surprises are good ones :-).

      BTW, for what it's worth, my database server's firewall log tells me about several failed attempts to connect to MySQL's port every day from a variety of IP's. Someone owns a botnet out there that tries to find MySQL database servers, and I'm happy that they still don't know mine exists.

    30. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      Why all this elitism and defensiveness whenever the topic of client firewalls comes up?

      Because of all the FUD going around about the fact that Mac OS X doesn't ship with the firewall on by default. People are actually saying Windows XP SP2 is more secure because OS X doesn't use a firewall to protect services that aren't running.

      Why would the guy want to run an SSH tunnel on his network to connect two systems?

      If you're worried about someone sticking a box on your network to mount an attack, then you should be watching out for sniffers as well. If your external firewall can keep sniffers out, then you don't need anything inside. If you don't have an external firewall, get one... at least a cheap NAT router!

      It's a home network, not the friggen CIA.

      I don't know what the "friggen CIA" uses, but a cheap home-office router is hardly excessive caution. I personally prefer a proxy-only firewall with electrically disjoint subnets and a separate DMZ for each trust domain... I suspect the "friggen CIA" is even more cautious.

    31. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      The firewall isn't intended to protect the data against sniffing, it's intended to protect against unwanted connections. SSL or SSH don't do this, they only protect the data against sniffing

      If SSH allows anyone to connect without a password or key, you've got a really funky configuration. SSL can be configured to do the same thing. Both of them do a much better job protecting you against unwanted connections than IP-based security because it's a lot harder to spoof an RSA or DSA key than an IP address. If you're REALLY worried about encryption overhead, then run with cipher=none.

      But since the switch is also properly firewalled, this won't happen unless it's done by a human being in the data center. If that's the case, they can simply take my machines offline and reboot them in rescue mode, having full access to the data anyhow.

      In that scenario, what exactly is your client firewall protecting against?

      Face it, client firewalls are an absolutely essential tool in properly securing a box.

      They're a "better than nothing" tool if your application can't be properly configured or you can't set up a secure network.

      BTW, for what it's worth, my database server's firewall log tells me about several failed attempts to connect to MySQL's port every day from a variety of IP's.

      Then your switch is not, despite what you claim, properly firewalled and on a trusted LAN. If it was, the external firewall would be keeping them from getting that far.

    32. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      It's lines of defense, man.

      Also, 2-way communication doesn't happen on spoofed IP addresses (the data goes back to the machine owning the IP that was spoofed, not to the attacker), and even if it did, the switch drops a spoof on the perimeter.

      SSH will allow people to connect if they have discovered or brute forced the password. On my box that does have an active SSH connection to the net, botnets sweep SSH daily, sometimes as many as 500 IP's try hundreds of attempts daily. This will only protect you so far, and it is not as far as a firewall which doesn't even let them know a box exists there at all. Running SSH with cypher=none is no different from having the database port wide open, since the database also requires a username and password. Now all you're doing is adding latency for no added benefit.

      Properly configuring any application means securing it from attack. I don't need to run it through SSH because an attacker can't even open a TCP connection to it.

      In that scenario, what exactly is your client firewall protecting against?

      My point there was the well known security principle that no security protects against physical access, so your configuration based security is as good as it gets when the only method of breach is physical access.

      They're a "better than nothing" tool

      So are all security precautions, ssh/ssl, firewalling, etc etc etc.

      If you don't believe that a client firwall provides any meaningful benefit, feel free to not run one, but be advised that your boxen are open to attack by botnets that mine are protected from because of their client firewall.

      Client firewalls are just as, and often more protective than a perimeter based firewall because it protects you against inside worms. How many companies got owned by winblows worms behind their external firewall. If they had client firewalls in place, no such ownage would have happened. We do at work, and when someone put a personal laptop on the network that was compromised, it didn't infect the corporate machines.

      I'm not particularly interested in continuing to defend the virtues of a client firewall, because it's like arguing the virtues of using a seatbelt. There's always going to be someone who doesn't agree it's worthwhile, and so those of us who realize it is just shake our heads and continue to buckle up.

    33. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      netstat shows a pile open, none are accessible from outside, even with the firewall off.

    34. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      It's lines of defense, man.

      Yeh, I know. The problem is that people don't use it as one line of defense, they use it as their only line of defense. They don't bind apps to specific interfaces and use a network level firewall and MAC-lock their switches in the data center and use client firewalls, they turn on their XP SP2 client firewalls and stop there... and then pass out FUD about how XP is not more secure than Brand X because XP comes with a firewall on by default.

      2-way communication doesn't happen on spoofed IP addresses

      If someone is inside your external firewall so they can spoof the IP address, then they can respond to the packets. If you don't have an external firewall you're proving my point about people NOT using client firewalls as part of a layered defense.

      Client firewalls are just as, and often more protective than a perimeter based firewall because it protects you against inside worms.

      No to any significant extent. Because so much of Windows Networking operates over named pipes that all use the same set of well known ports, you really can't do any effective blocking at the IP level and still allow your business software to interact with other computers.

      For internal business unit firewalls, if all you can do is client firewalls, I guess that's all you can do.

      For example, for customers and vendors, we have a customer DMZ that's got its own firewall and internet connection and no direct connection to the internal LAN. It doesn't even run over the same switches.

      be advised that your boxen are open to attack by botnets that mine are protected from because of their client firewall.

      Really, how do they get through my border router, proxy firewall and the Cheswick-Bellovin-style dual-router DMZ between business units?

      That's the "layered defense" I'm talking about.

      I'm not particularly interested in continuing to defend the virtues of a client firewall, because it's like arguing the virtues of using a seatbelt.

      I'm using two layers of external firewall with a DMZ and a proxy server. You're wearing a lapbelt. I'm wearing a three-point racing harness *and* driving with a spotter.

    35. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      I wrote "about how XP is not more secure..."

      I obviously meant "about how XP is now more secure..."

      Sorry for the typo.

    36. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1
      How about the example of a work laptop which is plugged in at home, exposing it to various risks and is also VPN'd into the corporate network and also dock to the corporate network while at work.

      Also, I cannot speak of the requirements of your customers, but customers and partners can require access to servers using insecure protocals. Depending on the number of customers and partners and which resources are required, it may be easier to provide host-based firewalls rather than an individual firewall for each potential connection which may bypass your main firewall. I think it is highly dependant on your architecture and preferences though as there are always 2 ways to skin a cat.

      --
      I do security
    37. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by argent · · Score: 1

      How about the example of a work laptop which is plugged in at home, exposing it to various risks and is also VPN'd into the corporate network and also dock to the corporate network while at work.

      If it's running Windows, of course it needs a client firewall in that case. Not because a client firewall is a great solution, but because Windows has no better solution in that case. Then the biggest risk becomes third party software (games and stuff, particularly the kind that is subsidised by spyware), same as with non-windows boxes.

      If it's VPNed in, then the VPN solution has to include a firewall between it and the corporate network as well. That's sort of non-negotioable... a VPN brings the machine at the other end into the network boundary... so you have to treat it as part of your firewall.

      And if a customer needs privileged access then that customer gets his own DMZ with proxies for the servers they need access to. I simply don't see how a client firewall on a customer's laptop can be trusted to enforce my security policy. Seriously. How would you implement it? In a lot of cases neither I nor the customer even has legitimate administrator access to their laptop to install the client firewall with.

    38. Re:Why is stealth mode pointed out as special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inbound "personal" firewalls are silly in the first place.

      What protection does it give you?

      If you're listening on a port, you're listening because you want to accept connections. So you have to leave that port open for inbound traffic. Which means the attack comes in anyway.

      If you don't need to accept connections, you stop the listener. That's secure.

      Yes, it does give you finer grain control (10.20.0.0/8 instead of everything), but really, aside from geeks, who controls to that degree?

      And outbound control is more about blocking *already installed* backdoors and/or protecting others from your mess (an admirable position, to be sure). But again, who really configures that?

      BTW, I work for a company that makes and sells such SW (major vendor of it, in fact). We all know it's silly, internally. But people buy it...

  11. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea, because Spotlight is just a tweak. Have you ever used Spotlight? How about BeOS? This is not a small feature or tweak, but a whole new way of finding data seamlessly throughout the system.

    But according to you, yeah, this is just SP2.

  12. Re:charging for . release? by dcstimm · · Score: 2

    10.3.x is a point release, not 10.x and trust me the whole OS feels different.

  13. Re:charging for . release? by Formz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Are you serious? How many "features" did SP2 come with? A firewall. Wow, what a huge addition. Wait, actually that is something that should have been there since Windows 3.1. This is a MAJOR release. Wait until you actually see all the improvements first hand. I can, without certainty, see you pulling the foot out of your mouth. I'll never understand how people can comment on something they know nothing about yet. I have my (LEGAL) copy of Tiger already, and I see posts like yours and laugh.

  14. Re:charging for . release? by Frankie70 · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    It seems that tiger is comparable to sp2 as far as adding features to the base OS.


    Yes, but it's apple.

  15. Re:charging for . release? by duncangough · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *sigh*

    OSX is widely regarded as a fairly secure system. XP is widely regarded to be as secure as a barn door.

    Tiger gives you features and a speed bump, SP2 gives you application incompatability and some security features that should have been there in the initial release. No wonder it's free.

  16. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That might be true, but it is not a . release. It is a major release. Similar to windows 2000 -> windows xp, which you did have to pay for.
    A dot release like the recent 10.3.9 is free, and easily downloaded. These updates are comparable to the service packs on the windows platform.
    Don't be fooled by the numbering scheme.

  17. Re:charging for . release? by mike_scheck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So it the google toolbar. Call me crazy, but a search feature != newos in my book.

  18. Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks Apple! by zr-rifle · · Score: 3, Funny

    iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -i ! eth0 -j ACCEPT
    iptables -P INPUT DROP
    /bin/echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_all

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  19. Password Helper by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful
    a few that are interesting, mostly security related features

    I think a lot of network admins will breath a sigh of partial relief when they see the Password Helper. There will always be the "[kids_name]123" password people, but there are a decent number of users who want something secure but easy to remember, and to know roughly how secure a particular password is.

    1. Re:Password Helper by rastakid · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think a lot of network admins will breath a sigh of partial relief when they see the Password Helper. There will always be the "[kids_name]123" password people, but there are a decent number of users who want something secure but easy to remember, and to know roughly how secure a particular password is.

      No, you don't understand. This tool asks you the name of your child and then adds a number from a certain pool to it. The pool contains numbers like '111','321' and '123'.

    2. Re:Password Helper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh.

    3. Re:Password Helper by fayk · · Score: 1

      This tool is different - You may be right about other ones, but not this one.

      It gives constant feedback on how secure a password might be when entered, gives tips like mixing upper and lower case as well as suggesting passwords which are (even the worst ones, in the 'memorable' category) way better than 'commonname132'

  20. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously... this has been discussed a million times, and if you still think this is the case (being 'just' a point release) you're rather wrong.

    I do agree that it maybe does not improve as much as earlier releases (10.1 made the system USABLE, 10.2 and 10.3 made the system funtional) it is still expanding and improving this amazing OS.

    The thing is that this release adds so much yummy stuff under the hood, for the geeks, and a lot of very helpful features for even the average joe.

    (One thing that bugs me, writing this on a winbox - where is the spellchecker in this textarea? I could need it..)

    Anyway, I think the common interpretation is that Tiger is not just a simple point release, and this shouldn't be discussed much more..

  21. Spotlight by thundercatslair · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else here find spotlight to be sort of useless? So it starts searching on the fly rather then after you hit enter, I really don't see an advantage here other then saving yourself a few seconds.

    1. Re:Spotlight by organum · · Score: 1

      If it works as well as Quicksilver, it will be impressive. But this kind of feature isn't for everybody, to be sure. With Quicksilver, one can spare oneself a lot of poking about and futzing with the mouse -- once accustomed to how it works.

    2. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think personally Spotlight has been massively overhyped. Even Steve Jobs didn't seem to get much response to it when he demoed it in one of his keynotes. I think this was a bit of a 'me too' thing that Apple did in reaction to MS and Google. That's bad for Apple because they are only at their best when they are leading not following. There are also some types of data and workflow that Spotlight won't really even be useful for, and would just cause more confusion for.

    3. Re:Spotlight by Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're looking for a file containing the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (sic?)

      In any case, in spot light you type "superca" and the list refines itself enough that you see it and start working with it.

      If it waited for you to hit enter, how far would you type? Would "superca" be enough? Maybe you would type "supercalifra" to be safe. Maybe, if you were like most users, you would think you needed to type the whole word out... then you spell it wrong (like i probably did above) and it doesn't find anything.

      Live search minimizes your typing. It's the same reason for type-ahead find in firefox. It just works better.

    4. Re:Spotlight by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      i doubt that. the finder and search features of os x needed a massive overhaul . searching in Panther is way to slow. i doubt they needed M$ or google to tell them they had to do something better.

    5. Re:Spotlight by pla · · Score: 4, Funny

      With Quicksilver, one can spare oneself a lot of poking about and futzing with the mouse

      With Bash, one can spare oneself ALL use of the mouse.

    6. Re:Spotlight by macmastery · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the main point of Spotlight. It's not type-ahead searching. The 10.3 Finder introduced that.

      1. It's system-wide, so it's available in every app.
      2. It searches content and metadata that has never before been indexed.

      You can quickly search for documents by their color space, bits per sample, aperture, pixel dimensions, author, media length, codec, copyright (about 200 different pieces of metadata in all).

      I think there is a whole page on this feature if you'd like to know more.

    7. Re:Spotlight by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't be useless.

      That's like saying, "Isn't Google sorta useless?"

      Spotlight does the exact same thing that Google does, except it does it to your hard drive instead of the internet.

      1) Index and catalog all your files
      2) Provide an interface to find all those files

      IE, if you have a PC, try out Google Desktop, to find out what it might be like. Even better, if you use Thunderbird, create a 'saved search', and that's half of Spotlight's promise since it can do a saved search on everything on your computer (Google Desktop++)

    8. Re:Spotlight by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 1

      Hmm... No. Spotlight is great.

    9. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only does it search through file names, but, for example, if you type in a friend's name it will find things like all email exchanges with this person, iCal events involving this person, their Address Book card, etc. If you happen to have a document containing this person's name that will come up, too. It's all about the metadata.

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/spotlight/

    10. Re:Spotlight by evoltap · · Score: 1

      The advantage of saving a few seconds is just like you said, an advantage. Anything that makes mundane tasks like searching for a file faster and lets me get back to a real task is a good thing, in my book. I think this is what apple strives for, a machine that dosn't get in your way and frustrate you while you are being productive. Until an OS can be interfaced with our brain and already have the files it thinks we might want cached, typing three letters and instantly having the file sounds good to me.

    11. Re:Spotlight by Horrortaxi · · Score: 1

      I really don't see an advantage here other then saving yourself a few seconds.

      What's wrong with saving a few seconds? You only get so many seconds in your life--why waste them?

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

      And 10.4 ships with ksh, in case you want a real shell....

    13. Re:Spotlight by naily · · Score: 1
      Not only is it useful, but it's the future-past of computing. Think about what computers were originally designed to do: calculate things, and sort things.

      With massive storage being so prevalent these days, I get tired of having to do filing on my computer. Plus, with more collaborative software, you find that different people have different filing methods (numeric, phased, alphabetic, dewey-decimal etc.). Why should I have to care about where my files are? I just want to know what they relate to. Goodbye file manager/finder/explorer. I'll have Spotlight search, and smart folders (stored, self-updating search results, effectively) that show me the info in the way that I like to see it, without compromising anyone else's filing structure.

      This also completes Apple's interface metaphor for data search/store - as used in iPhoto and iTunes. And consistency & simplicity of UI metaphor are what make Apple systems easy to use, and Windows relatively more complex to the layman.

      --
      We all live in a state of ambitious poverty. -- Decimus Junius Juvenalis
    14. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing OS X ships with bash as it's default shell.

    15. Re:Spotlight by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 1

      So when are we getting the same functionality with Google? You type a bit - "oh, 5 Million hits and the top 3 are not what am looking for" - so you type a bit more until you reach your goal. Sounds fantastic, currently I'm refining my queries a lot and it takes a lot of time...

      Does anybody knows if there is something similar planned by the big G?

    16. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Okay, I'm on a disinformation-squashing crusade today.

      Google indexes content. This is important. Hugely, massively important. But we've had content indexing for a long time now. It only takes us so far.

      What's more important than content indexing is metadata indexing.

      Metadata literally means "data about data." It's information about your files that isn't actually stored in your files. For example, let's say you take a photograph and store it in your Pictures folder. Spotlight can automatically extract some metadata from the picture all by itself. It can tell that the picture is 2048 pixels across and that it's in Nikon RAW format and that you took it on December 24, 2003. The computer knows this stuff already.

      Other metadata was inserted automatically when the picture taken. For example, the camera inserted metadata identifying it as being taken with a Nikon D1 using a 1/250 exposure and a 2.8 f-stop.

      Spotlight indexes all that stuff.

      But there's a third type of metadata. In addition to intrinsic metadata and automatically inserted metadata, there's descriptive metadata. Your computer knows that the picture is 2048 pixels across and that it was taken with a Nikon D1, but it can't know that it's a picture of your niece Katie. That's where iPhoto comes in. You use iPhoto to write a descriptive caption -- "Lawrence's daughter Katie on Christmas Eve" -- and that caption gets stored in the photo as metadata. Spotlight indexes it.

      So if you come along later and search for "Christmas pictures," Spotlight will find that photo. Because it knows it's a picture, and because you described it as being related to Christmas.

      Now, that's today. (Well, in two weeks.) What's next? We're going to find new ways of attaching automatic metadata. Here's one we've been talking about a lot: Your laptop has a GPS receiver in it. Tiny thing, about the size of a pencil eraser. At all times, your laptop knows where it is on the face of the Earth, accurate to about thirty feet.

      Every file you create is tagged with three new, additional pieces of metadata: latitude, longitude and altitude. That's on top of the date and time data we already attach to every file.

      Say you go on a business trip to Seattle. A year later, you can search your laptop for that e-mail you sent to your coworker Tom while you were in Seattle.

      More: Using a very simple user interface, you can define locations. Sitting at your desk, you tell your laptop to refer to that location as "work." Any file created within a 100-yard radius of that location will be returned in a search for "work." On your couch you define a location called "home." Sitting at the coffee shop you define a location called "Starbucks." And so on.

      Now your computer knows not only when you modified that file, it knows where you were when you did it. That's all metadata you can use for searching.

      This is pretty advanced stuff. It's going to be a while before we start shipping GPS-enabled Powerbooks. But it's on the drawing board.

      Spotlight opens up a whole new way of storing information. It's not a new idea; we've been trying to make it work for ten years now. But the actual working implementation of it is simply revolutionary. It's a quantum leap beyond anything that anybody has to offer right now.

    17. Re:Spotlight by anagama · · Score: 1

      ALMOST all use. Middle-click-paste is pretty convenient. Dare I say, Aqua would be 100% more useful if it included this feature everywhere.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    18. Re:Spotlight by taskforce · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Meta data is a great idea in principal, much like Communism. Unfortunately there are few real life problems which we're faced with when impelenting it.

      My bible for this argument is basicly here: Putting the torch to seven straw-men of the meta-utopia

      People are lazy, People are stupid and the system is not scalable to larger enterprises without problems.

      People being lazy is possibly the greatest problem: Very few people are going to sit down and add descriptions to all their photographs, documents and video footage. Currently Metadata is common in Music only. I don't claim to know why this is, but my best guess is it's probably because it is not a visual file and there's no way of previewing it without watching. (As opposed to seeing a thumbnail of a document/movie/picture.) If the system is incomplete and any single file doesn't have metadata added, the system is effectively useless because as with anything which is unreliable, it will fall into disuse and there will be less incentive to add metadata to files, so less people use the feature due to decreased reliability and the sitation continues to snowball.

      People not knowing everything about their content is also a problem. Meta data can only identify what we know as it is added by humans. If i was confronted by Java Source Code for a program, I wouldn't be able to read it and I would not know what to describe it as.

      A Meta data based system also scales up badly to network/internet size solutions. Not only is the first problem amplified the larger the system is (more people being lazy, also less confidence that everyone will do their bit in adding metadata) but an inherent problem is that in a webwide Meta data system, people have hidden agendas, and they lie. The largest web-scale meta data implemantation we have at the moment is META tags in web page markup. I don't think I need to explain why these are often ridiculed - people lie. META tags are often abused by sites to get more hits: adding Britney Spears, XXX, pr0n etc will boost a page's rank. (This is often misguided, as more hits may occur, they they will not be relevant and leave the site straight away, however this is besides the point - they still input incorrect metadata into the system.) The problem has got to the stage where Google really doesn't pay all that much attention to META tags in comparison to the page's actual content and a monitoring of it's popularity with visitors searching for a certain subject.

      This last point might not be a problem with Spotlight currently, as a systemwide index it's not affected by it - however on an enterprise level there are instances where it could be a problem even over a LAN or WAN and afterall, the Internet is just computers connected together so this metadata is really useless on a larger scale in the same way that METAtags are now almost redundant in HTML, or or the RIAA has been able to spoof meta data on P2P networks to fool fileswappers.

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    19. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 2, Informative

      Currently Metadata is common in Music only.

      Not true. Every photo taken with a digital camera has EXIF metadata, and every photo distributed by a wire service has IPTC metadata.

      If the system is incomplete and any single file doesn't have metadata added, the system is effectively useless

      The old "if it's not perfect, it's useless" lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      A Meta data based system also scales up badly to network/internet size solutions.

      Actually Spotlight scales spectacularly well across the enterprise because clients have read access to server metadata databases. However, this is just an incidental benefit. Spotlight isn't designed to do what you're criticizing it for not doing.

      I'm sorry to have to tell you that you obviously have a fundamental lack of understanding about the problem you're trying to discuss. This is nothing to be ashamed of. But you should first try to wrap your head around the problem before telling everybody what's wrong with the solutions.

      Besides, your objections are trumped by the most obvious rebuttal of all: Spotlight works. Spectacularly.

    20. Re:Spotlight by taskforce · · Score: 1

      Besides, your objections are trumped by the most obvious rebuttal of all: Spotlight works. Spectacularly. If you're willing to type out descriptions on all your files, the point being. When Jobs demonstrated Spotlight he had a load of images from Corbis which had all been nicely tagged and described by the good people that work there. People who don't have the luxury of being revered as gods inside Cupertino would have to actually type these lengthy descriptions themselves.

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    21. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people who are serious about their pictures actually do that.

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

      >Not true. Every photo taken with a digital camera has EXIF metadata,

      In most cases, the user could care less about this metadata (except the picture datetime). It doesn't help you map "DCS23051.JPG" to "Wedding Pictures".

    23. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      Absolutely it does. Pictures taken with a given camera on the same day are naturally grouped together, making it trivially easy to batch-annotate them in iPhoto. Hell, iPhoto can even discriminate between pictures taken indoors and those taken outdoors by the white balance preset.

      Automatic metadata certainly does make annotation easier. Very much so.

      Why do all you naysayers sound like you haven't got the foggiest idea how this stuff actually works?

    24. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      You sound like you've never seen iPhoto before.

    25. Re:Spotlight by guet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're willing to type out descriptions on all your files, the point being. When Jobs demonstrated Spotlight he had a load of images from Corbis which had all been nicely tagged and described by the good people that work there. People who don't have the luxury of being revered as gods inside Cupertino would have to actually type these lengthy descriptions themselves.

      You've managed to effectively argue for the point you wished to oppose. You initially claimed only music files have meta-data, and then you go on to mention Corbis images - which are carefully tagged with extensive meta-data.

      The meta-data from Corbis is put to good use by a lot of people who buy their images (publishers for example). Currently only people running a program like iView can search on that data. With spotlight anyone can - I know that this will make my life easier personally, and I'm more likely to purchase images with said data pre-entered (note that they do this now, on all images, not just for Steve Jobs as you imply).

      Where there is financial value for adding meta-data (and in many cases in business there definitely is) it *will* be added, and extensively used. Programs like Word already add author specific data to files, I imagine once it is a system-wide service this sort of facility will be pervasive, as it will allow sophisticated searches and sorting of documents which previously had to be done by hand. Initially inside organisations and between trusted partners, but it will happen. Perhaps it will never spread to the internet, but if we're talking about Spotlight that is irrelevent.

      Meta-data on the internet is a joke because of trust issues. You have extrapolated from that narrow case to all others. Please don't do that.

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

      You made my point when you stated the user has to manually classify the photos.

    27. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      What is your point, exactly?

    28. Re:Spotlight by Cloud+K · · Score: 1
      People being lazy is possibly the greatest problem: Very few people are going to sit down and add descriptions to all their photographs, documents and video footage.People being lazy is possibly the greatest problem: Very few people are going to sit down and add descriptions to all their photographs, documents and video footage.

      I wonder about this. Surely the reason people are lazy about doing such things is because up to now there hasn't been a *reason* to do so?

      I own a Mac with iPhoto etc, and yes I'm that kind of lazy person. I've never described a photo without a reason to do so - i.e. publishing a web gallery. But isn't that the point? People are usually lazy for a reason, as in there's no percievable need for them to expend that energy.

      I intend to buy Tiger. Now, because I *know* that in the future I'll be able to have access to such a powerful search function, and that its performance is directly related to how well I describe my photos (and other files), I'll have a reason to do so and keep up with it. And I'm very confident that I will do so.

    29. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I forgot. I started arguing with you because I was bored.

    30. Re:Spotlight by vmardian · · Score: 1
      --
      PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
    31. Re:Spotlight by vmardian · · Score: 1
      --
      PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
    32. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... thus feeling obligated to spend more time on your computer and less time outside, or getting laid.

      That's the Apple lifestyle?

    33. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not out yet.

    34. Re:Spotlight by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My bible for this argument is basicly here: Putting the torch to seven straw-men of the meta-utopia

      I quite like the "Metacrap" paper, and I use it a lot as a reality check for those diving too deeply into the metadata / XML web services / SOA utopia.

      Unfortunately I disagree with your interpretation of its arguments, as noted below.

      People being lazy is possibly the greatest problem: Very few people are going to sit down and add descriptions to all their photographs, documents and video footage. Currently Metadata is common in Music only.

      Which came to be because some people are anal enough to sit down and add descriptions to their music collection , and people created ways of sharing those with others easily.

      The point is to make it easy to add descriptions and combine it with implicit / observational metadata. iPhoto , for example, knows when you took your photos, which is a very good start for lazy people organizing data -- Spotlight can answer queries like "pictures taken on December 13 2004". People that are organization freaks can get better searches by putting some more words associated with it.

      Meta data can only identify what we know as it is added by humans

      Or that which is implicitly associated with something by necessity - "observational" stuff. Creation dates, authors, links, etc. That stuff is usually very reliable, as noted in the last section of that paper...

      This last point might not be a problem with Spotlight currently, as a systemwide index it's not affected by it - however on an enterprise level there are instances where it could be a problem even over a LAN or WAN and afterall, the Internet is just computers connected together....

      Whoa. This argument seems to be an example of the "division fallacy". Since explicit metadata solutions don't work well on Internet scales means they won't work on smaller scales (like enterprises).

      It's interesting you used communism as an argument against metadata in the beginning of your post, because economic systems are really a form of information system, in a sense. Communism is an attempt to explicitly associate metadata (prices) with goods. A market-based system, on the other hand, uses implicit metadata (supply/demand price adjustments) to govern. Yet we do recognize that explicit control is used within a company because it's more efficient than the market when applied to a small enough group (aka. 'transaction costs' argument).

      Relating to the topic at hand -- quality data is important, and seriously lacking in most organizations (and individual user desktops!). Metadata partially fixes a major part of the quality issue: relevance. Explicit metadata, like most explicit forms of agreement, works well in an environment with a consistent culture and centralized policy -- or in the case of a single user, someone anal enough to tag their pictures. But it requries an investment.

      On the other hand, implicit metadata is "free" because it's already there, it's just a matter of capturing, indexing, and making it accessible. Google did that with hyperlinks. Spotlight is doing that with photos, music, and emails. So whether people stay lazy or not, Spotlight still significantly improves the user experience in getting access to relevant information....

      --
      -Stu
    35. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, that's almost the exact same argument ("so it saves a few seconds") that lots of people had against the Mac interface back in 1984 -- specifically, about using a "file picker dialog" and being able to see it and click it, instead of having to type in the filename (as on MS-DOS).

      If you're interested, I recommend the (slightly silly) book "Machine Beauty", by Gelernter.

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

      Doctorow's a fucking idiot. He should know better, but he doesn't. The whole professional world is driven by metadata already. The Associated Press couldn't exist without metadata. His protestations that it can never, ever possibly work ever are just silly. They'd be laughable if he weren't so goddamn earnest about them.

    37. Re:Spotlight by AcornWeb · · Score: 1

      More: Using a very simple user interface, you can define locations. Sitting at your desk, you tell your laptop to refer to that location as "work." Any file created within a 100-yard radius of that location will be returned in a search for "work." On your couch you define a location called "home." Sitting at the coffee shop you define a location called "Starbucks." And so on.

      Is that 100-yard radius predefined or specifiable by the end-user? Because that feature would be very cool.

      --
      Your Windows PC is my other computer.
    38. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We're talking about highly advanced stuff here. It exists only in labs. So it's way too early to talk about specifics.

      I don't want to blow anything out of proportion, but think of Spotlight as being kind of like the first bitmapped graphics. What we're doing with it right now is cool. But what's really important is what it enables us to do in the future.

      GPS-based locational metadata is just one example. Automatic speech-to-text transcription for audio recordings is another. (You wouldn't believe what vector processing can do for speech-to-text. I saw a demo where a high-quality, noiseless audio recording of an unaccented speaker was transcribed at 20x real-time on a single 2.0 GHz G5.)

      Example: You're doing a multi-party teleconference. A recording is made of that teleconference (each angle), and separate audio tracks are recorded for each participant. In real time, your computer transcribes each voice track and stores it as ancillary content on the recording, content that Spotlight indexes for you. At any time, you can type "meeting in San Jose" into Spotlight, and it'll take you right to the angle and track on which your co-worker Laurent talked about next week's meeting in San Jose.

      Think about more detailed logging. Right now your computer logs only the most rudimentary events, stuff that is of no interest to human beings. What if it could log everything? Right now you can say "Show me that file I worked on yesterday at two o'clock." But what if you could turn that around and say, "When and for how long did I work on this file?" That's vitally important to anybody who does billable work. Imagine if, through metadata and logging, your computer could automatically produce your time sheet for you?

      Another type of automatically generated metadata we're experimenting with is relational metadata. Let's say you've got a picture of your dog on your computer. You e-mail it to your sister Jan. Your computer notes this as metadata on the photo so later you can ask your computer to show you what pictures you've sent to Jan.

      Address Book is one area where relational metadata is pretty important. In Address Book, you put Jan and your brother Harry into a group called "Family." Both Jan and Harry, in their contact records, get metadata describing them as being members of the "Family" group. So later you can ask your computer to show you what pictures you've e-mailed to members of your family. Or received from members of your family. Or what pictures you've e-mailed to SOME members of your family but not ALL.

      Let's say you take that picture of your dog and drop it in a Pages document, then export the document as a PDF and mail it to your sister Jan. The computer records, as metadata, the fact that that picture of your dog is related to Jan. It knows that put associated the picture with that Pages document, that the Pages document was associated with the PDF file, and that the PDF file was associated with an e-mail to Jan.

      Now combine it with a gestural interface. Take two files, any two files. Say it's a PDF representing an invoice and a Photoshop file representing a poster you designed. You drag the invoice over the Photoshop file and a marking menu appears, giving you the option of establishing a relationship between the two files. If you want you can annotate the relationship. If you don't, you don't have to. The computer will simply note that a relationship exists.

      Now extend that idea. Instead of it being two files, it can be two ANYTHING. Drag a contact from Address Book to a Pages document; up pops a marking menu asking you if you want to establish a relationship. Or an song from iTunes to a picture of your girlfriend. Or your daughter's birth certificate to her birthday in iCal.

      The possibilities that Spotlight opens up are pretty inspiring. It's not just a desktop search tool. Yes, it makes that possible, but bleah. That's 20th-century thinking. That's you working in the way the computer wants. What's more important about Spotlight is the fact that it's an enabling technology that lets the computer work in the way you want.

      There's some pretty exciting stuff coming in the next few years.

    39. Re:Spotlight by Graymalkin · · Score: 1

      If you look around I think you'll be surprised at the amount of metadata that exists in all sorts of files. I can have Word automagically add my name, company, manager, e-mail, and all sorts of other little tidbits to a document in a meta data section. I just have to add this data once and from then on Word, Excel, and Powerpoint will do the tedious work for me. This metadata can be searched and indexed by Spotlight.

      So for instance, I'm working on a project with a few other people in my department and we're sharing files and sending e-mails all over the place. I can bring up Spotlight and type "John Smith" and it will find me e-mails send to and from John, his Address Book contact, calendar events with John associated or mentioned, and importantly Word and Excel documents he has sent to me. All of this data was parsed from information that was already lying around various locations on my computer. Word and Excel were already adding John's name to files that he authored.

      Your premise is that metadata sucks because no one bothers adding it to files. It isn't the end users that will be or need to be doing the work, the onus for that is on the developers. Since Spotlight will now be a major feature in the OS, developers will begin going out of their way to not only use Spotlight in their own applications but make sure their file formats are extremely Spotlight friendly. It's only going to get more prevalent from this point on because it is going to become a lot more useful to the person on the street.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    40. Re:Spotlight by Lathi- · · Score: 1
      Every file you create is tagged with three new, additional pieces of metadata: latitude, longitude and altitude. That's on top of the date and time data we already attach to every file.


      I certainly understand what meta-data is and I use it all the time. When I first read your post I was quite inspired by the possibilities. A lot of my mobile computing is location based. The Mac locations help, but don't go far enough.

      However, I'm reminded how hard it is to get rid of meta-data. People tend to just copy documents and then edit them. That's fine if everyone's word processor is very smart, but the reality is they're not.

      I've got many documents on my network that all have the same title in the meta-data. Most people don't ever update document meta-data. Eventually that will change (I hope). Another example is how people start "new" threads in email by simply repying and changing the subject never realizing the "References" aren't erased.

      My other concern is privacy. Imagine some whistleblower writes a document exposing the government for some terrible offense only to be arrested at the location they wrote the document.

      I have no doubt there are lots of smart people thinking about these things. I'm hopeful that as Apple takes meta-data to the next level they'll do it in a consumer friendly way.
    41. Re:Spotlight by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      Those are some really cool ideas, especially the "drag one thing over another to associate and annotate". I can't wait!

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    42. Re:Spotlight by MarkCollette · · Score: 1

      Just to add to this, to show how it's possible now, even without a GPS unit, your computer can already differentiate where it is by which networks it's on. Your computer could use your subnet, or 802.11 SSSID, or info from the DHCP server to tell where you are, work, home, or Starbucks.

    43. Re:Spotlight by kylewriter · · Score: 1

      I just posted an article on my blog titled, "What's Apple still got in the cage?" I took the information you gave us here and extended it out into other some other possible uses. I'd love to hear whether anything I've put suggested is actually in the future of Spotlight.

    44. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's some pretty exciting stuff coming in the next few years.


      Unfortunately, you won't be at Apple when it comes.

    45. Re:Spotlight by dr.badass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very few people are going to sit down and add descriptions to all their photographs, documents and video footage.

      Which is why you don't have to for the system to work. Yes, the more metadata that's available, the better, but it doesn't suddenly break down (as you seem to be saying) if you're inconsistent. If you organize at all, it works better. If you don't, it still works better than it used to.

      Also, invoking "Metacrap" is basically meaningless, as the entire piece is about the use of metadata on the Internet, which is a vastly different scenario than on the desktop. I don't see how any of the seven points really applies.

      On the internet, the producer of the metadata and the consumer are not the same, and have very different desires. On the desktop, you are the consumer of your own metadata. You have much more incentive to do it well, and much less incentive to do it poorly (lie). If you add keywords like "v1agra pr0n britney spears" to your documents , it's nobody's problem but your own.

      If the system is incomplete and any single file doesn't have metadata added, the system is effectively useless

      This might be true if the system *only* used metadata, but it doesn't. Plain text files don't have any kind of user-added metadata at all, but you can still find them by content, or filename, or create/modify dates, etc.

      If i was confronted by Java Source Code for a program, I wouldn't be able to read it and I would not know what to describe it as.

      This is a horrible example for some point I cannot fathom. Why on earth would you *need* to describe something that you can't read? Why would you even care if the file is effectively meaningless to you? Why would you need to describe a source file at all, when all of the useful information would be part of the content index?

      Maybe you should learn more about a subject before likening it to Communism.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    46. Re:Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you pass my bullshit filter as far as working for apple goes. but why on earth are you posting this kind of thing on /. ? some of the other stuff you've been posting sounds like it's definitely supposed to be under wraps.

    47. Re:Spotlight by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not? Information is supposed to be free, isn't it?

    48. Re:Spotlight by CODiNE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seeing as you're an Apple employee I'd like to repeat a request I have regarding Voice - to - text. That is... don't forget us deaf folks. :-) Stick in a sorta generic voice recognition that we could use on the fly to get at least a phonetic translation of someone's speech and deaf people all over will flock to Apple's. (Just like the blind are gonna do with Tiger) Something where you could turn it on and off and get a little floating / scrolling transcript. Heck, make it work for movies that aren't captioned or subtitled and I'll be able to rent stuff that came out before the mid 80's! I wouldn't have had to sell my original Twilight Zone collection just because those cheap-skates couldn't be bothered to add subtitles to old TV shows.

      Oh and... if you're doing the iTunes Movie Store thing... you must add subtitles to all the movies cuz... if not I'm gonna have to sue you guys under the ADA to keep us from being completely ignored as digital movie downloads become big.

      Of course make it multi-lingual and sprinkle in the real-time Dashboard translation and we've got a tricorder. :-) Hmmm... maybe this is already doable in Tiger or even Panther. HMMMMM...

      P.S. Love ya for the multi-video chat... hope it can handle 4 way sign language with a decent fps. I gotta figure out how to get the govt to hand out iMacs to deaf now. :-D

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  22. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XP had a firewall, SP2 just turns it on by default.

  23. safari e-mail feature/xml by organum · · Score: 1

    Am I missing something or is this just a way to trap e-mail addresses? Does anyone know what paths/mechanisms are being used to send the e-mail? Perhaps it's simply using configured accounts in the Mail app.

    The XML suite will be usefull, I hope, XML tools on the Mac side are pretty paltry. Though Oxygen has a functional kluge, the interface is dismal.

    1. Re:safari e-mail feature/xml by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does anyone know what paths/mechanisms are being used to send the e-mail?

      Presumably the same as clicking on a mailto link, i.e. hands it off to whatever you've configured as the handler for mailto: URLs.

  24. Re:charging for . release? by bobinabottle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple uses a different version numbering system. Just because it is called 10.4 doesn't really mean anything - it could just be as simply called Mac OS X 2005 or v4.0 or Mac OS Tiger for all it matters.

    Comparing to Windows Service Packs, there has been two for XP. Apple has released 9 "service packs" for Mac OS X Panther.
    10.3.1
    10.3.2
    10.3.3
    10.3.4
    10.3.5
    10.3.6
    10.3.7
    10.3.8
    and now 10.3.9.

    These have added new features, tweaks and improved security also.

    I am sick of people whinging about apple charging for "point updates;" it's is an old and worn out argument and it comes down to the simple point of if you don't want it, don't buy it.

    Your comment just lost a couple of cool points in my book.

  25. WoW.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    If it's a tiger, shouldn't it have Prowl mode?

    Cats rock!

    1. Re:WoW.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has growl though...

      http://growl.info/

    2. Re:WoW.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was the lion (tauren) and panther (NE) that did that. There's an ability called Tiger's Fury, but noone can really turn into a tiger, so I'm not sure what the deal with name is, since that's still the lion/panther form.

  26. Private Browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep cookies, history and caches private when using Safari on a public access Mac.

    aka the ultimate porn surfing solution?

    1. Re:Private Browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah - Multiple browsers. Safari for respectable content, Firefox for pr0n.

    2. Re:Private Browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. You need one-key (or at least one-handed) commands to increment and decrement the last number in the URL.

  27. You guys are all crazy by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was just sitting at my freelance gig, reading some online encyclopedia (win supersite, I believe) and the scientist there said that there are only 2 features: spotlight and something else. He stated that all other ones are pretty much nothing.

    He also said, and I'll have to agree with him on this one, that SP 2 is a much better update than Tiger, and it's FREE!

    I don't even know what you MAC people are cheering about, you're not even getting a firewall OR pop-up blocker, not to mention malicious software detector with you're upgrade your paying $$ 4! LOL!

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:You guys are all crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're not even getting a firewall OR pop-up blocker, not to mention malicious software detector with you're upgrade your paying

      Because we already have that. Besides, why would we require a malicious software detector when there are none known for OS X. There is a reason why no one buys antivirus software for the OS X platform, there is no reason.

    2. Re:You guys are all crazy by Chucker23N · · Score: 0

      That may be because we've had a Firewall since 10.2, back in August 2002, and a pop-up blocker since Safari, in January 2003.

      Calling anything Thurrott writes an "encyclopedia" is a rather interesting kind of sarcasm, btw.

    3. Re:You guys are all crazy by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 0, Troll

      Goodness gracious.
      I think mods need to learn the difference between flamebait, troll, and overrated.

      And how do they figure such a blatant flamefest with the intent of sarcasm (come on people: encyclopedia, scientist, MAC, LOL!) could be considered troll is beyond me.

      I don't think they really know what a troll means.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    4. Re:You guys are all crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:You guys are all crazy (Score:0, Troll)
      by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Sunday April 17, @09:43AM (#12261684)
      ...
      I don't think they really know what a troll means.

      Actually, I think they do.

    5. Re:You guys are all crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article alluded to in the original post is by Paul Thurrott at:

      Paul is a well known MS apologist. A detailed dissection of his article is at:

    6. Re:You guys are all crazy by JoostSchuttelaar · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck. Thanks for letting me spray orange juice all over my Powerbook! :) This is so freaking real yet over the top, hilarious! :)

    7. Re:You guys are all crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right, like the fluid you really sprayed was "orange juice."

      Next time get a box of tissues before you go to the Slashdot's Apple section for your daily jerk off.

    8. Re:You guys are all crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you think that something you wrote is funny, it ain't necessarily so. Not everyone here knows you nor can we pick up on the non-verbal cues that sarcasm uses.

      Trying to use sarcasm as humour by employing an idiot like Paul Thurriot as the pivotal point was always going to be a risky proposition.

      "Flamebait", "troll" and "overrated" have been used to describe your post merely because "Attempted funny but didn't quite work" isn't an option. (speaking as a non-mod).

      It's a pity that the words Slashdot uses to describe a posting can also be interpreted as describing the poster so what may be a criticism of the message becomes a criticism of the sender. Time for a new unambiguous mod system!

      +5 Offtopic...

    9. Re:You guys are all crazy by Shanep · · Score: 1

      the scientist there said that there are only 2 features: spotlight and something else. He stated that all other ones are pretty much nothing.

      I realise you are kidding, but...

      I am anxious to check out the new built in graphing functionality.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    10. Re:You guys are all crazy by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      I generally do not reply to ACs, but you make good points.
      However, there are a few things I'd like to say:
      Mods need to learn the difference between a flamebait and troll. If they don't then they're dilluting both categories. They need to look up some fine examples of trolling to learn the difference.

      Just because they don't find it funny, doesn't mean that it's an automatic troll. Other valid options are flamebait, offtopic, or overrated.

      I don't really care one way or the other, but kids are way too liberal with their "troll" modpoints. Luckily that's what metamodding is for.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  28. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me crazy, but a search feature != newos in my book.

    So are you going to question why Longhorn isn't a free upgrade? Because by the time they stop shearing off features to actually get it out the door, search is probably all they'll have left besides the new, "improved," overly-cluttered GUI.

  29. wow... by nuggetman · · Score: 0

    X.4? X.4? This is an OS release, not an X-men movie. It's Mac OS X Tiger 10.4

    --
    ...and that's all there is to it.
    1. Re:wow... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      X is Roman for 10... so it should probably be either 10.4 or X.IV ;)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  30. OK, how about... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2

    Grapher: Create 2D and 3D graphs with this full-featured equation grapher.

    How about that? Not bad.

    Admittedly, over 50 of their new improvements were aspects of spotlight, dashboard, dashboard widgets, etc. But there was actually more there than I'd expected.

    1. Re:OK, how about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit like Powercalc for XP? Recommended if you're after free graphing calc stuff on a PC (not sure about the 3D graphs though).

      Sidenote: MS really need to do more about making their Powertoys part of the OS. All this 'unsupported' nonsense is really childish. They could throw a small amount of cash at some of these apps and get a lot more bang per buck. I kind of wonder what other neat tools are kicking around in MS that never see the light of day, especially now that Apple seem to be adding whistles and bells left, right and center. It's almost Extreme Programming in it's nature - lots of small iterations over time...

    2. Re:OK, how about... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A bit like Powercalc for XP? Recommended if you're after free graphing calc stuff on a PC (not sure about the 3D graphs though).

      I'd guess it's better. Sounds better, anyway.

      Sidenote: MS really need to do more about making their Powertoys part of the OS. All this 'unsupported' nonsense is really childish. They could throw a small amount of cash at some of these apps and get a lot more bang per buck. I kind of wonder what other neat tools are kicking around in MS that never see the light of day, especially now that Apple seem to be adding whistles and bells left, right and center. It's almost Extreme Programming in it's nature - lots of small iterations over time...

      You're absolutely right. I was looking for a "Multiple windows" manager for XP (my new job came with a windows box - I'm used to Mac OS and various unices) and I couldn't find a decent one. FInally I discovered that MS actually makes one! It's not great, but it works OK. Might want to advertise that?

      I've said it before on here, I think Apple's development model works better than MS's. Apple makes improvements, and ships them. MS makes some imporovements, sees them become obsolete, reinvents them, repeat, and eventually 5 years later they release a completely obsolete OS. Yeah, I'm talking to you Longhorn. Little widgets like powertools don't make it in the core OS with the next service pack....why?

      Even when they announce a good new feature, they can't win. Like their version of Spotlight - which as I recall they announced before Apple, though neither company invented it. MS announces first, Apple is first to market. By the time MS gets it, it's like "Oh. great." It seems there isn't much new in Longhorn anymore, and for an OS 5-6 years in the making by the time it comes out, that's not good.

    3. Re:OK, how about... by fafaforza · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some fine people ported BlackBox to Windows. bb4win.org. It comes with your default 4 virtual desktops, and you can configure bbkeys to Alt+{1,2,3,4,n+1} between them. And it is lightning fast; much faster than Microsoft's.

      It looks like BlackBox runs instead of the default Explorer process, so the OS ends up feeling overall more responsive. So you might want to check it out. You can easily uninstall it by using a sinple batch script.

    4. Re:OK, how about... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      Some fine people ported BlackBox to Windows. bb4win.org. It comes with your default 4 virtual desktops, and you can configure bbkeys to Alt+{1,2,3,4,n+1} between them. And it is lightning fast; much faster than Microsoft's.

      Wow. I had no idea such a thing existed. If I can't convince them to let me install Linux, I'm definitely giving that a go. Thanks, that helps a lot. Keep me a little saner anyway.

    5. Re:OK, how about... by burns210 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Microsoft announced a FS Search(similar technology found in Spotlight/Longhorn) to be included in NT 4. I think it was called Cairo, but could be mistaken. Microsoft has talked about this search technology in place of folder structures for a decade, which is fine, I wouldn't think machines that ran NT could run this type of indexing search, but that all comes down to implementation... they just have never found(maybe Longhorn will have) the way or ability to implement it for a public release

    6. Re:OK, how about... by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      Not really so impressive. They shipped a similar utility with OS 8. I still have it on my old 333Mhz Strawberry iMac.

      They call that new?

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    7. Re:OK, how about... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      http://virt-dimension.sourceforge.net/ is a very good virtual desktop menager for windows (better suited for daily use than blackbox imnho...the latter has still some irks unfortunatelly)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  31. Re:charging for . release? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why is a barn door not stable?

  32. HFS+ CLI file commands by doon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the list:

    Use command line file commands on HFS+ items with proper results -- utilities such as cp, mv, tar, rsync now use the same standard APIs as Spotlight and access control lists to handle resource forks.

    Being both a Mac User and a Command LIne Junky. This makes me happy.

    --
    To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @
    1. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Seconded. I got burned by backing up a disk using command line tools previously, until I found out about ditto. It will be nice to forget about ditto again...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the most important features to me, too. I wonder if it comes about as a result of changes to the utilities themselves or disk i/o changes to the underlying kernel. I seem to recall that it's the latter, but I wonder if I'm just being optimistic. It has been annoying that the plethora of unix backup utilities don't handle HFS+. I want cp to mimic copying a file in the Finder.

    3. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Being both a Mac User and a Command LIne Junky. This makes me happy.

      Except that I used cp to strip the resource forks from files that don't need it (like images).

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      That made me smile too , not to mention the fact they are including ksh now and the spotlight command line tools are just begging to be included in my some of my scripts

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    5. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by js7a · · Score: 1

      You can use `cat bloated.image > new.image`

    6. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by solios · · Score: 1

      I dunno why they don't make a bigger deal out of this, honestly. It's probably the one feature in 10.4 that SHOULD have been in 10.0 - the fact that the command line doesn't "see" all the things that make Mac files Mac files (file type and creator codes being the big thing) has been an endless source of frustration for me.

      Finally, I should be able to cron backups of my home directory- something I've been able to do with every other *nix during the five years I've been using OS X.

    7. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by netsrek · · Score: 1

      Nothing stopped you doing it before.

      ditto
      asr
      rsyncx
      psync

      All those things let you cron backups of your home directory, and the first two come with the OS...

      --

      i don't read slashdot anymore.
    8. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by eweu · · Score: 1
      Except that I used cp to strip the resource forks from files that don't need it (like images).
      cp /dev/null foo.tiff/..namedfork/rsrc
    9. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by solios · · Score: 1

      rsyncx and psync don't ship with the default install. I'm very, very big on Out Of The Box functionality - I don't like the idea of having to convince OS X-running friends to download such-and-such, tell them how to install it, walk them through using it, etc, etc.

      Besides, this stuff still should have been there To Begin With. :)

    10. Re:HFS+ CLI file commands by netsrek · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's what I said. :)

      ditto works fine, and asr/hdiutil give you more functionality than a straight copy can.

      Yes. it should have been there to begin with... but Apple have been trying to wean everyone off resource forks.

      --

      i don't read slashdot anymore.
  33. CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by nguyenhm · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the most interesting new features of Tiger are under the hood. Those four new frameworks add an incredible amount of functionality into the base OS, which can be easily used by future applications. For examle, CoreImage adds tons of image processing features a la Photoshop, is extensible, and uses the GPU.

    1. Re:CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by Queer+Boy · · Score: 4, Informative
      CoreImage adds tons of image processing features a la Photoshop

      No, CoreImage goes WAY beyond Photoshop because the effects are real-time GPU accelerated and non-destructive. The developer tools comes with an application called CoreImage funhouse which is rudimentary but works. I look for GraphicConvertor to add CoreImage to the next version and really put a hurt on Photoshop Elements.

      It's amazing to perform filters in realtime and scrub the centerpoint to watch the image change. These are effects that were only available to high-end applications like Photoshop that now every shareware author has direct access to.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    2. Re:CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by totoanihilation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The image units are really cool indeed. Not only will there be a standard for "filters" built into the OS, but every app will be able to use them (including AdobeCS, iPhoto, Office, etc)
      But where it becomes interesting is in the freeware domain. These image units greatly level the playing field. It will become excessively easy to build an image manipulation app in Cocoa that not only uses all these same filters (+ the third party ones) but also uses the hardware to its full potential (i.e. GPU-accelerated filters). Adobe will face some serious competition (specially if we look at PS Elements). I can also see The Gimp having a hard time competing on the Mac without some serious remodeling of their design philosophy.

      In all, these new APIs will make it A LOT easier for the next killer-app(s) to be developed on OSX. And that, to me, is the biggest feature of Tiger.

    3. Re:CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by bogie · · Score: 1

      "But where it becomes interesting is in the freeware domain."

      Don't you mean the shareware domain?

      "I can also see The Gimp having a hard time competing on the Mac without some serious remodeling of their design philosophy."

      The Gimp doesn't have much marketshare on the Mac already so I don't think they have much to worry about. Also don't expect to see Freeware apps as full featured as the Gimp out there just because of CoreImage. If something comes out that can do as much as the Gimp and is clearly easier to use and more full featured expect it to be commercial, not freeware.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    4. Re:CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look for GraphicConvertor to add CoreImage to the next version and really put a hurt on Photoshop Elements...hese are effects that were only available to high-end applications like Photoshop that now every shareware author has direct access to.

      Screw shareware authors -- the power is in the USERS hands now:

      I predict that within a week of Tiger's release, someone will release a free Automator action that can apply any CoreImage effect. When combined with the other existing capabilities of Image Events, you'll be able to build a workflows that do anything GraphicConverter can do.

    5. Re:CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by totoanihilation · · Score: 1

      I guess it all depends on the amount of work that goes into it. A simple "wrapper" to all the APIs can be built in 2 days (Apple did a demo of this at WWDC last year). I wouldn't expect someone to charge for this. But for more full-featured apps, I can see two things happening:

      1. Some lone guy builds an app in his free time, and charges a few bucks for it.
      2. Someone starts a Sourceforge project and gets a small team involved... 4-5 developers could build something outstanding in very little time (individually).

      Personally I don't mind any of the alternatives, but from my experience, the 'open' projects are more stable because they don't rely on the mood of a single person.

    6. Re:CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreData/QuickTime/Sync by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Seashore is a simple image editor for OS X, with a native front end that reuses a lot of code from the Gimp. It is still pretty rudimentary, but seems like the right approach to me. This is exactly what the previous poster is talking about. One guy writes a GPL editor, posts it on sourceforge. Right now it is functional and useful. Once it integrates the coreimage capabilities, it will start to be a useful replacement for photoshop for some low-end users. This is exactly the type of project that could take off and put the hurt on photoshop (who just announced that they are acquiring macromedia by the way).

  34. Re:charging for . release? by Formz · · Score: 1

    Even better! The features of SP2 overwhelm me. If I hadn't already updated to it when it came out, I'd most certainly do it now when it's being forced on everyone, regaurdless of wants or needs.

  35. Too expensive.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...at $129 yet again, but I've got the family pack on pre-order, so amortize the $150 after the Amazon rebate across 4 Macs and it's quite the bargain. They should really provide upgrade pricing, but the $129 list is still wayyyyy cheaper than XP Pro, but twice as expensive as my SUSE 9.2 boxed set.

    1. Re:Too expensive.... by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      so is it too expensive or cheap? Given that Microsoft is the market leader, undercutting their price while offering comparable or even better features would be a bargain.

      Does M$ offer the family pack on Pro?

      whats your problem again?

    2. Re:Too expensive.... by dimer0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amazon has a $35 rebate on Tiger, which brings the price down to $94.99.

      If you're a student/educator, you can also take advantage of Apple's educational pricing - $69 w/ free shipping.

    3. Re:Too expensive.... by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      Ah, but Suse releases twice a year, so they cost the same!

    4. Re:Too expensive.... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not advocating "cheating", but even if you are not a student you can still get the student pricing. I am a part time grad student and am elligible, but when I purchased my iBook and iPod at the student discount online, there was no real verification as to if I was a student or not - I just claimed that I was and told them what school I was attending. Looks like Apple is using the honor system for student pricing.

    5. Re:Too expensive.... by angle_slam · · Score: 2, Informative
      but the $129 list is still wayyyyy cheaper than XP Pro,

      Yeah, because $129 is wayyyyy cheaper than $119.99.

    6. Re:Too expensive.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because $129 is wayyyyy cheaper than $119.99 [salesintl.com]. Yeah, that's an OEM version. Try comparing the $129 with the retail full box with support package of XP Pro....

    7. Re:Too expensive.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft...blahblahblahblah.

      Linux is free.

    8. Re:Too expensive.... by clontzman · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you bought XP Pro in 2001 for $189 or XP Home for $99, you'd still be up to date. On the Mac side, you'd have spent $129 (OS X) + $129 (10.2) + $129 (10.3) + $129 (10.4) to keep your OS up to date in the same time period.

    9. Re:Too expensive.... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Actually, from what I understand, they do the fact checking behind the scenes. A school registering for a discount includes a method to use university records to verify discount eligibility.

      As a student (or staff, or faculty) you are listed in many university's public directories, for example.

    10. Re:Too expensive.... by geekee · · Score: 0, Troll

      " ...at $129 yet again, but I've got the family pack on pre-order, so amortize the $150 after the Amazon rebate across 4 Macs and it's quite the bargain. They should really provide upgrade pricing, but the $129 list is still wayyyyy cheaper than XP Pro, but twice as expensive as my SUSE 9.2 boxed set."

      I've gotten my patches to XP for free for 3 years now. $0 beats the hell out of $129/year.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    11. Re:Too expensive.... by ColMustard · · Score: 1

      Yeah I didn't notice it verified me as a student either, which I thought was odd. I am a full time student and probably wouldn't be able to upgrade without student pricing. I guess I could have lived off of potato chips for a while...

      --
      Moof.
    12. Re:Too expensive.... by ColMustard · · Score: 1

      Wow. Windows XP has been out for how long and it is still over a hundred bucks? I'm glad I have a Mac. I probably couldn't afford to live the Windows lifestyle.

      --
      Moof.
    13. Re:Too expensive.... by ColMustard · · Score: 1

      You're "up to date" with a 2001 operating system. If that is your meaning of "up to date" then, you will have to assume that you won't update the Mac operating system either, and you will both have a 2001 operating system. The difference is that there is something better available for your Mac if you so choose to upgrade (which is totally optional).

      --
      Moof.
    14. Re:Too expensive.... by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except Apple's OSes aren't 'upgrade' versions. You can sell your old ones perfectly legally; I have sold my 10.1 and 10.2 discs on eBay for over $75 each when I upgraded; and I plan to do the same with my (soon-to-be) replaced 10.3 discs.

      With XP, for those prices, you're paying for an 'upgrade' which means you had to have a legal copy of Win 98/Me/2000, and you aren't allowed to resell your old copy.

      That combined with the family pack means I have spent less upgrading four Macs to Tiger than I spent installing two copies of XP. (One OEM, one upgrade. For which, the OEM is *NOT* eligible for any tech support whatsoever.)

      People complain about Apple charging so much for a 'point release', yet XP was just a 'point release' above 2000. It's not Apple's fault that Microsoft takes so long to upgrade. SP2 has been the largest free update Microsoft has ever done. SP1 wasn't anywhere near as big, nor have been any of 2000 or NT's service packs. Microsoft's 'Service Packs' are more analogous to Apple's x.x.1 releases, which Apple releases significantly more often than Microsoft.

      For example, have you heard of a single Mac that has been broken in to or compromised due to a security vulnerability inherent to OS X? No. Yet Apple releases security updates soon after they are discovered to patch holes nobody ever knew about. With Windows, I've seen computers infected with 3 year old viruses, even though the computer is only 1 year old!

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    15. Re:Too expensive.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      twice as expensive as my SUSE 9.2 boxed set.

      Twice as expensive and ten times as useful.

    16. Re:Too expensive.... by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      Rick, Rick, think! WHAT support with XP Pro? The support you require a credit card to pay for? And once the software is on your machine who cares if the media came in a glossy carton?

      Personally I think OS X would be the better choice even if XP Pro cost the same as your average Linux distro, but let's not be a blind Mac zealot when thinking about the facts in the comparison. Just the activation scheme turns me off Windows.

    17. Re:Too expensive.... by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      The SP2 upgrade was free.

    18. Re:Too expensive.... by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      With XP, for those prices, you're paying for an 'upgrade' which means you had to have a legal copy of Win 98/Me/2000, and you aren't allowed to resell your old copy.

      No. They are OEM versions, not upgrades. You don't need any prior version of Windows to use an OEM version.

      For which, the OEM is *NOT* eligible for any tech support whatsoever.)

      As long as you have a valid key, why would MS refuse to support your version of XP?

    19. Re:Too expensive.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've wondered a bit about verification for education discounts. When I ordered my iMac through the online store, it asked what school I attended and nothing more. I can't imagine that they'd call up the school's records office to ask "Is NNN a student at your institution?" I'd guess they get hundreds/thousands(?) of education orders per day that they'd have to verify, and if not that, it would probably be a violation of some sort of privacy policy to be giving out any of my info (even the simple fact that I'm enrolled there.)

    20. Re:Too expensive.... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      So were the nine upgrades to Panther. 10.3.[1-9].

    21. Re:Too expensive.... by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      But not the upgrade to 10.4.

      If you want to compare point releases, MS patches Windows very regularly.

    22. Re:Too expensive.... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I think we are confusing terms. 10.4 is not an Apple point release, it is an OS upgrade. 10.3.x are point releases to the OS.

      Basically, it goes like this:

      1.2.3 where

      1 = generational upgrade, not backwards compatible
      2 = major operating system release
      3 = an incremental (point) release of patches and updates

      If you want to get into semantics just remember that windows uses this same numbering scheme. Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0. Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1. Microsoft hides the numbering system, a good way to see it is via browser information on a site such as: http://techpatterns.com/forums/about101.html.

      So going from 10.3 to 10.4 is more like going from Windows 2000 to Windows XP (or Win 95 to Win 98) than going from SP1 to SP2. By comparison going from OS9 to OSX was like going from Win3.1 to Win95. Remember how freecell was a litmus test of whether your pc had 32-bit capability? :-)

    23. Re:Too expensive.... by ColMustard · · Score: 1

      Your "generational upgrade" description is not totally accurate in that backwards compatibility is not necessarily broken. 9.x is able to run software written for much earlier systems (7.x, etc) and even OS X at least has the Classic environment for running such software.

      --
      Moof.
    24. Re:Too expensive.... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Point taken. I've only had a mac for two years so I missed the joys (?) of anything before OS X. This is how it was explained to me by my friendly mac fantatics. Thanks for the info.

    25. Re:Too expensive.... by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      Because the terms of the license agreement for the OEM version is that the OEM supports it. (For example, when you buy a Dell computer, you have to call Dell for support on Windows problems, *NOT* Microsoft.)

      Yes, MS will be happy to charge you for tech support with ANY version of Windows, OEM or not; but the whole point of OEM is that it gets Microsoft out of providing tech support. That's why it's cheaper, because the OEM is supposed to provide that support. (Likewise, Microsoft's license for OEM copies says that it has to be sold by an OEM with a qualifying piece of hardware. The fact that lots of places sell it 'bare' is technically against Microsoft's license agreement with the seller.)

      Not to mention, for most of the OEM versions, you specifically CAN'T have a previous version. OEM copies refuse to 'upgrade', and can only do a clean install. (I haven't verified this for XP, but I know it was true for 95-Me.) And if you're trying to 'upgrade' from Me to XP, not being able to use the actual 'upgrade' option is a bit of a limiter for the non-Geeks out there.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
  36. Re:2 words: by TheoGB · · Score: 0

    No it's not. "It's" is a contraction: A single word made from two or more words and the apostrophe is merely an indication of this.

  37. Re:charging for . release? by mike_scheck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    yes, because the might tiger has features such as "save as html". I mean, did you even look at the feature list? Most of them are totally bogus "aqua calculator widget" and "Burnable Folders". Oh I bow before you mighty tiger, I didn't realize you could now save text as html, and burn folders straight to cd. Please, take my wallet!!!ONE!!

  38. Re:Apple is Microsoft by organum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would, too. But, as much as I work via the CLI, I also need a mature GUI. OS X is the only game in town in that regard.
    ("Damn the electric fence!")

  39. Re:2 words: by Rosyna · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm, I wonder if font book is scriptable.

    Also, Playing DVDs in the dock is by far the only reason I am getting Tiger.

  40. Re:charging for . release? by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I could have sworn there was a firewall in previous releases of XP, they just tightened up the rules a bit and confused the heck out of everybody.

    More than anything, XP SP 2 was designed to relieve a huge embarrassment to Microsoft, the security issues. MacOS X has security issues fixed at no charge through software update, so it's really no different.

    If early accounts are any indication, Tiger will have significantly improved speed yet again. My ancient 400mhz PowerBook G4 is already faster under Panther than it's ever been and I'm looking forward to further improvements. In the same time period, MS has gone from 2000 to XP, and enormous increases in bloat and dramatic reductions in performance have been the result.

    Spotlight is a feature Microsoft was trying to create in Longhorn, and it looks like their version might be cut from the Longhorn release so MS can make its deadline. Again, this is clearly something both Apple and Microsoft were planning to charge for.

    Finally, features have been added to Tiger that will allow programmers to substantially speed up their processing of video, which will help applications such as Final Cut Pro. It's pretty cool to see them in the OS so that third-party programmers can use them, not just FCP. So even though buying Tiger + FCP is more expensive than getting FCP alone, I'm confident that these changes will improve third-party software to the extent that it's worthwhile.

    So in conclusion I certainly don't think Tiger is in any way comparable to SP2. It's nice that something's free, but it doesn't have the comprehensiveness, new features or speed increases Tiger brings to the table.

    D

  41. Re:charging for . release? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because a high wind blew through a stable and knocked it's door off, so they had to put in a barn door, and now the barn is left without a door.

    (This is an issue because, if the cows get out of the yard they might end up inside the barn and make a hell of a mess.)

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  42. Get over Tiger already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spotlight isnt that interesting.

    Dashboard does what... google does... and almost any linux desktop environment.

    Stealth mode? Seems like this was possible before (with a bit of unix love) in OS X before anyway...

    The only thing nice it adds is GCC 4.0 which you could have already upgraded to. Worth 129? Hell no. Nice if your buying a new mac? Hell yah. Personally I'll wait till 10.5 and hope it has some more interesting features or speedups...

    1. Re:Get over Tiger already by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      it almost certainly will have speedups, every release has gotten faster on same hardware

      maybe you should investigate core

  43. Re:charging for . release? by he-sk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Spotlight, Dashboard, Quicktime 7, H.264, CoreImage, CoreData, X Code 2, ... are hardly "tweaks." The list goes on and on.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  44. mod parent up ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is with any comment that could be seen as anti-mac being labelled troll?
    seriously its bs.
    as much as half of slashdot seems to worship macs some of us don't, and I'm sick of us been labelled trolls just for having a view contrary to yours.

    1. Re:mod parent up ffs by l3v1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and I'm sick of us been labelled trolls just for having a view contrary to yours.

      Nope, you get modded trolls for the lack of the ability to prove yourselves with credibility. Also, ignorance won't help avoinding trollness. Just count how many times the 'point release' crap is being mentioned from windows freaks up above, or the quite pointless forced comparing to sp2.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    2. Re:mod parent up ffs by mike_scheck · · Score: 1

      First of all, I am *far* from a windows freak. Doesn't it seem interesting to you that the same argument is being made over and over again by different people? Thats when its time to try something new, and actually *listen* to what they are saying.

      Assuming that people are only saying something because they are bigots is total ignorance. I own a mac (as well as several sparcstations, and o2, and a few pc's running linux/windows). If this post were about any of the above, I could possibly comment on what shortcomings those os's had. That doesn't make me a fanboi of the competing os, it makes me *open minded*....

    3. Re:mod parent up ffs by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      There is a difrence between a difering view point and misinformed/misinformation.
      I agree it perhaps is not trolling , but it was most certainly false information .
      Honestly Tiger is not just an minor update , Some serious OS functionality has been changed, the kernel has been optimised for g5s , most of the core utilites have recived major function overhalls ,the subsystem is heavily updated,
      The command line is now far far more functional from a sysadmins point of view , the networking interfaces have recived a large ammount of added functionality and improvements , Developer tools are in vs 2 , 64-bit VM support ,Fine grain locking has been added which is wonderfull news if you have duel procesors (or more on an x-serve), The dashboard is rather cool and another well integrated feature ala exposè ,native support for a new generation of file formats , PDF rendering updated to vs1.5(remember pdf is part of the core ),Core image and vidio are excelent improvment ... etc etc etc those are a few of my faviourits(include apple including KSH by default ) .

      personaly these are far greater changes than those from windows 95 to 98SE or ME , and definantly far greater than that of windows 2000 to xp , and i would say that its a greater upgrade than for example suse 9.1 to 9.2 or more comparable to the diference between debian sarge and debian Sid

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:mod parent up ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic 99% of comments posted on /. should be modded troll, including your own.

  45. Ohh my f00king Quad! *how lame bragging!* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Firewall Stealth Mode

    Whaaat? what's there to brag about this ... every *nix since the age of dawn, has had this feature!

    (ok, it's been a thing someone with know-how had to configure, but it's been there!)

    PS. What would be interessting to see, would be a comparission of how many of the 'new features' they brag about are good ol'dys that's been in *nix all along...

    1. Re:Ohh my f00king Quad! *how lame bragging!* by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mac OS has had the abilitiy to do this "firewall stealth mode" since IPFW was bundled. (10.0? 10.1? not sure...) What they're talking about is now there's an improved interface to ipfw. I run 10.3 and I've already turned on this "stealth mode" with a few ipfw commands in a startup item.

      But this isn't something joe sixpack can do with just a click. Oh wait, now there's tiger. Nevermind that.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Ohh my f00king Quad! *how lame bragging!* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burnable Folders
      Dictionary
      Calendar Printing
      Automatic Projector Mirroring (dupe)
      Target Disk Mode
      Preview Slide Show
      Preview Grab
      System Info Command
      Calculator
      Dictionary (dupe)
      Dictionary (dupe)
      Phone Book
      Sticky Notes
      Translation
      iSight Integration (dupe)
      Bluetooth Headset Support (dupe)
      About This Mac

      just to name a few. indeed many of their 200 'features' are duplicated elsewhere on the very same page.

  46. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by jmelloy · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right, that didn't need a GUI at all.

  47. moderating here... by mike_scheck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just wanted to point out that I have been on slashdot for a while now, and I have *never* seen a thread with so many posts moderated as "troll", "flamebait" or "offtopic". Many of the posts are valid points, and if they were discussing microsoft, they would be modded +5 funny, or +5 informative. It seems to me someone is taking things a little too defensively.

    For the record, I hate microsoft, and I am a unix guy at heart. That doesn't mean that everyting apple feeds to me I have to love. A little healthy criticism does everyone good, including apple.

    1. Re:moderating here... by nagora · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I just wanted to point out that I have been on slashdot for a while now, and I have *never* seen a thread with so many posts moderated as "troll", "flamebait" or "offtopic".

      Apple is afflicted by the largest percentage of "fanboys" of any major OS, and has been for a long time. Criticism, even of the mildest sort is frowned upon, and actually saying that you prefer something else, even if acknowledging that there are some very good points in OS/X or Mac hardware, is a hanging offense.

      Oh, shit, I'm off topic! I'm in trouble now!

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:moderating here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You should be moderated -1 Ignorant.

    3. Re:moderating here... by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      that is what meta moderating is for right?

    4. Re:moderating here... by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      and some of these are trollish, people posting "why isn't there a spyware detector or pop up blocker? Apple is so cheap!"

      never mind spy-ware isn't a issue and we have a popup blocker in safari for 2 years now.

      these are ignorant postings from people who obviously dont know what they are speaking of.

    5. Re:moderating here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on man. Every post to slashdot has perfectly valid comments modded into oblivion and total bullshit comments modded for all to see. This is why there is meta-moderation.

    6. Re:moderating here... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The point of the moderation system is for people to have a choice when browsing. You can turn the noise up or down in preferences. Moderation is meaningless unless you use it.

      Brash criticism from people whose opinion of the subject is basically worthless to me (they don't have a Mac, have never had a Mac, are never going to get a Mac) is best ignored. That's the bulk of the noise that's been modded out of my threshold.

      It's akin to a black person discussing being Asian. They're not Asian and have never been Asian and are never going to be Asian. Why do I care what they think about being Asian?

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    7. Re:moderating here... by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      just wanted to point out that I have been on slashdot for a while now, and I have *never* seen a thread with so many posts moderated as "troll", "flamebait" or "offtopic".

      That's because there are many posts that are trolls, flamebait, and offtopic. These are the same ol' ignorant things over and over again...

      Some highlights:

      Apple is just like MS, only smaller!

      $129? For a point release?!

      Forget OS X, install Linux!

      200 features? I counted like, 3, tops.

      Spotlight? How lame, "ooh, I can search now."

      The only thing missing is the "1-button mouse" complaint.

      if they were discussing microsoft

      But they aren't. Context really is important. It's fully rational to treat MS cynically. That's just the sort of company MS is. That's like saying a post that questioned IBM's open sourcing of a program is just as valid as a post questioning MS's doing the same. IBM has proven they really do support FS/OSS, while MS has truly open sourced all of something like two trivial things.

      Apple products truly do get better with each new release. MS products, for the most part, just get different. Why? Is it Jobs vs Gates? Is it underdog vs monopoly? Is it good vs evil? Probably some of each, and much more, I don't know. But time and again, the two companies really do act in very different ways, deserving very different opinions.

    8. Re:moderating here... by TomHandy · · Score: 1
      Have you ever been to a Mac-user's forum? A quick glance at how rabid Mac users will get when something is bad or goes wrong (i.e. white spots on PowerBook screens, an OS X update that screws up their computers, etc.), they will go notally nuts with the criticism. In fact, I think they can be much harsher critics of Apple than anything else I've seen.

      Fanboys will certainly defend Apple from generic "MACS SUXOR"-style bashing, but they seem to be more than willing to criticize Apple themselves on things they have legitimate beefs about.

      -Tom

    9. Re:moderating here... by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
      Why do Apple only sell one-button mice? That's just lame, dude!!11

      (Yes, I know :-))

    10. Re:moderating here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brash criticism from people whose opinion of the subject is basically worthless to me (they don't have a Mac, have never had a Mac, are never going to get a Mac) is best ignored. That's the bulk of the noise that's been modded out of my threshold.

      I DO own several Macs. I have linux installed on all of them. I am an outspoken Apple critic. I have sold, configured and repaired HUNDREDS of Apple machines over the years. Because of my experiences with Apple, I haven't bought any new Apple hardware in almost 8 years and have no plans to in the future.

      It's akin to a black person discussing being Asian. They're not Asian and have never been Asian and are never going to be Asian. Why do I care what they think about being Asian?


      It just so happens that I AM black and I have lots of opinions about hot asian chicks.

    11. Re:moderating here... by itistoday · · Score: 1
      I DO own several Macs. I have linux installed on all of them. I am an outspoken Apple critic. I have sold, configured and repaired HUNDREDS of Apple machines over the years. Because of my experiences with Apple, I haven't bought any new Apple hardware in almost 8 years and have no plans to in the future.
      wtf. So according to this, you own 8 year old macs (meaning you own the shit that's back in the days of the PowerMac 8600), and you have LINUX installed on them. This tells me you've probably had very little experience with modern macs, which are about as different from yours as my asshole is; and you're an outspoken critic of them? Could you at least cite some reasons for us?
    12. Re:moderating here... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      At least we have someone admitting to prejudicial moderation. Unfortunately, it's a blatent violation of the moderation guidelines to mod someone down because they scored some points against your favorite platform.

      The issue with your position is that slashdot has always been a site dedicated to cross-platform comparison and compeitition. Nobody agrees on anything here (except that we all hate Windows ME). So you are always going to see the Apple Fanboys arguing with the Anti-Apple Fanboys arguing with the pragmatists. It's the nature of the place.

      Furthermore it's the Apple advocates that tend to provoke (or "troll") reactions here by making blanket statements, mindlessly repeating Apple marketing propganda, and spreading really poor FUD. Sadly that's the stuff that gets moderated up on apple.slashdot.org, while the responses tend to become "overrated."

      I would suggest that if you only want unified agreement that Macs are the best, that you get off Slashdot and go to a MacNN.com or some other Mac zealot place..

      It's akin to a black person discussing being Asian

      Unfortunately for this silly "P.C." argument, anyone with $500 can become a computing negro (ie, a Mac user) and offer legitimate opinions about the strenghts and weaknesses of the thing. In general, I think it's the Mac fanboys here that lack experience with and knowledge of Windows XP and Linux and not visa-versa.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    13. Re:moderating here... by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but none of the things you listed are trolls. If a statement is factually incorrect it does not mean it is a troll. If a statement has been repeated many times, it still does not mean it is a troll.

      Many people that come here do not know much about macs. So any one of the above can be (and usually are) honest gripes or questions about Macs. If you don't feel like responding to the same thing a thousand times, ignore them. If you feel like being helpful, answer it. How hard is that?

      Instead, of course, most Mac people take every post as a personal offense and moderate everything down. That attitude is immature, annoying and ruins the slashdot experience for many people. At least during the MS-Linux flamewars you can see high moderated posts from each side of the fence which makes the discussion fun to read and sometimes even informative.

    14. Re:moderating here... by node+3 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sorry, but none of the things you listed are trolls.

      Don't be daft. I didn't say they were all trolls, I said they were some of the highlights of trolls, flamebaits and offtopics. It's absolutely certain that some the posts were from ignorance (duh, I even said that). It's just as certain that some of them were blatant trolls.

      So any one of the above can be (and usually are)

      Wait a minute, if they "usually" are, doesn't that mean some aren't? Wouldn't that make them prime troll candidates?

      honest gripes or questions about Macs

      Uninformed gripes, and very few honest questions.

      Instead, of course, most Mac people take every post as a personal offense and moderate everything down. That attitude is immature, annoying and ruins the slashdot experience for many people.

      Because it's like a bunch of hip-hop lovin' teenage suburbanites complaining about how Beethoven's 9th is lame and old and how come he's never on MTV Cribs if he's so good?

      If a post just says, "Apple is the new MS" and that's it, or says, "I'm debating between OS X and XP, so I installed Linux." or "$129 for a point release? If MS did this, you'd all complain about it." aren't substantive posts, just complete idiocy.

      At least during the MS-Linux flamewars you can see high moderated posts from each side of the fence which makes the discussion fun to read and sometimes even informative.

      That's because everyone's familiar enough with Windows to have a valid opinion, and most everyone who's switched from Windows to Linux has to have some modicum of sense, and familiarity with both Linux and Windows. To berate Apple, all it takes is some insecurity and flawed perceptions. Reread my list and tell me if any of those complaints stand up to even a minimal level of scrutiny. Those posts aren't made in the form of a valid question or inquiry, they're made as an uninformed attack against something they know nothing about. That should be modded up? They're the equivalent of "I didn't RTFA, but is the article submitter retarded or something?"

      Honest questions about Apple quite often get modded Interesting, and posts critical of Apple's DRM, their suing of ThinkSecret and AppleInsider, etc, are often modded Informative. Posts complaining that OS X doesn't have games, or that you can run Linux and be free instead just don't add anything to the conversation.

    15. Re:moderating here... by DamascusRoad · · Score: 1

      It's akin to a black person discussing being Asian. They're not Asian and have never been Asian and are never going to be Asian.

      Unless said person is Tiger Woods

  48. Re:charging for . release? by scribblez · · Score: 1
    but now it's integrated!! OOOoooOOO

    I think coreaudio, corevideo, and especially the new xcode warrants a new release. Besides they're supposedly a hefty speed boost.

    Similarly, now that I look at it, win95 to win98 didn't seem like a huge difference in terms of what was offered. I'm probably wrong, but the only things I recall was stability and performance (the performance is sure there from 10.3 to 10.4.. stability was always there). Maybe easier networking? who knows?

    --
    "What seems to be the problem, osciffer?" (pronounced aus-if-fer.. bah forget it)
  49. Re:charging for . release? by Formz · · Score: 1

    Do you honestly believe that every feature in every OS release for every platform is going to have nothing but huge new features? OF COURSE there are going to be small features that no one will ever use. Are you trying to HELP your case, or hurt it?

  50. Re:charging for . release? by wootest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (As far as the subject goes, a . release in OS X is much like a major release or at least 0.5 anywhere else - they just want to keep 10.n because OS X is supposed to mean OS 10.)

    Nothing like Spotlight OR Dashboard OR Automator as far as order of magnitude goes got added to SP2. SP2 brought a better firewall - so does Tiger. SP2 brought vastly improved security - so does Tiger, to a certain degree (the reason SP2 could deliver vast improvements was because there was a lot of room for it - OS X may not be *all that*, but it's been more secure than XP from day one, for whatever reasons). SP2 brought better handling of wireless network - wireless networks have been way easier to handle on OS X overall.

    We haven't even looked into the new stuff, like the new improvements in QuickTime and the addition of Core Image/Video which basically relayers the whole graphical layer part of the OS and allows for much better performance.

    SP2 is an example of constantly improving the OS, yes, but so's Tiger, and to a much larger level of magnitude if you look at all the facts. I'm not exactly jumping with joy over having to pay Apple $129. And I'm not exactly the guy that'll take advantage of every single of those 200 features. But I'm liking it for what it is - steady improvement of the OS, so that people won't have to get used to ages of stagnation, be it the way it was with System 7 or the way it is with Windows currently, where security has developed into a feature.

    (And yes, Linux is steadily developing too. This discussion is about SP2 vs Tiger.)

  51. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you're a fanboy who's justifying to themselves paying a stupid amount of money for features that could be found in the form of freeware for Windows.

    Only Apple can release a service pack (and that's what this is), and get away with charging a fortune for it. Just like only Apple could market an mp3 player without a display and not get ridiculed for it on slashdot.

  52. Linuxtard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does the built-in XP firewall have logging and stealth mode?

    Yes! You Linuxtard.

    1. Re:Linuxtard! by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's GNU/Linuxtard, sir.

  53. Stealth Mode by DeltaSigma · · Score: 0, Troll

    3 words:
    Oh my god...

    2 words:
    What's that?

    1. Re:Stealth Mode by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      1 word:
      Oh.

      Like somebody else already pointed out, stealth mode is something firewalls should just have.

  54. Re:Apple is Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I'm not sure what you mean by "mature". If this is another word for "produced by Apple" then maybe you're right. Otherwise, you either never seen Linux GUI (it's excelllent) or your are misleading people on purpose.

    Our company recently migrated to Linux workstations after years of Windows. Can't say that I see much of a difference between Linux and Windows GUIs nor I miss Windows GIU at all.

  55. Apple is getting more and more like Microsoft by samxiao · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    i'm feeling concerned maybe i just go back to Linux

    1. Re:Apple is getting more and more like Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, bye.

    2. Re:Apple is getting more and more like Microsoft by samxiao · · Score: 0

      come on why you guys has to worship everything from Apple? can you be more objective on this? i agree that Apple makes good design, good software but come on some of those "new features" are very common under Linux too

    3. Re:Apple is getting more and more like Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. OS X and so called 'new features' in Tiger are simply too overcooked.

  56. Google Search Bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpotLight indexes every time there is a change (file modified or new file added). There is no delay between the change/add and the time it is searchable. The Google and Microsoft search functionality has a delay while it waits for the system to have an idle moment to run an index routine. So you may or may not get the result you are looking for with either of those tools. That means I have no confidence that the result is complete. No confidence means more work on my part to make sure that I got everything. With SpotLight I KNOW I got everything available. If you don't see the difference then either your search was useless to begin with or you don't value your time.

  57. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    Great God, only on /. could such a comment [i.e. insightful] be modded "funny". I guess some 3 year old 6pack didn't have his morning coffee. Next time please mod some joke insightful, oh wait, that's nothing new either.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  58. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said.

  59. Entourage/Spotlight by dimer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the new features is that Mail.app supports Exchange servers - but I have a feeling this is just imap support and won't handle meeting invites, etc.

    So, I'm stuck using Entourage. Does anyone know if Spotlight will be indexing Entourage emails, etc? I sure hope so! My corporation has ignorantly banned Google Desktop search on the windows machines, so I no longer have a way of finding emails I need in a snap. Entourage + Spotlight puts me back in the game on that front.

    1. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That all depends on whether Microsoft wants to develop and Importer for Entourage.

    2. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      ne of the new features is that Mail.app supports Exchange servers - but I have a feeling this is just imap support and won't handle meeting invites, etc.

      *cough* *sputter*

      Exchange is not IMAP, it's MAPI. Mail.app has supported IMAP since the NeXT days. As for handling meeting invites, it's possible since Mail hooks in with iCal. I don't use Exchange (uh, does anyone still use it?) so I can't verify if it works.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    3. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by Horrortaxi · · Score: 1

      Mail.app has supported Exchange since Panther. I used it at my old job. All I ever needed from it was email, so I don't know how robust its support for Exchange was--but if it helps you I can say that it did open up a whole bunch of folders in my Mailboxes pane. I don't remember what any of them were called though--sorry. It seems like it's more than just imap though.

    4. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by murgee · · Score: 1

      Mail.app has had Exchange support since Panther (as previous poster noted). This is, as you would guess , e-mail only (Mail.app is an e-mail app, after all). However, meeting requests come through fine as ICS files that work handily in iCal. Event confirmations work as well, and you can use Snerdware's tools to sync iCal with Exchange (which you'll need to schedule your own meetings).

      FWIW, Panther has Active Directory support (and Tiger's will be better) - once you're joined to an AD forest, Address Book ties into the directory automagically and Mail.app will (try) to autoconfigure itself for Exchange if you log in with an AD account.

      --
      mrg
    5. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by extra88 · · Score: 1

      Exchange supports more than MAPI, it also supports IMAP and POP and has since the NT days. Entourage has *always* used IMAP as the protocol for accessing Exchange servers and Mail.app has always been able to do the same (I once configured Pine to check my Exchange account over IMAP, just for the hell of it). My guess is all Tiger's Mail.app adds is a preference interface that's more intelligible to someone entering Exchange account information (separate field for domain name) and possibly support for other authentication types.
      Guess what? Exchange also uses WebDAV for publishing calendaring and LDAP for directory services. Exchange is rather bloated (what do you want, it's groupware, not a mail server) and can be a bitch to administer but it's quite featureful out of the box.

    6. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by ruiner13 · · Score: 3, Informative
      " One of the new features is that Mail.app supports Exchange servers - but I have a feeling this is just imap support and won't handle meeting invites, etc."

      Actually, mail handles it correctly even in 10.3. Meeting invites open iCal and place it on your calendar (if you accept, of course). It has worked perfectly thus far for my mac. We have POP3 access turned on in our exchange server, and I have been using it as such. The new feature is that I don't have to use POP3 any more, I can connect natively, and access my address book and such, I assume.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    7. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by jamesborr · · Score: 1

      As stated here multiple times, IMAP is supported by both Exchange and Mail.app and works fine for connectivity. What would be REALLY interesting would be for Mail.app to support the https protocol like Entourage does (i.e. Entourage hijacks the web interface of Exchange to get access to email, calendar information, etc. This is VERY handy as a roaming user, occasionally on various other corporate sites, etc., as it almost always works first time, everytime, as almost all sites do not block outgoing 443 traffic. imaps filtering is not too uncommon, and you can forget about trying to use smtps. The other alternative is bringing up a ipsec tunnel -- which is also almost always filtered at the corporate firewall.

    8. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by yopu · · Score: 3, Informative

      The replies in this thread seem to be either missing the real issue, or guessing. Here's what I know based on direct experience at my company (approximately 99% Windows, 0.99% Macs--including me--and 0.01% Linux).

      Exchange Server supports (at least) MAPI, IMAP, and POP. My company recently "upgraded" to a newer/the lastest Exchange Server and turned off IMAP and POP support.

      Mail.app does indeed work with Exchange, but depends on IMAP being "turned on" in Exchange Server. So I can no longer use Mail.app. It does not support MAPI. Period.

      The latest Entourage (part of Office 2004), however, does work, so I'm reasonably sure it must be using MAPI. Unfortunately, it's unquestionably the worst app I use on my Mac: slow, burdened with "Microsoft featuritis," and ugly/inelegant.

      I could not find any Mac OS X e-mail clients besides Entourage that support MAPI. (Microsoft's previous Exchange 2000 for OS 9 did, but it was dropped in favour of Entourage.)

      I was using Snerdware's Groupcal until the server upgrade. It no longer works. There is apparently a WebDAV method that Groupcal requires that is not enabled by default. See:

      http://www.snerdware.com/support/index.php?x=&mod_ id=2&id=1

      There is no way my company's all-Microsoft IT department is going to do this.

      So, in sum, Mail.app, at least up to OS X 10.3.9, requires IMAP or POP support from the Exchange server.

    9. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know if Spotlight will be indexing Entourage emails, etc?

      1) Microsoft (or someone) would have to develop a Spotlight Importer for Entourage. This is relatively easy, but...

      2) Spotlight only returns files/folders as results. There is only one entry in the database per file. Mail.app's Spotlight support works by storing each message as a separate file, which few other email applications do. (Though, notably, Mail.app has always stored IMAP mail as one-file-per-message.) Entourage, as far as I know (which isn't far), stores things in mailbox files, with many messages per file.

      3) I wouldn't be surprised if someone found a workaround for #2, like mirroring the Entourage mail in a one-file-per-message form. There are many programs that don't store their data as individual files, but would be useful to have Spotlight results for. iPhoto albums, for instance, are stored in a single file, dispite being different "objects".

      Given the popularity of both Spotlight and Entourage, I think it will happen eventually. IMHO, anonymous as it may be, I think Spotlight, Automator, and Dashboard are all going to get exponentially more useful over time, as people develop more Importers, Actions, and Widgets.

    10. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by acacio · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I believe it's support for Exchange over HTTP (using extended HTTP request types).

      It is now a standard protocol and front-end with Exchange 2003.

      MS is finally moving away from MAPI and Outlook 2003 can even work completely in HTTP mode. There's a bit of non-compliancy going on over those HTTP requests, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

    11. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't use Exchange (uh, does anyone still use it?) so I can't verify if it works.

      Uh, yeah? What do you mean 'does anyone still use it'? Why wouldn't they? What kind of retarded comment is that? Just leave your uninformed opinions at the door. And people complain about Apple bashing...

    12. Re:Entourage/Spotlight by Brontojoris · · Score: 1

      Bulldust! Mail.app already supports Exchange, and iCal already supports Outlook meeting invites.

  60. Upgrade pricing by aflat362 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seeing as how all Apple computers come with some version of Mac OS - wouldn't you say that this IS upgrade pricing?

    --

    Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart

    1. Re:Upgrade pricing by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how all Apple computers come with some version of Mac OS - wouldn't you say that this IS upgrade pricing?

      That's a damn good point that never occurred to me. Hope the moderators reward you. :-)

    2. Re:Upgrade pricing by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Since Windows XP comes with most computers, and well, 98 with most PCs before that. It cost $99 to "upgrade" to XP. (or more for Pro)... So for $30, you get an OS that is more than 2000 with a new skin. And home's not the same as Tiger. There is no "home" edition of Tiger, crippled for the masses.

      Of course 98 -> XP was a good deal. But 2000 -> XP wasn't such a big leap. And since XP Pro was considerably more to upgrade to, 2000 -> XP Home lost you a few features.

      I'll pay the extra $30 (and with rebates, I am paying less than the upgrade price for XP) for an OS as good as Tiger.

      Just thought I'd give some perspective on pricing. $129 seems like a lot, but considering the price of XP, well, you get the idea.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    3. Re:Upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      $129 seems like a lot, but considering the price of XP, well, you get the idea.

      Yeah, you guys said the same thing about 10.4, and .3 and .2 and .1. And you'll say the same thing about future versions too. How much has OSX cost you by now?

    4. Re:Upgrade pricing by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      $129 X 2.

      Not bad, considering 98 and XP cost me more. ($99 + $199) So it happened farther apart. Add 2000 into that mix and I'd really be paying through the nose...

      Just because it comes out faster, doesn't make it THAT much more expensive. I could've waited for Tiger had I wanted to, despite all the trolls saying "you gotta have the latest..." no you don't, Not even Microsoft forces you to upgrade. If it works for you, use it. If not, get the newer version. Simple as that.

      And by "you guys" I assume a Mac user? You guys need to lighten up with the penis envy. You really do. Buy a Mini. They're cheap enough even for you Windows Fanbois.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  61. Stupid Macs by Wylfing · · Score: 4, Funny
    While Apple fiddles around with ridiculous improvements like these, Microsoft is hard at work breaking new ground in computing. I hear they're going to make it so icons act like previews of the document! You can keep your toy Macs, I'll wait for a real operating system, thank you.

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    1. Re:Stupid Macs by macmastery · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, you'll have to wait until Mac OS 8 comes out to get that feature.

      Oh wait....

    2. Re:Stupid Macs by dmarcoot · · Score: 2, Funny

      yeah, i been waiting for windows to have that since i first saw on a mac in 1998

    3. Re:Stupid Macs by v1 · · Score: 1

      Most users prefer their icons to look the same every time they go hunting for them. Changing the icon as the document is edited would be a nightmare.

      Though Apple's DVD Player playing the movie live while minimized in the dock sort of goes against this, but hey, it's playing live video, this makes it fairly easy to recognize as a movie. You should check out the feature sometime, it's cool.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Stupid Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minimizing movies to a dock icon is a feature that's been there with movies played back in QuickTime Player for ages.

      So they let you do this with their cripplewared DVD player now ?

      Hardly a new feature. big deal

    5. Re:Stupid Macs by peebeejay · · Score: 2

      Others don't get it, but I do. People: this is sarcasm!!!!

    6. Re:Stupid Macs by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      So you're comparing Apple's 'crippleware' DVD player (which is crippled how?) to Microsoft nonexistant DVD player. That's good.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    7. Re:Stupid Macs by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      I'm having to guess s/he's calling it "crippled" because it's not region free. That's what first popped into my head when I read that comment. I don't know what else s/he could be referring too.

      Shouldn't the Windows Media Player handle DVDs? I don't keep up on that kinda thing.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    8. Re:Stupid Macs by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      It *SHOULD*, but it doesn't by itself. You need third-party DVD decoders (hardware or software,) to do the job. Obviously, most OEMs (Dell, Gateway, HP, etc,) include this with the computer; but if you upgrade your existing PC from Win 98/Me to XP, you will no longer be able to play DVDs. (98/Me software DVD decoders don't work in XP. You need an XP-compatible version. And DVD decoders can't be downloaded for free (even as updates,) because of DVDCCA rules.)

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
  62. ACL by 3770 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm surprised that they have Access Control Lists as one of the features.

    I mean, that is something I've been wanting standard on Linux for a long time (I haven't used Linux in a while now so let me know if it is standard now).

    I'm also surprised that the /. community isn't all over that feature.

    I would have expected apple to bang the drum a lot more on that feature. But I guess that apples target group aren't that enamored with technical points.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    1. Re:ACL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ughh acl's have been available for linux for years now. Take your pick ..

    2. Re:ACL by nagora · · Score: 1
      I mean, that is something I've been wanting standard on Linux for a long time (I haven't used Linux in a while now so let me know if it is standard now).

      It's a standard option in the mainstream kernel. I've not used it, though, since the standard owner/group/world stuff covers everything I need.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    3. Re:ACL by 3770 · · Score: 1

      I know that it has been an option for a long time.

      But what distributions are using it to control the security in their systems? Any at all?

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    4. Re:ACL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only seems to work in the server version of Tiger though. I tried adding an ACL to a file in Tiger client and I got an error message from the filesystem about 'operation not supported'.
      Pretty lame in my opinion. I can understand Apple not providing an ACL management UI in client, but at least keep the underpinnings the same for people willing to work with chmod directly.

    5. Re:ACL by Sweetshark · · Score: 1

      But what distributions are using it to control the security in their systems? Any at all?
      gentoo has ACLs and even had them enabled in the GRP binaries by default. However, almost nobody who really understood the unix permissions model needs ACLs ...

    6. Re:ACL by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      THANK YOU! I have been trying to explain this to our Novell folks at work for a while now. When you can belong to multiple groups, then you should be able to belong to more then one group and be able to rwx anything with the proper permissions. The UNIX model is a bit more nitty gritty and fine grained, but once you understand the octal model, it's easy to limit things by user, by group or world. Want it world readable and not executable? No problem! :D

      ACL's, like LDAP are wayyyy over rated. I agree LDAP is pretty cool from a management stand point, but once that main LDAP password is breached, then anything that Authenticates to the LDAP table is also breached. We don't LIKE to have you having to remember 30 different passwords, but we do like not having anyone break into our server when you make your password your dogs name or have it written down on a paper under your keyboard.

      --

      Gorkman

    7. Re:ACL by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      ACL's are way overrated, but regardless have been available for linux for quit some time. I've used them before in Fedora and here is a nice tutorial on how to do so. The tutorial is for FC2 but works similarly for Fedora Core 3 too. Have fun. (use ext2, ext3, xfs, or jfs filesystems for ACL)
      Regards,
      Steve

    8. Re:ACL by moof1138 · · Score: 1

      " almost nobody who really understood the unix permissions model needs ACLs"

      I understand unix perms full well, and I occasionally need ACLs. One user, one group, and world is, in some cases, a very painful limitation. Yeah you can usually work around the limitations by making yet more groups, and other annoying to maintain hacks, but there are cases where I have been completely stuck and there was no way to get unix perms to work in the way that a department wanted.

      For instance, a dept. has content creators that should have a share be a drop box for them. They have content editors that should have read write to that share. They also have tools that publish the content from that directory. Those tools should have read only since they should not be able to touch the content, only publish. Unix permissions cannot handle that, so you have to soften things up somewhere, giving someone more privileges than you want. This is just a recent example, I have run into wanting ACLs many many times, where the unix modle is just to brittle.

      On a home or development box, unix perms are fine.

      On a webserver, they're fine.

      On a file server with lots of departments using shares in different ways, unix permissions suck.

      --

      Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
    9. Re:ACL by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      Explain, please, how to make a file readable by the members of groups A and B, writable by only group A, and also writable by the manager who is a member of group C (but not the other members of group C) by using the UNIX permissions model.

    10. Re:ACL by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Add the manager to only to group A as well as keeping his primary, group C. AIX can do this as can other OS's. While you could satisfy this with ACL's, you could also satisfy this be rethinking who needs access to what. ACL's is just a kludge on top of something that already works. If your security model is so complex you have to do something like what you discribe here, then you don't need ACL's, you need to rethink your model. File security models are like trees. If the core of your model is bad, ACL's can fix it, somewhat, but that doesn't fix the roots. If you have a strong core (or like a tree, a strong root system) you can grown the model when you have to with out adding another layer on top. ACL's make it too easy for you to say OK to a user who comes up with some idiotic reason he needs write access to a file that he otherwise doesn't need to write to and he should not be in it. If he NEEDS this access, it's so easy to just ADD him to A as well as C. The only case is if he did not need to write to the OTHER files in A. In this case, I would make a D and put the file this manager in C needs to write to and make A and C members of D or add anyone who needs to write to this file to D. There are MANY ways of think yourself out of crap like this. Again, if your model is too inflexible to do things like this, then maybe you need to get the users together and hash out a new model that works better for everyone??

      --

      Gorkman

    11. Re:ACL by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Add the manager to only to group A as well as keeping his primary, group C.

      That would give him access to all of group A's files, not just the one he needs. That solution would not work.

      If your security model is so complex you have to do something like what you discribe here, then you don't need ACL's, you need to rethink your model.

      Sorry, but what I described is the simplest possible case. I deal with it every day. An editor needs to have write access to the documentation file to which he's assigned, but can't have write access to all the documentation files. Additionally, the developers need read access to the documentation but can't have write access.

      Saying "rethink your whole company's way of doing business to work around a flaw in the technology" is a dumb answer, I think.

      In this case, I would make a D and put the file this manager in C needs to write to and make A and C members of D or add anyone who needs to write to this file to D.

      A file can only belong to one group. It can either belong to A or to D, not both. So that solution would not work either.

      There are MANY ways of think yourself out of crap like this.

      In fact, there are zero ways. Because "redesign your organizational structure to accommodate obsolete technology" is not a way.

    12. Re:ACL by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Your correct. A file Cannot belong to more than one group bt people CAN. This still doesn't proove anything and if you had noticed I had addressed the first sitation later in my post. If the file in question belonged to D, Members of A and B can get the rights they need on D and group C can add them to D.

      Also, if you can't trust your developers to not make writes to the files, then who can you trust? Our developers, while they don't have more access than root, they do have a ton more access then most users do. They don't abuse thier access requiring draconian security either. Again, the people who WRITE your system need as much access as they can get because they write the system! That is if your developers are in house. Also, you can have one security model and one organizational structure. They can appear to be, on the surface, different but get everyone the rights they need. You should not set up systems such that your security model mirrors your org chart. If you do something like this, then you will have problems. What if your AR folks cant write to the GL?? That would be a problem! What I am talking about is systems necessary for survival of the company. File shares, while they contain lots of documentation, are rarely what runs your company. You have database systems and other programs that do this. Granted, file shares can hold your production and can be that critical, I have very rarely seen where they were so critical you have got to come up with crazy file access schemes. Again, your system setup should not mirror your org chart or be so set in stone you can't make changes. The only reason you say that there are zero ways to get out of this without ACL's proves to me that you are indeed spoiled by them. There are ways. Sure, it may require weird work arounds, but there are ways. Hell most of the people I work with are unaware of what a file share IS! The amount of times I get documents mailed to me internally far exceeds what I have seen externally. Here's another way to get out of your situation you present without ACL's:

      Put the file in a PDF or a password protected PDF or even a web page. The developers can now have read access without getting it at the file level in the system. Think creatively....don't use an excuse tht you gotta have ACL's. If you have them and they work for you, great, but they aren't so necessary that you can't creatively come up with ways to work without them. There's always a way. With open source, there are even more ways.

      By your way, you'd throw out most of Mac OS X and other very stable and very good UNIX like systems because they don't have ACL's. Maybe they don't have them because thier users and system admins are not screaming for them because they don't need them? ;) Most of these OS's have programs that are 20-30 years old and been continually updated and honed to perfection where as it seems Microsoft has to throw everything out once a decade. You sound like a Windows guy assigned to work a few Mac OS X machines and doesn't like them because they don't work like a Window's machine or a Novell system. Just because you don't understand why some UNIX systems don't have ACL's or don't allow more then 8 character user names (another piece my Novell Admin's care about that I could care less about) or don't support some weird wiled Microsoftian stuff doesn't mean they ain't any good.

      --

      Gorkman

    13. Re:ACL by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      Two words: hard links.

      If neccessary, these can help you out of a bind, but in most instances, it won't be neccessary.

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    14. Re:ACL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every modern *nix system has ACLs nowdays, so save your breath. ACLs have won.

    15. Re:ACL by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, so you get to the point where there's one group for every file on the system. Every file is owned by its own group, and you determine who has access to that file by who belongs to that group.

      Which is just strikingly similar to ACLs.

      Also, if you can't trust your developers to not make writes to the files, then who can you trust?

      Clearly you don't understand the idea here. It's not about trust. It's about safeguards against accidental changes. You may prefer to work without a net. We don't.

      Put the file in a PDF or a password protected PDF or even a web page.

      Let me say it again because it clearly didn't sink in the first time: Proposing silly workarounds while denying that the shortcoming of the system even exists is, in a word, dumb.

    16. Re:ACL by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Insightful
      THANK YOU! I have been trying to explain this to our Novell folks at work for a while now. When you can belong to multiple groups, then you should be able to belong to more then one group and be able to rwx anything with the proper permissions. The UNIX model is a bit more nitty gritty and fine grained, but once you understand the octal model, it's easy to limit things by user, by group or world. Want it world readable and not executable? No problem! :D

      The Unix model presumes that whenever you want to set up something that is shared among a group of people, you have someone with root access available to make appropriate group adjustments.

      ACLs allow sets of people to control accell among themselves WITHOUT having to get root involved.

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

      Well, your wrong. It's all about trust. If you have some idiot changing a file willy nilley and you or their supervisor doesn't like them changing it then you revoke access. Start out more trusting, and then increase security. That way it doesn't seem to be such a pain to the users. I ain't saying don't really secure things from the outside, and to not have protections at all, but planning a system so poorly to have to result to wild ass security measures is, in a word, as dumb as you say he is. Working without a net is working without a back up. Insuring against accidental changes is not what ACL's are for! That's what backups are for. Put the control in your users hands and then they will see WHY you had to do things that way,preventing people from getting work done and them having to call you to add access all the time is equally dumb. Also, how do ACL's get documented?? How do you keep track of the weird ones?? Wouldn't it be easier to do it right thr first time in planing the groups and servers properly??

      Sure, most UNIX's do support it, but I frankly see what the big deal is. It's not like having ACL's are going to alleviate you from backups. How many times have people who have the rights and will have the rights in the future has deleted a file?? ACL's are for Access Control. Nothing more. Nothing less. Using them for wild security plans are stupid. Have backups and you won't have to revoke thier access with a ACL. Remember, we're there for the user. We should not be the ones dictating to them unless they make a suggestion about reducing security or what not.

    18. Re:ACL by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, I would never hand my users the right to change ACL's themselves. I would get tired of users frickin playing tug of war all of the time. You want a ACL change? Ask me. I'll change it if the reason is good enough. Putting ACL's in your users hands who don't understand them will just cause problems.

      --

      Gorkman

    19. Re:ACL by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      Insuring against accidental changes is not what ACL's are for! That's what backups are for.

      Every once in a while, I get to the point where I think I've heard it all. Then something like this comes along.

      Thank you for making my day a little more surreal.

    20. Re:ACL by 3770 · · Score: 1
      Thank you!

      Let me say it again because it clearly didn't sink in the first time: Proposing silly workarounds while denying that the shortcoming of the system even exists is, in a word, dumb.

      I couldn't have said this any better.
      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    21. Re:ACL by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      If you think your net is a ACL or even just setting correct permissions on a file, you surely jest. Your net is your backup. I would NEVER depend on a ACL over a backup. How many times have you deleted something by accident?? Come on, you know you've done it....

      --

      Gorkman

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

      So we should all turn off access controls, set permissions to 777 and trust that our nightly backup will save us.

      Great thinking.

      Hang on a second while I put your name on my "avoid this idiot like the plague" list.

    23. Re:ACL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No asshat....he was saying that you should not make it look like your counting on your ACL's to protect your ass. Also, to trust some of the people who have read access with ull read write and alleviate the idiotic applying of ACL's in place of a true security model.

    24. Re:ACL by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You want a ACL change? Ask me. I'll change it if the reason is good enough.

      Nothing personal, but I'm so glad I work for a company whose overriding business plan is to make overbearing, self-important jerks like yourself obsolete.

      IT guys are the ultimate middle-men. They stand between people who can do things and the resources (computers, tools and data) they need to do them. Even at their best, they're just glorified elevator operators.

      And with that attitude, you, my good chum, are not at your best.

  63. Re:charging for . release? by ivano · · Score: 1
    it's really simple...if you need to hit return to see your results then it ain't Spotlight.

    ciao

  64. Better than Stealth Mode by FreeLinux · · Score: 1

    iptables -t filter -A INPUT -j MIRROR -m psd

    Bring it! You 1337 h4x0r, you.

  65. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you use computers, you should care. Apple has consistently 'led the market' in computing, meaning if you watch Apple now, you will have an idea of what will be a big deal in a few years in general.

    It's not necessarily the case that Apple can get 'credit', so much as Apple was first to 'get it right'. If not Apple, then someone else would have, it was just the fact that Apple was first that it matters. Examples include:

    Windows, mice, folders, desktop metaphor in 1983 with the Lisa and 1984 with the Macintosh -> Windows 1.0 in 1985

    Networking, introduced in 1990 with AppleTalk and AppleShare in System 7 -> Windows for Workgroups and Windows 3.11 in 1992

    Quicktime, also introduced in 1990 with System 7 -> Video for Windows/AVI in Windows 3.1/3.11 in 1992

    Color support, which allowed for Photoshop and other image programs, in 1988 with System 6 (Photoshop came out in 1990) -> Windows 3.0 in 1990 (And Photoshop in 1992)

    Desktop publishing, Word, and WYSIWYG came out for Mac in 1985 -> Windows version in 1989

    See a trend yet?

    So what features does Tiger have that will probably be common in a few years?
    'Quartz' 3d accelerated OS
    'Spotlight' integrated OS wide database driven search
    'Core Image/Video' hardware accelerated image and video libraries
    'iSync' computer to computer 'synchronization' (bookmarks, preferences, etc)
    'Apple Remote Desktop' built into the OS
    'Target Disk Mode', which transforms your system into a 'plain' Firewire hard disk when it is booted.
    'Xgrid' transparent, p2p distributed computing built into the OS

    Who knows, maybe only half of these things are big deals, but I suspect most of them will become 'standard' by the time Longhorn ships.

  66. Stealth Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stealth Mode works by hiding all the games you can't play from prying eyes.

  67. Re:charging for . release? by taskforce · · Score: 0
    It's still OS X... Face it, you could pick up a load of those features for free for Windows or Linux.

    Spotlight = Copernic/Google Toolbar/MSN Toolbar (whatever floats your boat.)

    Safari RSS = Why the name change? It has RSS support... Firefox isn't Firefox RSS, Opera isnt Opera RSS, they're both had the feature for donkey's years. Note how on this list they've basicly listed "RSS Support" 4 times: RSS Auto Detection, RSS Bookmarks, RSS Update Notification, Safari RSS View.

    Dashboard = Avedesk/Samaurise, Windows users have been using these widget programs to emulate Konfabulator for years.

    Going through the long list of new features, "AIM Profiles in iChat AV" isn't exactly a huge innovation, and have been enjoyed by normal computer users since the program's inception.

    Listing "New fonts" - I don't know if Mac users ever use "the rest of the internet" (it's probably too underdesign for their tastes) by it's quite easy to obtain as many free fonts as you please. Microsoft recently released a few free ones designed for Longhorn.

    Also, "Improved RAID Support" is what we call a "fix" not a new feature. When I go around updating my system drivers I don't say "Whoa, I'm gonna add 4 new features to my system! Improved RAID0 support, improved RAID1 support, improved RAID0+1 support and improved RAID5 support!"

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
  68. Re:charging for . release? by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    I could have sworn there was a firewall in previous releases of XP, they just tightened up the rules a bit and confused the heck out of everybody.

    Quite right, and I have to add, both fraggin' useless too. [To other flame kids: you can argue over this, but it's hard to erase real experience.] On contrast, you can use ipfw on osx, which is 'the' tool one needs.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  69. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey yeah, lets quote random shit from the parent post while proving we're slobbering idiots who didn't actually read it!

    These have added new features, tweaks

    So tell me, what has microsoft added in their service packs other than bugfixes. Other than the "Security Center" which is just a giant band-aid?

    While we're on about it, how many hotfixes are there between service packs? For both OSes?

  70. someone had to say it by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Use command line file commands on HFS+ items with proper results"

    Being both a Mac User and a Command LIne Junky. This makes me happy.

    Ditto here!

    (ducks, runs for cover)

  71. Re:charging for . release? by ivano · · Score: 2, Insightful
    maybe you're right that us Apple fanboys are being forced to pay for an upgrade..but guess what quality costs money and I'm willing to put my money where I see something good being done. Are some things in OS X crap, yep, are some things cool, you bet. But the problem is Apple hasn't got this sweet deal that everyone buying an Intel machine is subsidising it like Microsoft has. Would I like to have Tiger come free. YES! But us Apple users have to be a bit more realistic and realise that if we want an alternative to Microsoft we need to pay for it.

    Ciao

  72. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially as they are apparently backporting a lot of Longhorns' desirable (ahem) features to Windows XP. I can't imagine anyone willingly handing over money for Longhorn if they have XP already.

  73. Re:tiger is a minor release by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

    maybe you should look at core before you open your pie hole

  74. Speed increase++++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50% speed increase. Deal with it. Every new version of OS X is faster. Every new version of Windoze is slower and every patch makes it slower and less reliable. OS X spanks XP now and Tiger makes it look like a freakin anachronism. Unix underpinnings with the best desktop interface ever devised. In the meantime Windows users are dealing with a cartoon interface and spaghetti code that requires hyperthreading processors to even appear to have some semblance of mutlitasking. Microsoft's army of programmers can't get Longhorn out the door even after cutting most of its major features. Once it is out you'll have to buy a new machine to run it.

    1. Re:Speed increase++++ by Rico_Suave · · Score: 2

      Of course every version of OS X is faster (though 50% is a fucking pipe dream) - 10.0 was pushed out the door way before it was ready - a slow, kludgy mess. OS X shouldn't have been released to the public before 10.3.

    2. Re:Speed increase++++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 % ? Where did you get that from. I doubt Tiger will be 50% faster than Panther.

      Best Desktop Interface ever devised ? It is pretty alright, this is a subjective thing though. Personally I think Brushed Metal only works in Safari. Everywhere else it looks horrible. It is also very very slow and CPU intensive. Apple would make a lot of people happy if they brought back an Appearance Manager like OS 9 had so you could change the chrome to whatever you liked.

      OS X is nice, but very overhyped and some basics are still not there, like the Finder in OS X is just a buggy mess.

      Out of XP, and various Linux distros I do think OS X is lightyears ahead, but perfect? or worth shouting from the rooftops about?

      Nope.

    3. Re:Speed increase++++ by wootest · · Score: 1

      Agreed. 10.2 was the first half decent version.

    4. Re:Speed increase++++ by Cmdr+TECO · · Score: 1
      Personally I think Brushed Metal only works in Safari.

      I think brushed metal only works in the Finder and Quicktime Player where I can't hit the check box to turn it off.

      Apple would make a lot of people happy if they brought back an Appearance Manager like OS 9 had so you could change the chrome to whatever you liked.

      I want NeXT window trim -- the function, not the chrome; Steve can make them as rounded and shaded and brushed and combed as he likes. I also want a Trash that doesn't keep trying to escape, scroll bars on the left, vi or teco bindings in text boxes, and a pony.

      --
      echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
    5. Re:Speed increase++++ by myov · · Score: 1

      Steve is very against themes. I'm suprized the Appearance Manager even made it in. (Apple never released the themes, but they did leak out eventually).

      Why? How hard is it to debug when nothing is where it should be?

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    6. Re:Speed increase++++ by FortranDragon · · Score: 1

      In an ideal, no, it shouldn't. However we don't live in an ideal world. Getting 10.0 out there and a free update in 10.1 six months later got the transition to OS X 'ball' rolling. It bought Apple the time to continue to refine, innovate, and test out things in OS X.

      While 10.2 and 10.3 have been great steps forward 10.1 wasn't that terrible. It was an iBook and 10.1 that convinced me to switch away from WindowsXP full time. Well, maybe WinXP is bad enough to make 10.1 look good. ;-)

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
  75. Fine grained locking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what they mean by that. Adaptive mutexes? Those don't scale as well as you might think. Maybe they're using a different meaning of scalability.

    1. Re:Fine grained locking? by Crossfire · · Score: 1

      No, they literally mean what Linux has been doing for a while now - individual subsystems of the Darwin kernel now are locked individually, rather than via a Global Kernel Lock.

  76. Re:charging for . release? by Frankie70 · · Score: 0, Troll



    "Alas, despite the wait, Tiger is a minor revision, like all previous OS X updates."

    and

    "Though it is marketed by Apple as a major release, Tiger is in fact a minor upgrade with few major new features for end users (though developers will be interested in some of the low-level work Apple has done with Core Image, Core Audio, and other technologies. That won't stop Apple fans from flocking to Apple Stores on April 29 and standing in line to buy it, even at its inflated $129 price."


    Yes, but it's Appple.

  77. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by justsomebody · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is called "Burn on the fly", and please don't make rocket science out of this. It was year 1995 when most of the burning software already contained this feature

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  78. New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by CoffeePlease · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..as advertised. This is what graphic artists have been waiting for, a font manager that's STABLE with thousands of fonts. Suitcase is, but the interface is pitiful. FontAgent is easy to browse, but unstable with lots of fonts and if you turn on WYSIWYG in some views. There's been a big hole in the font management area for a long time now. http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/fontbook/

    1. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by shawnce · · Score: 1

      This existed in Panther and functioned decently well, it is getting refinement for Tiger of course.

    2. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by microcars · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I still wish that the NAMES of the fonts could be displayed in their Style for quick browsing, or is this something that I missed when reading the above link or is it a "feature" that is patented by Microsoft for Word?

      --
      I like microcars
    3. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      It's better threaded now so you don't sit there while it searches and loads every damn font like it used to. It's much faster than before. There's no longer the confusing option when turning off collections "turn of the fonts or the collection", uh, what? It now turns off the fonts in the collection as well as the collection name in Font Panel. Currently there's no way to remove fonts from a Collection, though, you have to create a new Collection.

      I still think you should be able to turn on and off fonts in Font Panel.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by guet · · Score: 1

      It'd be even nicer if it didn't grab all the fonts and put them higgelty-piggelty into one folder - you should be able to tell it where to find the fonts, then it should (optionally) leave them where they are and index/activate them from there. Most professional fonts come in a folder with several files for each font, and copying all the font files takes up a significant amount of space when you have over a few hundred.

      I *hate* the default of moving the fonts out of their folders and stuffing them all in ~/Library/Fonts/ which just leads to an ungodly mess in there. Here's hoping it can now parse nested folders.

    5. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It existed. That's about it. You need Suitcase for any more than 50 or so fonts. It was useless.

      I hope it's all better now.

    6. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      ...and functioned decently well.

      No, it sucked. More than a few fonts and it was painfully slow. More than a few hundred and it was completely useless (a few thousand fonts and you'll be waiting a looooooooooong time for the application to even launch)

    7. Re:New FontBook, worth every cent if it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      or is it a "feature" that is patented by Microsoft for Word?

      AFAIR, it was there in Nisus before it came to Word.

  79. Re:charging for . release? by Aphrika · · Score: 1

    You have a point. If you add up the amount of cash you'd've spent since 2000 updating OSX, then you're looking at around $380 including 10.4.

    However, while each one does contain a substantial number of bug fixes and roll-ups of previous patches, they also contain a large number of additional features, and I assume that the underlying codebase has changed enough to warrant the 10.x change. I personally think Apple are allowed to do this. It certainly doesn't need an 11.x moniker, but is related to the same family of OS - a bit like Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME. So in hindsight, OSX's current five year history of changes, fixes and additions pretty much parallels the Windows 95 to ME path; same codebase, different versions.

    I can see where you're coming from though - the point update does seem a little strange, but with OSX, I guess Apple need to get a little more mileage out of their 'X' symbol. You certainly shouldn't have been marked a troll, I think it's a valid point.

  80. Mod Parent Down (-1) Typing Atrocities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    a) they dont mind posting a dupe
    b) they worshipping everything Apple does

  81. Re:2 words: by ivano · · Score: 1
    as there byline says
    The smarter we make it, the better it gets.

    ciao

  82. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux! by peebeejay · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, I can just see telling my 80 year old mother to type that in!

  83. Feature? by Zebra_X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTFA - How is this a feature?

    Buy Printing Supplies
    Easily purchase supplies for your printer right from Mac OS X Tiger.


    I (and I think many others) don't want their operating system selling them crap.

    1. Re:Feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know it sucks doesn't it ?

      Who wants to buy a load of overpriced media via Apple ?

      Personally I always felt sucked worse was .Mac intergration. Shudder.

      Idisk is just one massive con. For less than Apple's prices for .Mac you can get a nice reseller webhosting account with a ton of bandwidth and email and everything.

      Of course Apple deliberately cripple FTP in the Finder so the only remote volumes you can mount as r/w are their shitty iDisks.

      Booooooooo!

    2. Re:Feature? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1

      Apple must be taking cues from Intuit. You want to use your software as a platform to sell me shit? Then it'd better be free. I bought my last Quicken upgrade when that product started spamming me; looks like I'll be passing on Tiger.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    3. Re:Feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe you're not the target market for that feature because you know exactly what printer you have and what kind of ink cartridges you can put in there. Shit, you probably know which third-party cartridges provide the best refills at the cheapest cost per page. You're a computer geek, you're supposed to know that stuff.

      Imagine how much easier it'd be for your parents or grandparents to buy refills directly through their OS when it gets low. Yes, it'll probably be standard refills at normal retail prices, but it saves you the time and hassle when your dad calls up wondering where to get Ink Boxes for his Epsim-Color-something-or-other.

    4. Re:Feature? by Colol · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I'll probably never use it -- I can usually get it cheaper at Costco -- but I know people who would rather have the right ink just show up at their door. For people like my grandmother, who live out in the boonies, anything coming in the mail is awesome. It saves a trip into town, where what you need may not even be in stock or even offered by the store you drove an hour to go to.

      Heck, every time I buy ink at least one color is out of stock. Why not just buy it from the Apple Store and rest assured it will all show up?

    5. Re:Feature? by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's funny, I mount WebDAV shares read/write all the time on OS X. Sure, I don't have a nice "iDisk" menu option (cmd-shift-I), but I get a dialog box from which to choose my WebDAV share when I hit cmd-shift-K. That also lets you mount FTP and Kerberos and AFP shares pretty easily.

      If you really hate it, put a proxy on your computer that maps mac.com to wherever you put your WebDAV share. Problem solved.

      I grant, integration isn't as nice when you don't have the product being integrated, but Apple isn't going out of its way to make connections to other servers any harder.

      -Alex

    6. Re:Feature? by uprock_x · · Score: 1

      You aint mounting FTP as r/w buddy.

    7. Re:Feature? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 0, Troll

      "I (and I think many others) don't want their operating system selling them crap."

      Actually most Mac users do want their operating system to sell them crap. Especially if it is overpriced. It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. If you don't believe me, read the other replies to your post. I don't really know the exact reason why seemingly intelligent people would love being overcharged so much, but it might have something to do with SM fantasies involving Steve Jobs. That's my best guess.

    8. Re:Feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I (and I think many others) don't want their operating system selling them crap.

      For what it's worth, the implementation of this 'feature' is pretty low-key. Unlike the everpresent "Purchase X Online" links in Windows' Explorer -- you know, the ones that can't be turned off, and the ones that until recently opened in IE no matter what your browser was.

      Basically, there is a "Supplies..." button in the Print dialog, from which you can choose to go to Apple's site. It doesn't even say "Buy Supplies" like it used to. It's about a third of the size it was in early builds, and it isn't even removely "trying to sell you crap".

      It is definitely more of a convenience feature than a product-pushing measure by Apple.

  84. Another cool feature not listed by EvilStein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RSS feeds as a screen saver. It's actually pretty cool. :)

    1. Re:Another cool feature not listed by zpok · · Score: 1

      It's listed...

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    2. Re:Another cool feature not listed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had that back in the day. It was called pointcast.

  85. Feature comparision with Panther and Jaguar by ryan_fung · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple also posted a more readable comparison table with Panther and Jaguar at http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/compare.html .

    1. Re:Feature comparision with Panther and Jaguar by sabNetwork · · Score: 1

      Tiger now supports parental controls... for the Dictionary!

      Holy crap, where's my VISA?

      I'm tired of my kids looking up naughty words in the online dictionary.

    2. Re:Feature comparision with Panther and Jaguar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few omissions and errors in that list:
      - unit conversions can be done in 10.3 easily as well: the calculator has a "convert" menu with all those options.
      - VPN can be done in 10.3 with the internet connection app ("New VPN connection...")
      - Mail HTML Message Composition: 10.3 already can create html-email messages.

      Is Apple flunking its way into new users? Not with me!

    3. Re:Feature comparision with Panther and Jaguar by drdink · · Score: 1

      Note that it says (widget) next to Unit conversions. Calculator is not a widget. They are not disputing the existence of the VPN feature, but rather VPN on demand. I don't exactly know what that is, but I imagine it is some sort of auto-connect dojigger. As for the HTML e-mails... I've not seen them. The only formats that are supported that I've seen are rich and text. Rich is not HTML. They are using WebCore now for composing e-mail messages in HTML, so I'm not sure how they would have supported it before in Mail.app.

      --
      Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
  86. Re:charging for . release? by Rico_Suave · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The parent post is hardly a troll. If you take everything Microsoft has added/upgraded/improved *FOR FREE* since XP was released, it puts Apple and their yearly $129 tax to shame.

  87. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm. Flamebait. That's what it's called when you say something negative about Apple. Could you Apple fanboy moderators please waste a mod point on this post too so that you don't spend it promoting groupthink on slashdot?

  88. Re:charging for . release? by wootest · · Score: 1

    Most of these things have been around for years. Not much in Tiger is actually new technology, but most of it is refined technology, and it's right there in the OS when you boot it up for the first time. That's what the fuss is about. There are lots of minor fixes in those notes, but that's in the interest of disclosure and backing up their claim of 200+ new features, not in the interest of claiming everything groundbreaking.

    Minor points:
    * "emulate Konfabulator" is a misnomer - widget environments have been around for ages, and a lot of them came *before* Konfabulator.
    * "Safari RSS" is a pen name from the hype machine and so's "iChat AV"; they're named Safari 2.0 and iChat 3.0.
    * Yes, everyone can obtain new fonts over the internet; big whoop. Why aren't you taking Microsoft to task for hyping their new fonts *more* than Apple's new fonts, for precisely the same reasons? I love new fonts, and I love the new Longhorn fonts in particular, but this reeks of hypocrisy.

  89. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Windows 2K = Win 5.0
    Windows XP = Win 5.1
    Windows Server 2003 = Win 5.2

  90. Great, i can use Slashdot on my screensaver by samxiao · · Score: 0

    with RSS it'd be better if they put description and comments on Slashdot's RSS too

  91. Moderators! by 3riol · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Whatever you are smoking, we want some of it.

    Because you can't possibly be that incapable of recognising satire when in your natural state, can you?, or that the actual topic of the parent post was the typical Windowsite reaction to Mac OS updates, the wideness of their Weltanschauung, and its relation to certain categories of news souces (extensible to the mainstream microcomputing press). Not mindless Apple-bashing, although the rest of the comments page holds vast quantities of it for our entertainment.

    I suppose we already knew that Jonathan Swift was ahead of our time.

    1. Re:Moderators! by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      I think their thinking was impaired by the steams coming from their boiling blood, which of course was not my point.
      I'm just getting very amused imagining the mods seeing my post and going ballistic. "WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAAAAT?"

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:Moderators! by ockegheim · · Score: 1
      ...with you're upgrade your paying $$ 4! LOL!

      I, for one, applaud you're fine comedic apostrophising LOL!!!!!

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
  92. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft charges for point releases as well. However, it is somewhat hidden by the marketing names. Check the versions of Windows.

    Windows 2000 is actually Windows NT 5.0. Windows XP is actually Windows NT 5.1. Therefore, Windows XP is a point release. Yet, Microsoft charges users to upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

  93. hfs+ and hard links by eske · · Score: 1

    I do hope that they have fixed hfs+ and hard links.
    see this opendarwin mail thread:
    http://www.opendarwin.org/pipermail/darwi nports/20 04-November/022708.html

    --
    What rimes on recursion What rimes on recursion What rimes on recursion What rimes on recursion
  94. "Target Disc Mode" is on all X releases... by lxt · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Target Disc Mode is standard on all Mac OS X releases, not just Tiger. Certainly my 10.1 iBook can be turned into a firewire drive by holding down "t" during startup.

    1. Re:"Target Disc Mode" is on all X releases... by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      I believe target disk mode is a feature of a machine's Open Firmware-- what OS is on the hard drive is irrelevant.

      Not every Mac that has FireWire can do target disk mode-- pre-AGP Power Mac G4s (~350/400MHz) most notably cannot do it, and IIRC they can't be booted from an external FireWire drive, either.

      Pretty much every Mac that shipped with a FireWire port after the Power Macs adopted AGP can do it, and certainly anything with a manufacture date from 2000 on.

      ~Philly

    2. Re:"Target Disc Mode" is on all X releases... by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      The Blue and White (and PCI-only) G3's can boot into target disk mode, as well as the "Pismo" powerbooks (the first ones with Firewire, released in 2000). The PCI G4's were just crap, and were the low-end only in that release cycle. They're the only Mac with Firewire that can't boot into target disk mode.

    3. Re:"Target Disc Mode" is on all X releases... by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      You are right.

      But I still expect MS PCs to eventually 'gain' this ability, even though it's already been out on Macs since 1991.

    4. Re:"Target Disc Mode" is on all X releases... by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Sure is. The new thing in Tiger is that there's a button for it in the startup disk preference panel. Wee.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
  95. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    'Apple Remote Desktop' built into the OS

    Already in XP. Terminal Services/Remote Desktop is standard.

  96. Re:charging for . release? by taskforce · · Score: 1
    In reply to your minor points:

    On Konfabulator- Understood, although I was more referring to Windows users who also use Windowsblinds/StyleXP to "dress" their system up like OS X, in which case they are often emulating Konfabulator, although you are correct. Aqua-Soft Is one site dedicated to it.

    On MS's new fonts- Because MS's new fonts are free, even to OS X users ;)

    I hope my post doesn't have tinge of Mac hating to it, becuase I love OS X, I just don't like Apple for their arrogant marketing.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
  97. Re:2 words: by justsomebody · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Windows, mice, folders, desktop metaphor in 1983 with the Lisa and 1984 with the Macintosh -> Windows 1.0 in 1985

    And in real world Xerox Alto 1972
    http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/alto .html

    Networking, introduced in 1990 with AppleTalk and AppleShare in System 7 -> Windows for Workgroups and Windows 3.11 in 1992

    Again in the real world ARPANET 1969

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Inte rn et

    Quicktime, also introduced in 1990 with System 7 -> Video for Windows/AVI in Windows 3.1/3.11 in 1992

    Movie player? Or actual API and its usage?

    Desktop publishing, Word, and WYSIWYG came out for Mac in 1985 -> Windows version in 1989

    That would be Aldus with Pagemaker in 1980
    http://desktoppub.about.com/od/history/

    btw. Sillicon had dtp software long before Apple did, it just wasn't affordable

    Color support, which allowed for Photoshop and other image programs, in 1988 with System 6 (Photoshop came out in 1990) -> Windows 3.0 in 1990 (And Photoshop in 1992)

    Won't argue here

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  98. Address Book Majorly Improved By Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt anyone will read this because they're all too busy arguing about the cost of the point release, but consider the real depth of the changes just to the Address Book. Sure they list importing contacts as a new feature, but keep reading: you can now use Spotlight to connect everything by contact. This is huge. I've been using Outlook to organize material by task and/or contact; you can insert files into a set of notes taken in a contact or task. But it works ugly. Spotlight is the kind of feature that affects many other features in a big way.

    "Spotlight Contact
    Find everything related to a contact in your Address Book with a single click -- email exchanges, iCal appointments, files attachments or anything else.

  99. Re:2 words: by dmarcoot · · Score: 2, Informative

    apprently it is.
    http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/fontbook /

    look at side bar on lower right

  100. Re:tiger is a minor release by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 1

    and you are pathetic, really pathetic...

  101. Finder Slideshow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am most excited about being able to view a slideshow of pictures straight from the Finder. This is huge, but it hasn't been publicized at all.

    Perhaps because everyone would wonder why they didn't have this years before, a la Windows XP?

    1. Re:Finder Slideshow by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Why is that useful, anyway? Does anyone actually need to do that? Or is it just another annoyance that people will accidentally click on while trying to do something else? (Or maybe I just have bad mouse skills? Which is why I do all my file management from the command line on Linux?)

  102. No power management AppleScripting? by mbaciarello · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing sorely missing from Panther was the ability to AppleScript power management features. It would come in handy for putting your Mac to sleep after a long task, or to wake it up upon certain conditions.

    In order to do that, IIRC, you had to buy a third party extension/dictionary/API. A workaround was also to script at the UI level and simulate clicks in the menus - very inelegant, prone to failure and useless for waking up the machine.

    The new features list in TFA doesn't cite this addition. Does it mean users will still have to resort to third-party software for this basic ability? Automator might help, but still it's not the same as a full-fledged AppleScript dictionary...

    1. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Um, how do you wake it up when the processor is asleep? Just thought I would ask! ;)

      Reminds me of when I was a mainframe operator and a operator scheduled a event to check that the scheduler was up. DUH!

      --

      Gorkman

    2. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      I would think it drops something in the open firmware. Hell you can schedule your mac to turn on, so sleep shouldn't be a problem.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    3. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by mbaciarello · · Score: 1

      It is indeed in the firmware or somewhere else in the mother/logic board, as SlamMan mentioned. There's even a System Preferences scheduler (in "Energy Saver") to turn on the Mac, in addition to wake up from sleep... But again, it's not scriptable at present, if not by simulation of user interaction.

      Also, I could be mistaken but I seem to recall it wouldn't work on my PowerBook when I last tried.

    4. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does pmset(1) not do?

    5. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Wow. Did not know this. But on the otherhand, would Applescript even be able to execute in this situation?? Sounds like something that is too nitty gritty for Applescript or even a Objective-C program could handle with out something in Openfirmware to help.

      --

      Gorkman

    6. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by patrick42 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the Power suite in the System Events application?

      tell application "System Events"
      sleep
      end tell

      from the shell:

      osascript \
      -e "tell application \"System Events\"" \
      -e "sleep" \
      -e "end tell"

      (this is currently available in Panther).

    7. Re:No power management AppleScripting? by mtalbot · · Score: 1
      see...

      man page for "pmset", then use the "do shell script shell string with administrator privileges" AppleScript command.

  103. Re:tiger is a minor release by packslash · · Score: 0

    wow modded as interesting. This guy is a troll right out of that childrens book where the bad things are.

  104. Re:charging for . release? by wootest · · Score: 1

    How high is your annual antivirus, firewall and maintenance tax for XP? Microsoft has released two service packs for XP which was released mid-2001; Apple just released their ninth service pack for Panther, released in late 2003.

    Detail some major parts Microsoft has added, upgraded or improved for free since XP was released. This should be interesting.

  105. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by OS24Ever · · Score: 0, Troll

    Burning software, yes...

    But core operating system? I still can't burn a CD with Windows XP Pro by just sticking it in....gotta have some one's software.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  106. Re:Apple is Microsoft by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Linux GUI is way better than Windows, but its no where near OSX. Sad to say, since I'm a big fan of Linux (I use Gentoo actually) but it's the truth. The OSX GUI let's you get work done so much faster, but still lets you fall back on its unix command line.

    A big part of this, I believe, is it's lack of theme support. At first thats a really annoything thing. Even for colors - you have the choice of Aqua or Slate. Think about it though. This means that apps always look the way they're intended. Setting the Main BG color in linux/windows to black causes alot of problems, some apps dont use the system colors for fonts and use black automatically, and buttons can sometimes look out of place with the rest of the colors (more so in windows, those buttons are damn ugly) in OSX you don't have to worry about that. Luckily the default theme is beautiful, unlike default KDE/Gnome/Windows etc.

  107. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    'Apple Remote Desktop' built into the OS

    Terminal Services, RDP has been in XP since 2001.

    'Spotlight' integrated OS wide database driven search

    I guess you could blame this one on Google, who pretty much had the first desktop search out there. In fact, they'll even sell you a search appliance for your intranet.

    'iSync' computer to computer 'synchronization' (bookmarks, preferences, etc)

    XP's files and settings transfer wizard, since 2001.

    Thing is, there are a lot of things sat in both Windows and OSX that a lot of people did way beforehand, only to disappear from sight once MS or Apple built it into the OS. The same probably goes for Linux GUIs too - heck even the Amiga had some of the points you mention above before the Mac did.

    At the end of the day, they both have some serious credit to give to Xerox PARC, which does pretty much define how we use computers today.

  108. Features 37 through 200: by BandwidthHog · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's not Windows.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    1. Re:Features 37 through 200: by BandwidthHog · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, the Mac fanbois have *no* sense of humor today, do they? Yeah, rhetorical question.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Features 37 through 200: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's feature #1. (But it's not a new feature.)

    3. Re:Features 37 through 200: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their assholes are still sore from a long weekend of gangbangs and gerbil felchings.

  109. Re:charging for . release? by peebeejay · · Score: 1

    Not having used XP all that much (OK, never), I'd like to ask someone more knowledgeable to list all of the features that were added to XP after its original release. Let's leave out the bugfixes and the security patches, please, just put down the cool stuff. Oh, and I'm curious, does IE have tabs yet?

  110. Re:tiger is a minor release by BillGatesTheSecond · · Score: 0


    and maybe you mac-talibans should take your faces out of steve jobs ass before comment on anything that has to do with apple?

  111. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that's what it's called when you call someone a "dumbass" and a "loser" merely because you disagree with them. Grow up.

  112. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most of your rebuttals start with "you can get...". You seem to overlook that these are built-in to Apple's new OS, meaning there's no getting - it's already there.

    You correctly point out that most of these features aren't strictly new. However, you overlook the fact that none of these features has been implemented even half as well as Apple's done them for Tiger (yes, I *have* tried them). Most people don't understand that there's a difference between doing something and doing it well. If that's you, fine. If not, do some more research before making a fool of yourself.

    2D acceleration != 3D acceleration. Apple's using 3D acceleration for their 2D UI, which *is* new.

    Unlike Google and the others you cite, Spotlight is updated instantly - no need to wait for the search tool to see the change, or to run updatedb.

    Core Image/Video allow you to do things that were formerly only possible in Photoshop/After Effects - all in realtime, without special hardware.

    iSync - doesn't sound terribly new to me.

    ARD - sounds like catch-up to me too (though ARD has been around for years, just not built-in to the OS).

    Target disk mode - been around for years. Just Works.

    Xgrid - built-in, no setup to worry about. Just Works. Unlike, say, Beowulf.

    So basically, Apple has refined a load of features than can be haphazardly cobbled together using other OSes and combined them into a system where they're implemented *well*.

    Sorry loser, but you sound about as well-educated as the average American 15 year-old.

  113. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sent her a mail and let her copy-paste that - she will be faster than navigating through the GUI.
    (And if she doesnt use mail or copy-paste, you wouldnt have let her do it herself anyway - in which case doing it via ssh for her would be faster too)

  114. Something for nothing by guet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, regardless of how far you can count, you obviously didn't look very hard for changes. The improvements to web-kit alone are major, and have also been back-ported to OS 10.3.9 for free (the latest minor release). The features you list

    Spotlight
    Automator
    Core Video

    Are not currently available in any other desktop OS (though Linux has beagle). In fact Longhorn won't now have WinFS (perhaps a more flexible solution than Spotlight but unfortunately vapour-ware).

    You missed out:
    Dashboard
    Core Data
    Web Core (DOM API accessible in cocoa etc)
    xGrid
    PDF annotations and forms (plus various preview.app enhancements)
    Jabber, H.264 and multiple video IM
    etc,etc...

    Consider Microsoft's approach - renaming Windows 2000 to Windows XP (now with hideous colours), service packs for bug fixes, a monthly scramble by customers to install updates for remote vulnerabilities before they're exploited, and an attempt to move their customers to a subscription model (which looks like it's failed, but that's their goal).

    Compare and contrast with the consistent and regular updates to OS X - major updates which you can *choose* to upgrade to every couple of years, augmented by regular updates every month or so fixing bugs and adding minor features.

    I know which world I prefer to live in.

    Just why should Apple give this update for free to all its customers, they already update the OS around every month for free? Sounds to me like you're the one who is cheap.

    1. Re:Something for nothing by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      If you think windows users havn't been opting out of major updates like SP2 that both add features and whatever reason cripple half the software on your system you obviously havn't been following the news here where only an estimated 27% of customers have updated.

  115. Re:charging for . release? by Jacob+Moogberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the site is called winsupersite.com should give you some hint of bias from its owner. Of course, it's not iluvwindozecuzitskool.com but it's getting there. I wouldn't call Thurrot an "experienced reviewer". The first paragraphs about how he claims to be a Mac fan because he had at some time an Apple IIgs are particularly laughable.

    The fields that Thurrot covered in his review concern generally the GUI. And, apart from Spotlight, there is little revolution in this area from Panther to Tiger, merely refinements. Most of the people that will upgrade won't notice a big difference in their habits.

    There are two points where Thurrot isn't particularly convincing. One is his endless comparision between Mac OS X and what Microsoft offers, that ranges from "It's some kind of imitation of Windows" to "They're the first to implement it but MS had certainly already thought about this feature before and their version will be better". The other point is the new set of APIs brought by Tiger, much welcomed by developers and overlooked by Thurrot.

    In the end, many people will be ready to spend $129, not only because they're "Apple fans" or because they expect a revolution but because they feel that 10.4 will be an improvement in many fields (especially speed) and that future exciting apps for Mac OS X will require this release.

    For instance, I'll pay for the new version and I see the relative lack of major redesign in Tiger as a sign that major architecture choices for Mac OS X have turned out to be valid. Apple is currently expanding what their OS can do instead of spending time to correct a big flaw. Which is a rather new notion for Apple users. And Apple users love to pay for something new.

  116. Bestest feature of them all. by loopdreams · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't know about you guys, but I'm almost creaming myself at the thought of the Korn shell being included. ;) The other 199 features can go take a hike.

    1. Re:Bestest feature of them all. by Cmdr+TECO · · Score: 1

      Yes. It has always been available, but having it appear on other people's machines is good.

      --
      echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
    2. Re:Bestest feature of them all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm... creamed Korn...

  117. Re:Will we see... by Acts+of+Attrition · · Score: 5, Funny
    Will we see an article like: Longhorn's 20,000 New Features!*
    *new since Windows 3.1!
    Also includes ground-breaking new usability features, a couple of which weren't borrowed from Mac OS X Tiger (we got them from KDE and Gnome)! New security failure features as well!!
  118. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Spotlight' integrated OS wide database driven search

    Sounds like BeOS...

    'iSync' computer to computer 'synchronization' (bookmarks, preferences, etc)

    How is this different from the "Briefcase" feature in Win95? I've never used either, so I can't compare myself.

    'Apple Remote Desktop' built into the OS

    If Microsoft integrated perfect remote control functionality, they would be sued by people making third party software to do the same thing.

  119. Re:2 words: by Yosho · · Score: 1

    'Apple Remote Desktop' built into the OS

    In all fairness, the "Server" versions of Microsoft's OS's have had this as far back as Windows NT 4 (and possibly earlier, that's just the first I ever used). The Pro version of Windows XP also has it built-in, even though it only allows one client at a time.

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  120. Re:Apple is Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and your mother is a man.

  121. Re:charging for . release? by wootest · · Score: 1

    The reason Konfabulator has gotten quite a buzz is that it's been the first major "widget engine" for OS X, and if I'm not missing anything it's also the first cross-platform one.

    I wasn't aware that the new C-fonts will be available for free for everyone - despite looking I haven't found a place to download them (maybe they'll be released when Longhorn is). I applaud Microsoft for using OpenType, and I'm still wondering why OS X has its own dfont format for core fonts - just use .otf, I say.

    I believe Apple should take this opportunity and run with it - Longhorn's not due for one and a half years, and Apple has ample time and media attention to be able to show people that they're ahead of Microsoft, most of the time, and most importantly that they're doing stuff that Microsoft would never even think of, such as Exposé. I don't approve of marketing going overboard or being arrogant, but I don't think the things you bring up are being arrogant (spare for filing fixes as features and splitting things up). They're touting Spotlight as the innovation, not improved RAID performance or AIM profiles.

  122. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XP is not substantially slower than 2000. You can argue that the UI is more bloated, but you can disable the theming services easily and revert back to 2000. The boot up of XP is significantly faster, as is the initial log in. Applications all run about the same. XPSP2 is certainly not slower than previous versions.

    Tiger is faster because OSX was slow as shit. OS9 was faster. Aqua is simply bloated as Hell. Apple has improved it since, but really, that's a fix, not a "feature."

    Microsoft originally planned WinFS to be a Longhorn only feature. When Microsoft stated that WinFS was not going to be a feature of Longhorn, specifically, they also stated that they would backport it, for free, to Windows XP and Windows 2003. This means that the "Spotlight"-like feature will be free.

    Dashboard is neato, but it already existed on both platforms from third-parties. Now, when Microsoft reimplements a third-party utility and bundles it into the platform it's generally regarded as a Bad Thing(tm) because they are mowing over competition. Go Apple, go!

  123. Re:charging for . release? by packslash · · Score: 0

    aghhahahahaha I just went to secunia and took a look at all the improvements microsoft have added since xp was released. I don't know about putting apple to shame but it certainly puts xp to shame rofl Seriously though, care to list these amazing features microsoft has "added/upgraded for free since xp was released" ? No fixing critical system flaws and exploits doesn't count lmao

  124. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux! by slim · · Score: 1

    Oh, I can just see telling my 80 year old mother to type that in!

    [sigh]

    Type it in for her, save it as /usr/local/bin/stealth, and tell her to type "stealth". ... or give it an icon.

    (As if your 80 year old mother wants stealth mode)

  125. Re:charging for . release? by andreMA · · Score: 0
    Actually I think your list is one too high. One of those (10.3.6?) was G5-only, while 10.3.7 was G3 and G4 only. So on any given box, there would be 8 applicable updates, not 9.

    This concludes this pointless quibble. Carry on.

  126. "Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by wrenhunt · · Score: 1

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/security/ has this gem:

    "Secure Erase Trash immediately overwrites the file with erronious data, so that the file disappears and cannot be reconstructed."

    Not only can their marketing drones not spell 'erroneous' correctly, but if the data is erroneous isn't that a bug? I'd hope that they're actually writing 'correct' data, which for this purpose should better read 'pseudo-random', or 'nonsensical'.

    1. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by Porter+Doran · · Score: 1

      You are making the usual layman's mistake of confusing "erronious" with "erroneous". The meaning of the two words is not at all the same, as you can tell from the context in the sentence.

    2. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by wrenhunt · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could elucidate me further then - my dictionary shows no entry for 'erronious'. I'm happy to stand corrected though! :-)

    3. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by mbaciarello · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the secure erasing feature is overwriting the (presumably sensitive) data with useless gibberish which looks like malformed/broken data and/or can't even be construed as a file. Thus, the (misspelled) "erroneous" adjective to make it clear that stuff is overwritten with garbage.

      Not the greatest choice of wording (and spelling), in any case. Maybe "meaningless" would have been clearer?

    4. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. Erronius is a perfectly cromulent word.

    5. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop, you're all hurting the English language!

    6. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      I think the point of the secure erasing feature is overwriting the (presumably sensitive) data with useless gibberish which looks like malformed/broken data and/or can't even be construed as a file.

      Yes - see the man page for the srm command (that's the Darwin 7.0.1 man page, which is the 10.3.1 man page, but other UN*Xes include it as well).

      The "Gutmann algorithm" mentioned therein is presumably the one devised by Peter Gutmann, as described in his paper Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory.

      Not the greatest choice of wording (and spelling), in any case. Maybe "meaningless" would have been clearer?

      That, or "scrambled" (which I suggested via the Website Feedback page on the Apple Website), although perhaps "scrambled" is a bit too techy.

    7. Re:"Erronious" [sic] secure deletions? by menace3society · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, that's the beauty of it. Tiger's built-in AI reads the document, figures out what it says, and then writes something subtly different over it. That way, when the NSA gets your Hard-drive and they try to recover data from it, they'll stop when they find the note to Suzy telling her to buy milk, and won't keep looking for the plans to bomb to the San Diego zoo in that same file.

  127. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by dmd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Funny, my copy of XP, and everyone else's I've ever encountered, has this built in to the OS. Try again.

  128. Too sophisticated by guet · · Score: 1

    I was just sitting at my freelance gig, reading some online encyclopedia (win supersite, I believe) and the scientist there said that there are only 2 features: spotlight and something else. He stated that all other ones are pretty much nothing.

    He also said, and I'll have to agree with him on this one, that SP 2 is a much better update than Tiger, and it's FREE!

    I don't even know what you MAC people are cheering about, you're not even getting a firewall OR pop-up blocker, not to mention malicious software detector with you're upgrade your paying $$ 4! LOL!


    Thanks for this post; the only amusing one in this topic so far. I particularly liked 'the scientist... stated'. Unfortunately the parody seems to have slipped past most moderators so far.

    1. Re:Too sophisticated by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yeah scientist...
      I also liked the part where I mixed up the you're and your with only one word in between.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  129. Install DVD by DarkRecluse · · Score: 1

    I appreciate the fact that they are using an Install DVD since I don't have to make one now. However, perhaps they should include a dvd-rom on the list of required specs?

    It's possible they are including the CD's without mentioning them, but then again this is Apple. I can't recall a lot of extras in the past 3 X upgrades I've done.

    --
    --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
    1. Re:Install DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't have a DVD-ROM you'll be able to take your 10.4 Install DVD to the Apple Store nearest you and exchange them for Install CDs.

    2. Re:Install DVD by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It mentions on Apple's site that a DVD drive is required and that CDs will be available for $10 plus shipping if you have a Mac without a DVD drive.

    3. Re:Install DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all done /by mail/, not in the store. Please don't spread rumors that will result in Apple Store employees like me getting bitched at because we don't have things, when we never claimed we did.

  130. WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by theolein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I notice quite a lot of the usual complaining about Apple charging for a point release of an operating system where Microsoft would give it for free.

    While those people are right in that they are likely to get modded down by Mac fans, the complaints seldom offer much insight into what is a point release, what is a service pack and what is a full version number. To be fair, the OS vendors, both Apple and Microsoft, don't make it easy on the consumer either.

    Apple generally gives out their version of point releases (10.x.x) for free, but those point releases usually don't offer much or any new functionality. (Currently I'm on OSX 10.3.9) which includes a new version of the Safari browser (1.3) but that is unusual. Apple also usually gives out point releases of the various software accompanying the OS for free (iTunes, QuickTime, iSight, iPod, Bluetooth etc) and they provide specific security patches as new exploits become available.(although there are currently about two hanging security issues that Apple really needs to fix)

    Apple usually includes quite a lot of new extra functionality in the version upgrades (10.x). In the 10.3 Panther upgrade it was Expose, Fast User Switching, iChatAV and XCode and under the hood new APIs (Cocoa Bindings etc). in 10.4, it's Dashboard, Spotlight, XCode 2, Safari 2, Mail 2, Automator and a lot of new APIs (Core Data, Core Image etc.)

    Microsoft is a little less consistent with its OS upgrades, pathces and service packs, but also follows a certain strategy. Generally, Microsoft offers API changes and some minor functionality changes in service packs, but rarely major new features. For example, WinNT went from sp1 to sp6 and actually gained a lot of the functionality that was in the Win98 and Win2k userspace, and NT users got those for free. Active Desktop for example (one can argue about how useful that was). Moving from NTSP6 to Win2k would not have entailed major changes for the common user, but, obviously, there was a lot that changed under the hood. Better security model, more stable, some minor UI changes, better networking etc. Obviously, for a user, it was worth paying for.

    All the while, Microsoft also offered generally free upgrades to its bundled applications, such as IE, Outlook and WMP, although there was an outcry about the mp3 quality and MS' charging for better quality.

    But can the same be said for the Win98SE to WinME upgrade? WinMe had a terrible reputation and was seen by many as an excuse by Microsoft to generate revenue.

    And the Win2k to WinXP move, while also having some big under the hood changes (firewall, signed drivers etc), mostly had big UI changes (themes) and Fast User Switching, Automatic Updates (also in 2kSp3 onwards) etc. For the user, and the developer, it was probably worth the price. Since then Microsoft has offered two service packs, both free. SP1 had no visible change but fixed some glaring security and stability issues. During this time Microsoft has released literally hundreds of security patches, thankfully, free.

    Now comes the part to argue over. XPSP2 offers a new security center and a firewall on by default. It also upgrades IE. SP2 is free. BUT, the security enhancements for SP2, including the IE upgrade, are not available for Win2k. Microsoft was getting a terrible rap with WinXP up to SP1. It was almost impossible to install a new machine on the net (activation) without getting hit by some of the rabid attacks going on within a few minutes. Microsoft HAD to do something, and, if they had charged for SP2, there would have been an even bigger outcry by an extremely digruntled public.

    My personal opinion about Microsoft is that Microsoft, in a way that only Microsoft does well, decided to use the opportunity to both garner some lost respect by including the new security features, but also enforce upgrades amongst its userbase by excluding Win2k. This, I think, is something that Microsoft specialises at, prodding its userbase with new features, but including a catch somew

    1. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the Win2k to WinXP move, while also having some big under the hood changes (firewall, signed drivers etc), mostly had big UI changes (themes) and Fast User Switching, Automatic Updates (also in 2kSp3 onwards) etc. For the user, and the developer, it was probably worth the price.

      Was it? I've eventually backed Windows XP out of every machine that came with XP installed, because it doesn't seem to have any useful functionality not already provided by Windows 2000. The big difference between 2000 and XP is the boobytrapped registration mechanism, and that's got negative value.

      I suspect I'm going to be forced to upgrade to XP at some point, and accept the increased hardware requirements and decreased reliability, but I'm damned if I'm going to let anyone tell me it's worth the price. It wouldn't be worth the price even if it was free.

    2. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by Porter+Doran · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now perhaps you could explain Sun's versioning scheme for us.

    3. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I notice quite a lot of the usual complaining about Apple charging for a point release of an operating system where Microsoft would give it for free.

      I think the flaw is right there.
      1) This isn't a point release, it is a major release. Consider the "10" as fixed, like the "2" in Solaris. Would you expect Sun to give Solaris 2.10 for free, since it's just a point release from 2.9 (or by extension, 2.0)?

      2) What goes into a release is arbitrary, what consitutes enoughto make a point release is arbitrary, the cost is arbitrary. The GUI subsystem is optimized and faster, which is rare for a Windows release to feel faster. How much is that worth? The real test is whether Mac owners agree with the cost of the upgrade, Windows upgrade costs are to a great point, comparing Apples and oranges and somewhat irrelevant.

    4. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I notice quite a lot of the usual complaining about Apple charging for a point release of an operating system where Microsoft would give it for free.
      I hate to double post a reply to the same parent, but I forgot to mention in my other response...

      XP is marked as 5.1, NT2000 is 5.0, so XP is a point release, and MS certainly charged for it.

    5. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Of all the PCs i've worked on, I've had more hardware problem and decreased reliability with 2K over XP. Of course, only if you used 3rd party drivers and not the ones native to Windows 2k when first installed.

      Personally, I will never go back to Win2K. XP is rock solid. And if you dont like the new theme scheme, just turn off the service and it will look and feel exactly like 2k.

      Note: If you do get random BSOD errors with 2K or XP, look to fautly memory or memory timing settings.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by nxtw · · Score: 1
      Note: If you do get random BSOD errors with 2K or XP, look to fautly memory or memory timing settings.

      That's a bad idea. Don't immediately look to faulty memory/timing settings; instead, look to what the error message says. The codes actually tell you what the problem is; Googling them will usually provide you with results.

    7. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by theolein · · Score: 1

      I think you might have noticed that I said the same thing if you had read a bit further into my post.

    8. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If the BSOD errors are totally random have nothing in common with each other, it's almost always a RAM issue. If you want to be sure it's a memory issue of some sort, check out Memtest86+. If it detects errors, then you need not go further with the troubleshooting untill you fix this problem first and foremost.

      http://www.memtest.org/

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Firewall of SP2 is not new, even a plain XP already had the firewall integrated, it just was sort of hidden and turned off by default. All Microsoft basically did in SP2 was to fix thousands of holes and add new user interfaces to the already existing features. (which formerly were reachable under the tcpip tab in the network section)

    10. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by argent · · Score: 1

      I've had more hardware problem and decreased reliability with 2K over XP.

      I've run into a few devices recently where the manufacturer obviously didn't consider Windows 2000 in their drivers, but for devices that support specifically Windows 2000 drivers I can't tell the difference.

      That's the bottom line for me. I can't find anything that XP does for me that 2k doesn't do just the same. I'm not a gamer, so I don't know if this is true at the bleeding edge of hardware and if I were I might be more inclined to try Windows XP. But not if the only improvement is a time-bomb set to go off if I don't register my computer with Microsoft.

    11. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by myov · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's simple. Ignore the leading 10.
      As an Apple employee once told me, it's "Mac OS 10", version 1.0/2.0/etc.

      Or, for the people who still claim that 10.4 is a "service pack": Microsoft uses the exact same versioning scheme! Windows XP is version 5.1. SP1 and SP2 are version 5.1.something. Those were free. The upgrade from windows 5.0 (ie: Win 2K > WinXP) was not.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    12. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      But not if the only improvement is a time-bomb set to go off if I don't register my computer with Microsoft.


      Ya, I agree. When XP was first released, the slightest change in hardware or device driver would trip windows into thinking the harddrive with XP got migrated over to another PC...hence new license. But SP1 totally relaxed this and haven't run into this problem ever sence.

      But, even if you ran out of times to activate over the Internet, doing this over the phone is a joke. All Microsoft want's to do is check if the key you provide falls into one of two catagories: OEM, and Retail to prevent piracy. Again, it's a joke and BS-ing microsoft is easy. They will always ask why you are reinstalling, and I just tell them I had to format my harddrive. No other questions asked.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by argent · · Score: 1

      But, even if you ran out of times to activate over the Internet, doing this over the phone is a joke.

      You've clearly never the situation where you're sitting in front of a computer in an un-air-condtioned service shack in an oilfeild, the pilot's waiting to fly you back to town in half an hour, you've got a bag of parts and no phone service within 50 miles, and there's a bunch of oilfield workers standing around waiting for you to get the computer up again because they're going to lose their bonuses if you don't.

      The very idea that it would be considered acceptable that the operating system of a computer would disable itself if you swapped out too much hardware is, well, simply mind-boggling to me. I don't care how easy it is to "snow Microsoft", this is just utterly incomprehensible. I can not conceive of the confusion in the mind that would lead to any other conclusion.

    14. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      One big thing I noticed is that W2K takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r to start up on the exact same hardware at work compared to XP. Both load all the "startup items" junk up after the desktop appears too, so I do believe MS included a bunch of startup optimizations for XP.

    15. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You would need to get a corporate license in this case. Those keys do not require product activation.

      If this is still not acceptable, then your options are clear. Do not use XP or any microsoft product from now on. Because like it or not, all future OS from Microsoft will have anti-piracy messures in place. Also, keep in mind that official Win2K support will end on June 30, 2005 according to Microsoft.

      I do not agree with microsofts method of anti-piracy messures regarding hardware swaps. But they do want to define and constitute the definition of what the original PC is at the time of installation. Both you and I know that a single PC can and does evolve over time with incrimental hardware upgrades. But according to microsoft, the line must be drawn int he line someplace regarding when and how the orgininal PC is no longer the....well...original PC.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by argent · · Score: 1

      One big thing I noticed is that W2K takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r to start up on the exact same hardware at work compared to XP.

      XP does two things to get this effect. First, it pretends to be "up" before it's really finished booting. W2K does that as well, but it's not nearly as aggressive. Second, it caches stuff that's loaded at startup. That's a nice touch, but faking out the boot sequence is just plain evil and rude.

    17. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by argent · · Score: 1

      If this is still not acceptable, then your options are clear. Do not use XP or any microsoft product from now on.

      It's not acceptable that they even implement that option. I'll continue to use Windows 2000 so long as I need to use it, and so long as it continues to work. Where I don't need it, I don't use it... it's not like there's any technical reasons for using Windows other than the applications barrier, and since Apple dumped the appalling OS 9 and came out with a real operating system at last I've had less and less reason to use Windows.

      NT Kernel: boobytrapped.
      OS X Kernel: open source.

      Why should there even be a question which one to use?

    18. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sometimes getting the consumer into a new model is more important than profit. It is important to MS to have every user move to SP2. The upgrade was more a matter of fixing a defective product than anything else. Yet SP2 breaks many exisiting custom application, so many users already have a disincentive to upgrade. Charging an upgrade fee would have just been something that would not generate any profit.

      Also, the cost of the upgrade is not all that much. For most users, it is like $100 a year, and upgrades can be skipped if the user really wants to. There is no poisin bullet that dramatically raise the licensing cost if the user skips an upgrade. For me, with rebates, I wil be able to upgrade in May for around $50 per machine. Windows XP prof is nearly twice as much as OS X. They should give more free stuff with it.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    19. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      I've known for awhile that there's some trickery involved, but after experiencing it firsthand I can live with it. The point is I can actually start using XP as soon as the desktop appears, even if other processes are still loading in the background. Under W2K, it takes at least twice as long before the desktop appears, meaning I can't do jack squat on it while I'm waiting for it to boot up (normally following a system lock-up, of course). And W2K *still* needs to load up additional stuff after the desktop appears.

      I'm not a Windows apologist--I can't wait to get home to my Mac after wrangling with the Windows PCs at work--but these were my direct observations.

    20. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Why should there even be a question which one to use?


      One reason. It's called TCO (Total Cost Ownership).


      If your going to go Open Source, you need to go with a version of Unix/Linux that will work on x86 PC hardware. While the Mac OSX is a marvel of an OS, your limited by the hardware it supports which is *suprise* Apple hardware. I will tell you first hand however that Apple will charge you insane fees for support once the warrenty runs out. If you do decide to go with the Mac platform, be damned sure you get the apple care contract (extended warrenty).

      At least with Windows, there is lots of support online and can be installed on any PC you build or buy off the shelf. Then again, so can Unix/Linux

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    21. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called TCO (Total Cost Ownership).

      That's the Microsoft Mantra, yep.

      My experience is that Windows requires significantly more time from real live humans, either support people or from people fucking around with Windows annoyances instead of working, than Microsoft wants you to believe. And humans cost a lot more than hardware or software.

      But if you're going with open source servers, then using the same OS (BSD, Darwin, OS X, Linux, they're all pretty much interchangable) on your desktop is a big win. And most of your desktops can use a Mac Mini for $500, if it breaks swap out another one just like you're already doing with your Wintel desktops... it's way cheaper than Applecare *or* Windows annoyances for any size office.

      If you're going with Windows servers, I guess there's SOME point to Windows desktops, but
      if you're going with Windows servers, your TCO just shot through the roof.

    22. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not OS 10, it's OS "Ex"! ;-)

    23. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy.

      SunOS is the core operating system, solaris is the userspace.

      SunOS increments normally since day one.

      Solaris started at 2.0 and increments to match SunOS. People bitched about point releases and so they just stepped the major version after 2.6.

    24. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I personally DESPISE Microsoft, despite having used Windows both personally and professionally for years. However, you seem to have some facts about Windows very wrong. I know I'm late to the party, but hopefully a few people will see this.

      for example, WinNT went from sp1 to sp6 and actually gained a lot of the functionality that was in the Win98 and Win2k userspace

      Would you care to list some? The only thing that comes to my mind besides security/bugfixes is support for hard drives bigger than 8GBs (SP4, IIRC). I guess SKEY too, but it was junk and saw no use by anyone.

      Active Desktop for example

      No, Active Desktop did not come in any service pack. The Active Desktop update came with the upgrade to Internet Explorer version 4.

      Moving from NTSP6 to Win2k would not have entailed major changes for the common user

      I have to disagree with you completely here. Windows 2000 changed greatly. Everything was in a different place, and almost everything had to be operated differently. Windows NT4 didn't come with a device manager or PnP automatic hardware dialog, but with Windows 2000, these were built-in and the ONLY way to get your hardware working. It was FAR more like 98 than NT4 (even with SP6), even though they managed to obscure and bastardize the interface and organization to make it much more miserable to use.

      Better security model, more stable, some minor UI changes

      I have to disagree on everything here. The security model stayed nearly the same, the stability was no better in my experience, and the UI changes were quite major, and very negative. Things that were straight forward options in the control panel in NT4, became nestled in sub-sub-sub-sub-sub menus, of the system control subsystem.

      The advantages to Windows 2000 were all on the users end. It made a better desktop because of updated DirectX, Media Player, Windows98-like interface, standby/hibernate, PnP, etc.

      And the Win2k to WinXP move, while also having some big under the hood changes (firewall, signed drivers etc),

      Signed drivers were there in Windows 2000, and the built-in firewall has been there at least since the beginning of NT4.0. I don't recall if it was there in NT3.51 (or NT3.1), but I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

      Automatic Updates (also in 2kSp3 onwards) etc.

      Critical Update Notification (didn't install) was introduced in NT4. Automatic updates were in Windows 2000 when it was released, so the feature isn't new to XP by any means.

      decided to use the opportunity to both garner some lost respect by including the new security features, but also enforce upgrades amongst its userbase by excluding Win2k.

      You act like this is something new. After a couple years, Microsoft stops releasing new versions of programs for older OSes. DirectX, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc. This happened to Win95, NT4, etc. It just happened to be at the same time as XP SP2 was released. Saying that it was somehow a catch is really misreading the situation.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:WinXPSP2 vs. OSX 10.4 by Krisbee · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect Sun to give Solaris 2.10 for free, but they are doing exactly that anyway!

  131. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apple Remote Desktop" is also built on VNC, which is a slow and bloated piece of shit. The network protocols for VNC are ass, even over a LAN. There are a few compression enhancements, some that encode the data to JPGs, but then you end up with slow and fuzzy ass. Furthermore, VNC ain't secure. There is no encryption of the data over the wire, so other people can sniff/record the packets and see what you've done.

    RDP, which is the protocol used by Microsoft in Terminal Services, is perfectly suited for 56k modems. ICA, the protocol developed by Citrix (who initially introduced the feature into Windows NT) is even faster. Both manage to incorporate 128-bit encryption and still remain faster than VNC.

    You can argue that the reasons VNC is slower is because it lacks tight integration. But I've used VNC for X11, and it's also slow. I've used TightVNC for Windows, which includes it's own video driver to capture the updates realtime, and it's also slow as ass. VNC is simply ass. Great software, but only if you have a very fat pipe between the client and the server.

  132. Re:tiger is a minor release by zpok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "apples loud-mouth marketing is pathetic, 200 new features? yeah right...just like the "over 150 new features" in panther?, i could count to about 7 or 8"

    I recommend you not to buy the upgrade.
    But be honest, compare with other OS upgrades and you'll see what value is in the package.
    For me, the whole widget thing is extremely useful. I've only just explained that yesterday, not about to do it again, but it's a very Good Thing(TM) for me and I think lots of other people. Not talking about the potential, just the widgets that are standard in Tiger.
    Spotlight is another thing most computer users have been asking for. Now we get it. And it's a hell of a lot more useful than the Google thing. And maybe next year or the next we can see if Windows will be on par. You don't want it? Don't buy it.
    Apart from that, this is not a trivial "update". Just like core audio was a godsend, core video is way out there.
    About half of the 200 features appeal to me. That's pretty much. You sir, can't judge this, if you can only count to 8 ;-)
    You'll be happy to hear however that the Turd agrees with you, but sadly that doesn't say much about the credibility of your statement. So please, whatever OS you use, be honest in your assessment.
    And I repeat, upgrading is a voluntary process.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  133. Try Reading Your Own Links by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Informative
    That would be Aldus with Pagemaker in 1980 http://desktoppub.about.com/od/history/

    I know it's a real hardship to actually read your own links, but perhaps if you had taken this unprecidented step you would see that they list Pagemaker as coming out in "the mid-1980s," not 1980. Further, if you had actually read the article linked from that page, you would have found this: "1985 - Aldus develops PageMaker for the Mac, the first "desktop publishing" application."

    If you have any further difficulties with basic reading comprehension, please let us know.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Try Reading Your Own Links by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      My bad about this.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Try Reading Your Own Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you have any further difficulties with basic reading comprehension, please let us know.
      If you can't read this please let us know...

  134. Re:charging for . release? by Wingsy · · Score: 1

    OMG, I can't believe you're actually quoting Thurott here on /. But then again, I see you're post is FlameBait, just like Thurott's entire website.

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
  135. Re:charging for . release? by stevejobsjr · · Score: 1

    You could pick up a load of these features on OS X for free.

    Spotlight = Quicksilver, only Spotlight is better just like it is better than Copernic/Google Toolbar/MSN Toolbar. It's real-time searching unlike Google Desktop Search, it's easily integrated by developers into other apps (like it is into Apple Mail, Safari, and Address Book; those three aren't), it's extendable to search more file types, and since it's built into the OS, it will be widely supported.

    I also should note that somehow it was newsworthy to have database driven metadata search when it was going to be a feature in Longhorn.

    Safari RSS = Firefox, only Firefox has a crappy non-standard user interface.

    Dashboard = nothing on any platform. It's like Konfabulator and those others in that it lets you run widgets, but Windows and OS X both already come with widgets like a calculator and a calendar. What Dashboard is that those others isn't is a free development environment that lets you write apps entirely in HTML and Javascript and that also lets you access the entire Cocoa framework.

    AIM profiles in iChat = AIM profiles in AIM, only the iChat doesn't suck and slow you down.

    New fonts = New fonts on the web, only these fonts are actually designed to work well and look nice instead of to make your party invitations difficult to decipher. Also, Microsoft didn't release any new fonts, they announced them as a Longhorn feature. Imagine that, an OS vendor plugging new fonts as an OS feature!

    RAID Support is a crappy feature, though. Still, the point is that these features are really features. They are an improvement upon what was available before and what's available for other platforms.

  136. Re:charging for . release? by mmeister · · Score: 1

    Now who's the troll?

    Let's list what XP has given for FREE in their service packs (patching giant security holes doesn't count as features).

    And lest we forget -- XP cost more for the initial version than Mac OS X. Even bundled, you likely go the crippled XP Home unless you paid extra.

  137. Re:tiger is a minor release by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
    they should give this one for free to all its customers that bought a previous version of mac os x.

    Yup, just like Microsoft gave away Windows 98, ME, and XP. Apple's benevolence is nothing compared to Microsoft's. I mean, Apple doesn't even give away all the free bugs like Microsoft does!!!

    --
    Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  138. Re:Will we see... by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

    Just love the new feature of word documents to not default to a std Word icon. But show a view of the first page.

    Dateline future...

    Two months after Longhorn released. Microsoft hit with a 5 billion dollar lawsuit from Longhorn user with eye troubles from trying to read the small print on Word Icons. Microsoft comment was. "You should be abble to read small print from looking at our Licensing agrements over the years"! "Not our problem!" ...

  139. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't disagree that Apple isn't first.

    But Apple is still here.

    BeOS, Xerox, Amiga, Geos, all of them had 'firsts' that Apple now can 'claim' not because Apple was necessarily better, but because Apple survived and they did not.

    Windows has always had the possibility of doing great things, but they rarely exercised that option. It seems, in hindsight, that Windows was more an exercise in accessibility than an exercise in usability. Apple, traditionally, has been much more useful, but due to pricing, availability, or compatibility, has had much more limited accessibility.

  140. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by darco · · Score: 1

    I did this the other day. Works fine without any other software.

    --
    — darco
  141. Re:charging for . release? by Horrortaxi · · Score: 1

    For once I have to use microsoft as an example of how it *should* be done. Look at service pack 2, you get additional features, tweaks, and improved security. It seems that tiger is comparable to sp2 as far as adding features to the base OS.

    Of course Microsoft didn't charge for SP2--it was a bug fix! They sold you a broken OS and they're doing the right thing and trying to fix it--and they made you wait 3 years. Who would charge for that? Oh, wait--Microsoft would. I seem to remember paying a lot for Windows 98 because it fixed Windows 95. And for only $200 too!

  142. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    BeOS is dead. You can't buy an computer/OS (in a week) except Tiger with OS wide database driven search. You can still download BeOS but it is essentially, like latin, dead.

    As per Briefcase: Briefcase doesn't allow you to synch:
    multiple computers
    iPods
    phones

    As per Microsoft and remote control functionality:
    They would be sued if they did three things (which they HAVE done before)
    integrated a third party remote control implementation without licensing, purchasing, or compensation agreements (see Stacker)
    integrated a homebrew remote control implementation and released an OS update to break third party implementations (see Quicktime)
    integrated a homebrew remote control implementation and threatened OEMs with higher prices if they bundled third party implementations (see Compaq and Gateway)

    Apple does none of those things (to my knowledge).

  143. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is not a small feature or tweak, but a whole new way of finding data seamlessly throughout the system.
    Parent spelled "seamlessly" correctly, first time I've seen this on /. ever. Note fellow slashdotters, it's "seamlessly", NOT "seemlessly".

    Thanks, fellow AC.
  144. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry loser, but you sound about as well-educated as the average American 15 year-old.

    I'm afraid that would be because I was trolling and don't believe a word of my original post. Sorry!

  145. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    True, in XP Pro, not true in XP Home.

    So Microsoft gets a first in one, but not in the other, and for Apple's benefit, they don't separate their OS into pro/home, just server/pc.

  146. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big feature list was missing some things that are definitely more than tweaks.

    Like the fact that this release is capable of running in fully 64-bit mode on G5s.

  147. Re:charging for . release? by kitzilla · · Score: 1
    > I can't believe apple is charging money for this release

    ...which is why you're not running Apple.

    --
    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.
  148. So what by arkmannj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think Panther to Tiger would be more akin to windows 2000 upgrading to XP-sp2 then XP upgrading to XP-sp2

    so what if I pay for what people think is a "point-release"
    hmmm windows users NEVER do that
    Windows 2000 = Windows v. 5.0
    Windows XP = Windows v. 5.1

    I will gladly pay up for the upgrades in OSX, not to be a zealot,
    but because I like to keep current technology on my desktop. Since I prefer Apple's computers & OS then I'll keep current with them; if I preferred windows then I suppose I would fork out the couple hundred bucks to upgrade when they release new OS version. It's a simple matter of preference, not a feud war for crying out loud. no one is being FORCED to upgrade in either camp. Mac users who are happy with 10.3 can stay with it, Windowz users happy with Win 2000 could stay with it. The way I see it it's that simple.

    1. Re:So what by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Moving to Windows XP Pro in 2001 would of cost you about $200, if you had 2000 already (or Windows 98/ME/NT too, I believe all qualify for the upgrade price). After that, XP SP1 and XP SP2 are free downloads to you, and your operating system in 2005 will still be completely up to date, from that investment in 2001.

      If you bought OSX in 2001, since then you would have had to pay for 10.2 ($129), 10.3 ($129), and finally 10.4 ($129). Maybe that's what people are complaining about?

    2. Re:So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you bought OS/2 Warp 4.0 for $99 in the mid-90s, every update since then has also been free. So by your logic, your operating system in 2005 will be "completely up to date, from that investment."

      Just because there haven't been major upgrades doesn't mean major upgrades aren't worthwhile.

    3. Re:So what by batchthemighty · · Score: 1

      interesting & I understand your point, and true that most mac users have to pay for these updates, but remember these are not service pack level updates (that's what the number after the 2nd decimal is for) these are full updates much like arkmannj said from 2000 to XP , or 98 to 2000, that sort of thing. mac "service packs" are free, and keep you up to date (example: 10.3.1 - 10.3.9 all free). I for one don't mind yearly OS updates, keeps the pace good and moving. I wonder if someone should do a "ask slashdot" and see how everyone else feels about yearly / 18 month update cycles versus 3 - 8 year update cycles Again like Arkmannj said, it's a matter of preference, and no one is forcing an upgrade.

    4. Re:So what by TheWama · · Score: 1

      If by "completely up to date," you mean, "horribly outdated," then you would be correct!

      Seriously, for an OS to go 5+ years with no major releases, no new features, no new enhancements or capabilities, is a travesty, especially considering all the good Apple has done in the same time with fewer resources. IMO Mac users get way more than they pay for, even considering more frequent OS update costs and hardware costs relative to a barrel-scraper like Dell.

      My own Dell laptop, (latitude C640) bought in 2002, is now less useful and less easy to use than an old late 90's original iMac my friend gave me, which, coincidentally, is about to get significantly better when Tiger comes out.

    5. Re:So what by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should also think about this: if you bought OS X 10.0 in 2001, you bought something that was a LOT like NT4; It showed that a lot of pretty new things were on the horizion, but it was slow as fuck, and buggy as can be.

      10.1 brought a prettier interface, and a lot more stability, and speed. If you ask me, this was a lot like jumping from NT4, to NT4 SP4.

      The biggest jump came with OS 10.2. This launched OS X forward by adding a lot of usable apps, "iLife" was finally starting to work together, the whole system began to feel like it belonged together. This was more like the jump from NT4 to Win2000 (Win2k was "ME"'s UI with the back engine from NT4, prettier, more stable, and easier to use with 9x series computers).

      Along came 10.3 and another round of dozens of feature enhancements and refinements. Minus the whole "Luna" theme, this was like the jump from Win2k to WinXP.

      Tiger (10.4) would be like the jump from WinXP, to WinInfinity (where Infinity represents a rough estimate to when Longhorn will retail).

      If you look at it from my persepective (or any other Mac users perspective for that matter), we've gone through 3 major core overhauls in 5 years, lending to a total price of 3 x 129 = 387.
      If you look at the comparitive upgrades in Windows, you'd first have to price the upgrade from NT4 to 2000, then from 2000 to XP, then from XP to Longhorn. Oh, and Mac OS X runs on the same hardware all the way back, Windows XP probably has a null chance of even installing on the same hardware you ran NT4 on.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    6. Re:So what by TheWama · · Score: 1

      Well I didn't mean to sound somewhat fan-boyish by not qualifying my argument.

      Basically, it's my position between XP (late October 2001) and today (2005) the changes that have occured consist of patches and slightly extended hardware support I believe. SP2 brought us the integrated firewall and well... you know security stuff. The point being, these are not new features, because they don't add to the user's experience, even the firewall is, functionally, no different from a virus patch, or an integrated virus scanner, neither of which offer an advantage over OS X.

      On the other hand, with OS X, while I've only had experience with 10.3, which came out the end of 2003, even from the 10.0 (released March 24th, 2001) or 10.1 baseline, tremendous amounts of progress have been made, and there are a number of great integrated features and frameworks that, in the view of this long-time PCer (since DOS), put current iteration of Windows to shame.

      Cool little things like integrated spell checking in cocoa to inter-app services, a ton of frameworks such as core audio and the upcoming stuff, and more advanced graphical handling, and so on. And while the releases are now coming every 18 months instead of every 12 months, they're quite substantial.

      And whats exceptional about this is not just that such progress has been made, but that it has been made in such little time, whith comparitively small resource pool.

      Meanwhile, we don't yet know what Longhorn will be when it arrives, but the early previews are not encouraging. In any case, we'll have to make the OS X/Longhorn comparison when we actually have something to compare OS X to. And for now, I'm not taking Mr. Thurrot's word for it, that Longhorn will be spectacular. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait another 18 months or so...

    7. Re:So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NT4 rocked.

  149. Re:charging for . release? by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    I think MS released beta software, and then improved it for free while the users had to put with the effects of their incompetence. I haven't noticed anything new, cool, innovative, or even significan't better from the XP service packs, at least not on par with the OS-X releases.

  150. Snerdware: Groupcal 2.0 by saha · · Score: 1
    I hope this software from Snerdware : Groupcal and AddressX will be useful.

    Personally, I was hoping would add MAPI support for its Mail.app, Addressbook.app and iCal.app for Tiger. But this is really Microsoft's Business Unit responsibility. I think Mac OSX customers should demand MAPI support for Entourage if they are going to be paying all that good money. Its Microsoft's very own properietary protocol, yet they don't support it on the Mac side. I've long concluded that the DoJ is asleep at the wheel. Microsoft provides the bare minimal support to show the DoJ folks that they are complying with US anti trust laws. Yet, I feel Microsoft has purposely not developed the latest versions MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer further. Yet, the latest Quicktimes and iTunes is found on the Windows side. I hope that the FTC will require Groove Networks to support Mac OSX too.

    Read Ray Ozzie interview here

  151. Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by TempusMagus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope I'm not blasting my NDA saying this, but we've been using seed builds for a while and the one thing that I think many people will be pleasantly surprised with is the sense of responsiveness/speed. I'm using a spanking new G4 laptop and using Tiger on it makes it feel like I have an ever faster machine (which is what I said about 10.3!). Everything is more responsive; screen redraws, directory listings, quicktime videos, etc. It's on-par with my AMD64 box with XP in terms of GUI resposiveness now!

    --
    -_-
    1. Re:Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      because everything is drawn in the gfx card now.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by hkb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Then you have something seriously wrong with your AMD64 box running Windows XP.

      I'm an OS X bigot, but I'm sorry, an ibook g4 (i have a 1.4ghz) is anything but on par even with my Athlon 2.5ghz XP box.

      My dual G5 box running Tiger is about on par with my 3.2 p4 box running XP.

      Don't make shit up to push your favorite OS, that'll just piss the newcomers off if they follow your words and buy an ibook.

      If all you want is speed, buy an XP machine. If you want usability and a sane UI, use OS X.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    3. Re:Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

      You need to re-read the article. I'm not talking about plain speed - I'm talking about the speed of GUI!!!! There is no way that my laptop is going to render as fast as my AMD. What my 15" powerbook does as fast as my AMD box is redraw screens, move menus, move quicktime and populate large directories as fast as the AMD box. From a GUI point of view it feels faster.

      --
      -_-
    4. Re:Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      He didn't say he was using an iBook.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    5. Re:Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it snappier?

    6. Re:Maybe I'll get in trouble saying this... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I hope this is true, because one of the biggests frustrations I have with OS X is its poor GUI responsiveness.

  152. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Interesting
    See, your bias shows. I didn't use the word innovation, and never intended that. I didn't use the word attribution, and never intended that.

    I even SAID that Apple doesn't necessarily deserve credit:
    It's not necessarily the case that Apple can get 'credit', so much as Apple was first to 'get it right'. If not Apple, then someone else would have, it was just the fact that Apple was first that it matters. Examples include:


    BeOS had their database functionality first, but they died. Xerox had their WiMP interface first, but they never released (licensed only to Apple of course!)

    Networking wasn't new, but it was experimental and Apple made it both easy and integrated.

    CGA counts as color, but Apple introduced 24 bit color to a consumer level device.

    3d acceleration was done first by SGI, in $10k devices, then by VooDoo Graphics in $600 video cards, but no 'common' or 'commodity' OS has implemented until Apple did in 2001.

    Perhaps you're bitter, but you have to also understand Apple HAS done things, just like Microsoft has, and SGI, and Linux, and all the other companies out there.

    The biggest thing people seem to have issue with is Apple's iPod.

    The iPod did three things that no other mp3 player did before:
    Density. 5gb in your pocket. Predecessors include Creative, with 20gb in a Mac mini sized device and the Rio with 64mb in a lighter sized device. Apple's was 5gb in a cigarette pack sized device.
    Usability. Apple's device could be used by one hand. Creative, with 13 buttons (maybe it was 11) could not. The use of iTunes and a database meant, also, you could access thousands of songs with only a thumb and a forefinger. Finally the adoption of Firewire, over USB1, meant you could fill the thing up in 5 minutes, instead of 5 hours.
    Style. Apple cared enough to make it look good. People don't like wearing ugly clothes, driving ugly cars, or wearing ugly watches, so why would they want an 'ugly' mp3 player?
  153. Re:charging for . release? by mmeister · · Score: 2

    What typical nonsense from someone who is:

    1. Not a Mac OS X user (clearly)
    2. Believes that version numbers still accurately reflect changes
    3. Relies on other non-Mac OS X users to review Mac OS X.
    4. Requires a dramatic visual change (perhaps change the color to bright red?) to "realize" the value of a new product.

    YES -- "one of the main" 200 features is an RSS reader. And it happens to be very nicely integrated into the browser for an experience that definitely adds value. Of course there are 199 other features too.

    True, a lot of features in this release are under the hood. What that means is that developers will be creating some very cool apps as a result of the new release (that they couldn't easily create in the past). But even so, there are major benefits in this ".release" to the end user and while not all 200 features are on the level of Spotlight or Dashboard or Automator or QuickTime 7, they do add up.

    In a horizontal product (such as an OS), not every feature is meant for every user. When a word processor adds support for Table of Contents, it won't matter so someone that just writes letters. But it will matter to someone who has had to create TOC manually or through some third-party tool in the past. Same thing for features in Tiger.

    And what the hell do you care -- you're clearly not a Mac user, so you won't be buying it anyway. You might as well complain about cup-holder that they left out of the new Ferrari.

  154. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    You don't have to BELIEVE me at all.

    Reality stares you in the face every time you boot a computer and use a feature that Apple adopted that later became adopted by the rest of the industry.

  155. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it insightful? You've been able to do the equivalent ipfw on OS X all along.

  156. We heard the complaint so many times here by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
    Remappable Modifier Keys

    Remap modifiers such as control and caps lock for compatibility with Windows and UNIX keyboard conventions.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  157. Re:charging for . release? by Professor+S.+Brown · · Score: 0

    Really? Like to name some examples?

    --
    Shitram Brown, PhD
    Professor of Mathematics
  158. Apple is just Better than the rest! by Cane+Corso · · Score: 1

    Apple has 5% market share at best, linux maybe 3% (full time users no dual boot action going on) and MS Windows 90%.With all the money MS makes off its OS monopoly it should kick apples ass and did for years now apple is winning and it is understandable that they get coverage because they are the leader in OS innovation .If anything gets to much coverage its Linux with KDE and GNOME it has forked its just a bunch of random crap put together by 400 different companies it will make not it in the desktop. Merge KDE and GNOME and maybe Linux could be much better.Lindows is just about a white flag same with wine open source community can't make good killer desktop Apps unless they are first built by someone else first so they're using the Window API why not just use Windows with 100% Window API compatabilty.

    1. Re:Apple is just Better than the rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      LEARN TO FUCKING WRITE, ASSHOLE.

      Then, a few years later when you've mastered that, learn to construct some kind of coherent argument based on facts and logic. Christ, I could actually feel my brain dissolving while reading that brain-damaged, poorly-written tripe.

  159. Re:2 words: by cosmic_0x526179 · · Score: 1

    Networking, introduced in 1990 with AppleTalk and AppleShare in System 7 -> Windows for Workgroups and Windows 3.11 in 1992

    Child please. AppleTalk was available on the first 128K Mac that Apple sold in 1984. There was no valid use for it until Apple released the LaserWriter I in 1985, but it was there (and it did work). A number of us got some cables and gathered at a house in early 1985 for a game of Bus'd Out (Apple's in-house port of Maze Wars). I was using a Mac 512k at the time, so I know it worked then. In fact, AppleTalk was a follow on port of an earlier Apple// product called SchoolBus.

    --
    This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
  160. I expect this one to be a milestone in OSes by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually expect this release to be a milestone in GUI operating systems. Not only is inter-programm communication fully developed, it also gets a easy to use point-and-click interface to access these functions (Automator).
    What would really rock is if someday Apple had the guts to actually drop the desktop metaphor and introduce some non-overlaping full screen realestate using workspace and application management. Something like blender has - only more accessable of course.

    How long have knowledgable users of Windows, Linux and Mac OS dreamed of easy cross-program automation via visual graphical pipes. Once again it's OS X that's years ahead of anything else.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I expect this one to be a milestone in OSes by uprock_x · · Score: 1

      Blender ? Blender as in the 3d app ? You got to be kidding. Worst interface ever! I think I have used most major 3d apps, Maya, Soft, LW etc but I can't do anything in Blender. It is a disaster. All Apple need to do is FIX the Finder instead of letting it rot as the buggy mess it currently is.

    2. Re:I expect this one to be a milestone in OSes by Cliff.Braun · · Score: 1

      You mean like Windows 3.X(and before?)

    3. Re:I expect this one to be a milestone in OSes by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      While Blender isn't imidiately accessible as a whole and has a very steep learning curve, it's workspacve management is considered groundbreaking. In fact it's being officially ripped off by newcomers in the 3D tool industry. And its the first 3D pakage that has a completely OpenGL accelerated GUI.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  161. Re:charging for . release? by the_proton · · Score: 1

    Sorry, you're wrong.

    10.3 -> 10.3.9 have run on all machines that support 10.3.

    You're probably thinking of 10.2.7 (G5) vs 10.2.7.

    10.2.7 (G5) shipped on the first PowerMac G5s while 10.2.7 shipped on the first PowerBooks that had USB2 ports. There was no 10.2.7 updater available for 10.2.6: 10.2.7 was only available on machines it came pre-installed on.

    10.2.8 came in two flavours too, 10.2.8 (G5) and 10.2.8.

    - proton

  162. Re:charging for . release? by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

    More like a chicken coop. Leave the door unlocked and the fox will have chicken for supper.

    Problem is the MS chicken coop is missing slats, the door is falling off and the replacement is misisng features and stuck in engeering limbo.

    XP had a firewall from day one... Problem was it was NOT turned on and was pittifull. The revision is fare.

  163. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by Junta · · Score: 1

    That makes it hardly useful at all. A lot of apps will break as all traffic from lo interface only gets the first packet through. Additionally, responding packets get dropped from outgoing connections. I *think* you wanted at the beginning:
    iptables -I INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  164. Re:2 words: by gobbo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The GP wrote: It's not necessarily the case that Apple can get 'credit', so much as Apple was first to 'get it right'.

    Then 'justsomebody' tried to correct the examples.

    Xerox Alto 1972

    They didn't get it 'right'--at least not right enough to bring to market. The Mac made the GUI useable.

    ARPANET 1969

    The GP was referring to desktops and LANS, not workstations and big iron. Etc. with the rest of your response. Maybe you're being obtuse on purpose?

  165. Here I go offtopic a bit. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    I don't dislike your point exactly... Mac bashers have been loud forever (I was one years ago, based on having to use it at school, then they got better, then they got better, then...), but...

    You know, I really just hate your example. I don't exactly know why. Maybe because it assumes that there are areas of knowledge forbidden to everyone depending on how they were born? I mean, I'm not rich, but I think that I can model that behavior in my head and come to valid conclusions about it. It has been helpful when predicting where the behavior of rich people deviates from middle class ones, and how. And isn't that really what empathy is about?

  166. Whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the XP firewall has a default response of REJECT, not DROP.

  167. gcc4 autovectorization for altivec by ndunn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is by far the biggest feature. Not having to write custom API's for using altivec is going to make this OS great, not only for performance of generic science apps, but for general application performance for apps that would require to much work to write custom loops for in Altivec.

  168. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, that doesn't quite give stealth mode either.
    An example script to find your computer would be:

    #!/bin/bash
    SUBNET=192.168.0
    for i in `seq 1 254`; do
    ping $SUBNET.$i -w 1 >/dev/null &
    done

    sleep 5
    arp -n | grep -v \(incomplete\) ...this will give all computers on the network and their hardware addresses, regardless of how stealthly the firewall is. The only way to prevent this is to prevent arp requests which basically means your computer can't even use the network; might as well have the network cable unplugged.

  169. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your comment just lost a couple of cool points in my book."

    Wow... you keep a book with your own scores for Slashdot comments...

    That's really dorky.

  170. Acceptance chances by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    An anonymous reader writes "If this hasn't already been posted,

    Actually, if it has already been posted, it actually increases the chances of it being accepted by slashdot.

    Slashdot - News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. By the way, it's news for nerds & stuff that matters. And did I tell you it's news for nerds & stuff that matters.

  171. Re:Will we see... by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Troll

    we got them from KDE and Gnome

    Oh come on. Talk about the usability innovation of OSX, but don't even dream of talking about anyone ripping off the usability of KDE or Gnome - both of which are wholesale ripoffs of Windows/OSX/BeOS.

    Of course I just saw another conversation where a proud KDE user claimed that a disk usage utility, showing files as differently sized rectangles, was stolen from KDE...this despite the fact that such utilities have been around since the 80s.

  172. Re:So what..it is a big deal! by batchthemighty · · Score: 1

    I agree with most of what you said however, I think you are minimizing how great OS X 10.3 is by comparing it to Windows 2000, I understand that you are trying to show a comparison of how much an upgrade 10.3 to 10.4 is, but really, how many "new features" for end users have really been added in windows in the last few versions. Mac OS X has gave new OS enhancements in every update on the core level, developer level AND the user level. I had not noticed the versioning difference in Win 2K and Win XP before, that is interesting, if true then I can't understand why windows users are calling Tiger a minor update, or point release... hmm hypocrites I guess.

  173. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heh, where did you find /proc in osx?

  174. Secure virtual memory? by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
    Ok, so:

    (1) Filevault encrypts swap file, and
    (2) Not using Filevault leaves your swap file and the rest of your home directory open to data theft

    Am I missing something? It seems to me that this is a pointless upgrade.

    1. Re:Secure virtual memory? by Horrortaxi · · Score: 1

      FileVault encrypts your user folder. There's no good reason to encrypt virtual memory that's just going to go away when the computer is restarted. It'll keep people out of your documents, etc though--it's a good feature if you need it.

    2. Re:Secure virtual memory? by TummyX · · Score: 1


      There's no good reason to encrypt virtual memory that's just going to go away when the computer is restarted


      It will go away only when the computer comes back up but anyone can simply take out the HDD and read the swap file on another machine.

      Saying there's no point in encrypting virtual memory is pretty ignorant.

    3. Re:Secure virtual memory? by leoofborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, you're missing something.

      1/ FV Encrypts the user's /home directory.

      2/ Secure VM encrypts the /swap directory

      So, the activities of the FV'd user (and others, and system process) that have been committed to /swap are all encrypted.

      There -was- a flap on /. some weeks ago that FV was a moot point because the swap was raw data. That is not an issue with Tiger.

      --
      --- See you at the Tannhäuser Gate.
    4. Re:Secure virtual memory? by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
      I didn't know there was a /home directory. My system has /Users/[username]. Nor did I know there was a /swap directory. I guess there's a lot of shit going on under the hood that I wasn't aware of?

      Anyway, so I guess what I'm missing is that FV doesn't protect swap. Talk about false sense of security.

  175. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux!Thanks App by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1

    Funniest shit I've read all year. *claps*

  176. iptables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why in the world is that after 3 revisions the Linux firewalling solutions can't take a ruleset file like everybody else does? Take a look at this and start drooling my Linux friend. Nothing in the free software world matches PF's power and flexibility. And it comes with the added bonus of not being encumbered by a restrictive license.

    1. Re:iptables by he-sk · · Score: 1

      iptables-save to save a ruleset.
      iptables-load(*) to load a ruleset.

      * not sure about the name, though. i dropped linux on my ibook in favor of os x a couple of months ago. :P

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
  177. Hold Off.. by dtk13 · · Score: 0
    Maybe I should hold off on getting that mini Mac I was going to get... Those features are a defiantly plus for Mac! But windows still has more.*

    *Combining all of its products Microsoft reaches a features total of 201.75.

  178. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    XP Pro was able to do that upon release.

    I just switched to Mac, but let's not be making stuff up about PCs to make 'em seem better - they already win in many other ways.

  179. suse pro for free by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    you can obtain suse pro free of charge. just do a ftp install [from suse or a local ftp server that you have downloaded the tree to]. or download the iso of the dvd and burn it to disc.

    hard to beat free...

    sum.zero

    1. Re:suse pro for free by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      you can obtain suse pro free of charge. just do a ftp install [from suse or a local ftp server that you have downloaded the tree to]. or download the iso of the dvd and burn it to disc.

      hard to beat free..
      ...til whomever goes out of business because they don't make any money. Someone somewhere needs to pay someone something.

    2. Re:suse pro for free by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

      The last time I installed SuSe it tried to use my PC speaker as a sound card, piping shreking tones out of it constantly until I gave up, did a hard reboot and installed something less buggy.

      You get what you pay for.

  180. No, no... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

    that'll come in the Cougar release, once OS X "matures".

    1. Re:No, no... by Maserati · · Score: 1

      When they release 'Kzinti' it'll have "scream-and-leap" mode. It doesn't just block script kiddies, it collects their ears for you !

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  181. Re:2 words: by nxtw · · Score: 1

    I second this fully. Not to mention all the other niceities RDP/ICA includes, such as file access, sound, printer access, resolution/color depth changing, etc. Plus, RDP is one standard - it's not fragmented like VNC (you have so many different variations of VNC out there, like UltraVNC, TightVNC, RealVNC, etc., each with their own versions.) With RDP, your only concern is the version of the client and the version of the server.

  182. There is nothing special about +0.1 vs. +1.0 by sabNetwork · · Score: 1

    Exactly.

    Complaining that these are "just point updates" is silly. You can't compare versioning schemes between software.

    Compare:
    A typical open source Linux package, version 0.4
    A typical commercial Windows package, version 1.1

    The OSS 0.4 is generally more stable and mature.

    Apple is using "point releases" because they're in trouble-- the Mac OS X brand name depends on the version being 10.x.

    Had Apple not relied on the OS X brand name, this would be "Mac OS 14.0 Tiger."

    Microsoft avoids the whole decimal versioning system by not displaying it in marketing materials. People would be less likely to buy Windows XP if they saw that it was NT 5.1, a "point release" update to NT 5.0 (Windows 2000).

  183. gcc 4.0? by tidewaterblues · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am more than a little surprised that Apple decided to pack gcc 4.0 into the package. I'm not entirely convinced that gcc 4 is ready for prime time, and I am not sure if any other *nix distros are shipping with it this early.

    --


    ...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
    1. Re:gcc 4.0? by goMac2500 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a developer, I can say GCC4 is optional, and GCC3.3 and GCC2.9 are still included and I can tell my XCode projects to flip back to them/

    2. Re:gcc 4.0? by menace3society · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They did this with gcc 3.? a while back, too. Everyone said, "Oh, no, stick with 2.95.2, 3.x isn't ready for primetime" but Apple switched, had no major problems, and the rest of the Unix world followed suit no long after. They are, as always, ahead of the game.

  184. CoreDump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sysctl -w kern.coredump=1

  185. Re:charging for . release? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 4, Informative

    Spotlight = Copernic/Google Toolbar/MSN Toolbar

    No, it really isn't. I'm unsurprised by your ignorance about this. I guess we've just done a lousy job of explaining it.

    Spotlight is a full-fledged system service, not just a user interface. Application developers can very easily add Spotlight to their own applications. For example, look at Mail. The additions to Mail to support Spotlight searching were trivial. In fact, the total code size of an early Spotlight build of Mail was significantly smaller, because we off-loaded all of the indexing and searching to the Spotlight service, removing it from Mail.

    Comparing Mail to a third-party bolt-on search product is, well, dumb.

    Safari RSS = Why the name change?

    There has been no name change. The name of the browser is Safari. The version is 2.0. "Safari RSS" is just a marketing name for Safari's RSS support.

    Dashboard = Avedesk/Samaurise

    Um. No. Dashboard widgets are little Web Views. They're essentially Web applications running in little floating windows. I'd suggest you check it out before just arbitrarily declaring it to be the same as something else.

    "AIM Profiles in iChat AV" isn't exactly a huge innovation

    No, it's not. But we got 17,438 requests for that feature from users. It doesn't have to be big to be important to our customers.

    it's quite easy to obtain as many free fonts as you please

    We're not including free fonts. We're including professionally designed and licensed fonts --fully Unicode-savvy, of course -- that would cost hundreds of dollars if bought after the fact.

    "Improved RAID Support" is what we call a "fix" not a new feature

    You don't understand the feature. This doesn't really surprise me at this point, because it's clear that your goal here is just to post criticisms without a whole lot of concern about truth.

    We already had striping support, which is sometimes erroneous called "RAID 0." We already had mirroring support. Now we've added concatenation. See? New feature.

    I have absolutely no problem with people who want to be critical. Critical is where we live. But is it really too much to ask that the people who levy criticisms have the tiniest idea what they're talking about first? It would save so much time.

  186. System Requirements slowly creeping up by jimlau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone else notice this phenomenon of the system req's slowly advancing?

    With 10.0-10.2, any Beige G3 or Wallstreet PowerBook G3 was fully supported. For Panther, they required built-in USB, thus knocking Beige G3 and Wallstreet systems out of the mix. Now for Tiger, it requires built-in FireWire. The only systems that come to mind without FW but without USB are early iMacs, some clamshell iBooks, and Lombard PowerBooks. That's a fair number of people that are starting to get left behind of the upgrade cycle.

    1. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a fair number of people that are starting to get left behind of the upgrade cycle.

      <sarcasm>Yes, those greedy bastards at Apple strike again-- how DARE they render obsolete machines that are only six years old!</sarcasm>

      Come on! People who are still using Macs they bought new in 1999 have gotten their money's worth! And if they don't want to upgrade to a machine that can run Tiger, their 1999 computer isn't going to cease functioning at 6PM on April 29th.

      Finally, people who are still happily using six year-old Macs are not the type who were going to be standing in line at the Apple Store next Friday evening.

      If Longhorn actually ships in late 2006, do you really think that even a high-end PC that shipped in late 2000 would be able to run it well, if it ran at all?

    2. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by jimlau · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or not necessary to keep moving forward. I was noting the way it's being done. I'm not someone trying to keep up with the lastest software on an outdated machine. I would much prefer a good OS for current hardware than a crappy one that runs on everything *cough* Windows *cough*

      I think Apple does a great job of supporting medium-old hardware. I hope to keep up with current 10.* releases with my Dual G4, and somewhat with my iBook G3, but my Wallstreet happily chugs away with 10.2.8 Server.

    3. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by nunchux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With 10.0-10.2, any Beige G3 or Wallstreet PowerBook G3 was fully supported. For Panther, they required built-in USB, thus knocking Beige G3 and Wallstreet systems out of the mix. Now for Tiger, it requires built-in FireWire. The only systems that come to mind without FW but without USB are early iMacs, some clamshell iBooks, and Lombard PowerBooks. That's a fair number of people that are starting to get left behind of the upgrade cycle.

      Realize that you're talking about sub-500mhz G3 machines that were designed to run OS9... OSX performance is and always will be barely adequate on these systems.

      In their time, in OS9 a G3 ran Photshop as snappily as a 2mhz G5 does now (at least until they inevitably crashed), but with OSX you can barely run anything beyond a word processor on a less-than-G4 computer.

      I think the upgrade cycle will slow down a bit when the last of the "classic" machines (designed for OS9, before OSX was viable) are phased out.

    4. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by myov · · Score: 1

      IIRC, weren't all these systems the ones which had the 8gb boot partition limitation? Is Apple just forcing people to upgrade/workaround (XPostFacto), or is there some change to the boot system?

      I had wondered why Apple dropped the Beige G3's, but not any of the iMacs in 10.3. With a USB card they had the same basic specs (and with a G4 upgrade card and XPostFacto, my G3 runs 10.3 well)

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    5. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by Maserati · · Score: 1

      If you allow expansion cards to meet the port requirements then Apple would have to support every 3rd party card out there. This is one of the key problems that helps determine the upper bound of how reliable Windows can ever be. Apple doesn't want to go that route and I don't want them to.

      Besides that major problem, the memory bandwidth on the beige machines sucks. The beige G3s had 10ns 168-pin SDRAM, while the Blue & White G3s had 8ns PC100 SDRAM. Big difference in memory architecture, and that's probably what Apple is really dropping support for. You can't upgrade that, and since you cna't buy a modern motherboard for the beige case you're stuck; volume limitations would probably make the price of the motherboard awful close to a much faster Mini anyway so why bother ?

      The PowerBook G3 issue looks similar. The 1st gen units had 60 ns EDO DIMM and the 500MHz FireWire [1] units had 8ns SO-DIMM (so did the first iMacs, so they fall on the supported side of the line). I'm not conversant with the differences, but since the 1st unit was the only PBG3 to use EDO DIMMs there must be something Apple doesn't want to deal with.

      [1] We have one of these. If I can coax it into booting on its sad battery I'm gonna try it on Tiger, it handled Panther pretty well.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    6. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by myov · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with you but...

      The USB cards all follow a common interface (OHCI). As long as the card follows it, it's worked from something like 8.5 and up.

      As for memory bandwidth: yes the machine could be faster. The only reason I've upgraded the machine this far is that the parts have been extremely cheap. I'm only running 10.3 because my 10.2 discs stopped reading properly. And, it actually runs 10.3 better (no suprize given the speedups we usually get) What I'd be interested to see is if Apple is just saying that they're dropping support (ie: XPostFacto), or if in fact the OS won't run.

      My main machine now is a tibook. I'm really only using the G3 because it's there. Most of the time it's a fancy firewire hard drive, but it's also nice to have a box to offload things to (like iTunes). I tend to be hard on my powerbook so whatever takes the load off helps. It's also there as a backup box when my powerbook goes down (during a 1 week period recently when my HD failed, for example). It's not fast, it doesn't handle many of my tasks, but at least it leaves me with something to use.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    7. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 800 MHz G3 iMac with 640 MB RAM and 32 MB of VRAM runs OSX 10.3.9 quite well.

      For instance, editing 70 MB image files in Photoshop is not a problem, per se -- some small number of the PS filters are designed for running against a G4's Alta-Vec unit, so they can crawl on the G3, but standard color and image corrections and rotations/cropping are real-time.

      Just got done doing an Adobe InDesign layout of 175 pages of text and pictures/graphics while on the road with the G3 iBook -- exported the final document as a PDF file, burned it to a CD-ROM, and handed the CD-ROM to the very helpful OfficeMax copy output lady.

      She kindly accepted my Mac-burned CD-ROM, walked over to her Dell/XP machine, and plopped the CD-ROM into its waiting Windows controlled CD-ROM drive.

      With a couple of deft double-clicks, she opened the PDF file with Acrobat Reader for Windows, tickling the print button with a quick slide and stab action -- mere seconds ticked by, when suddenly the nearby Canon color copier leapt to life, spewing forth beuatifully formatted pages with correct fonts and glorious color!

      A 2002 G3 iBook and OSX 10.3.9 are STILL a very capable pair -- not obsoleted yet !

      StiffNipples

    8. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Longhorn actually ships in late 2006, do you really think that even a high-end PC that shipped in late 2000 would be able to run it well, if it ran at all?

      No, it will not run well, but you can still install XP on a 386, should you wish to. There is no technical reason for an OS to not install on a system without a built-in USB.

      It's Apple's trademark upgrade treadmill. Old stuff still works, but software support slowly and mysteriously goes away.

    9. Re:System Requirements slowly creeping up by KirkH · · Score: 1

      My parents have one of the 333MHz iMacs from 1999 and my sister has the 350MHz model from 2000. Both run 10.3 without issue, ever since the RAM was upgraded. They use them for email, word processing, accounting, web browsing...basic stuff, but it works and works well.

      Maybe there's a reason to not support these types of machines, but I don't know what it is.

  187. In fairness... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    I am not trolling.

    Most people use the speed changes to argue in favor of Apple and against M$. But, you would see the exact same progression if M$ was adding more features (which slowed things down a bit), while Apple was correcting coding / design mistakes from an earlier OS. Versus the implied world where new M$ code is bloat-tastic, and Apple is bravely discovering new ways to speed things up.

    I think the solution is a mix of the two, and I'm not convinced that all aspects of XP are slower than earlier versions (I'm convinced that some of the filesystem stuff is faster). OS X was built on a mature OS but was itself not mature on release: that they would find ways to increase the speed of their Apple-specific code was sort of inevitable.

    Anyway, this isn't a valid reason to bash M$ or even praise Apple (because it implies that they were doing things the slow way before).

    Praising Apple for having better GUIs and features is very valid, of course.

    Doesn't matter much to me, really: I like Free Software, so I'm running Fedora, and I'm not swimming in money to the point where I can just go grab a new machine anywho. But those new G5s really do look badass...

    1. Re:In fairness... by Rico_Suave · · Score: 0

      Another point to consider when people bring up code bloat and relative speed of the two systems is that MS has taken great pains to keep as much backwards compatibility as possible. Apple, on the other hand, threw the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah, there's classic mode, but it's a half-assed solution at best.

  188. Just had another thought... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that these speed increases are due to superior compilation? I recall that the PPC implementation of compilers was in a bad state as of a couple years ago, and this would be a very real area where they could realize speed increases without having "made mistakes" in the past.

    Course, I could be wrong...

    1. Re:Just had another thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I recall that the PPC implementation of compilers was in a bad state as of a couple years ago

      The PPC implementation of gcc was in a bad state. Don't tar decent efforts with the same brush.

  189. Actually that['[s pretty nice for a lot of people by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Imagine being able to order printer supplies from the one thing that really knows what printyer you have - the computer. People do have trouble figuring out which of many ink carts they need to buy, soemtimes even if they have the model memorized.

    While you and I probably will not use it, I would not discount it as a nice feature to have. And we don't know yet if the OS will push things or not - you're able to order prints in iPhoto but it's hardly in your face about it. It just lets you do it if you want to.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  190. Re:2 words: by nxtw · · Score: 1
    Most of your rebuttals start with "you can get...". You seem to overlook that these are built-in to Apple's new OS, meaning there's no getting - it's already there.

    The moment Microsoft talks about integrating new features or software into the OS, everyone complains. When Apple does it, it's the greatest thing ever, regardless of how well/poorly either side does things.

    2D acceleration != 3D acceleration. Apple's using 3D acceleration for their 2D UI, which *is* new.

    And in other news, 2 does not equal 3. If they're using 3D acceleration for their 2D UI, it must have some need for benefitting from 3D acceleration. Personally, I'm not visually impressed by fancy looking widgets. I'm fine with the same boring Windows Classic I've been using for the past nine years. It needed no 3D acceleration 9 years ago and needs no 3D acceleration today. Whatever Microsoft comes up with in the next version of Windows will probably be turned off on my system.

  191. Re:charging for . release? by Cmdr+TECO · · Score: 1

    Actually, mirroring didn't work; it would almost immediately drop one of the disks for no apparent reason. I wonder whether that's fixed?

    --
    echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
  192. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got more feature updates FOR FREE when I typed `apt-get updgrade`.

    1. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you get FOR FREE that you can not also get FOR FREE on OS X?

  193. Another hardware phase-out? by Vandil+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When the Blue & White G3s came out in 1999, people were shocked that it lacked a 3.5" floppy disk drive. They provided a workaround, though: use a USB floppy drive.

    Apple did it again when they released Macs that can no longer boot into OS 9. The workaround: use Classic.

    And again with Panther, which requires a G3 with built-in USB, forcing many legacy Mac users to use XPostFacto as a workaround.

    Then came iLife '04, which refuses to install certain iLife applications if you don't have a G4 processor. Third-party processor upgrade cards were the workaround.

    Considering that all of Apple's current lineup of computers have optical drives that support DVD-ROMs, perhaps Apple is also, in its own way, gently nudging it's market to move away from data CD-ROMs to DVD-ROMs.

    Especially when you consider the installation scheme for the retail version of Panther -- 3 CDs must be swapped if you want to install everything and iLife '04 & Classic aren't even included.

    The retail version of Tiger may likely need only the one DVD (since iLife '05 isn't included) for the OS + XCode2.

    While the "Apple Store visit for CDs" may be an inconvenient workaround, at least there is one. It beats buying a Mac-bootable Combo- or SuperDrive and installing it.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:Another hardware phase-out? by myov · · Score: 1

      There are a significant number of Macs capable of running X that did not ship with DVD drives. My 2002 powerbook has a combo drive. Towers purchased only a few months before have CD burners only (except for the one with a Superdrive).

      It would have been nice if Tiger simply used a number of CD sized disk images. From the DVD it mounts them and works without swapping. Or, you can burn each image out to a CD.

      Of course, DVD burners are around $50 or less. Combo drives are less.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    2. Re:Another hardware phase-out? by adabyron · · Score: 1

      My iBook is just barely over a year old and only has a CD /reader/, not burner. It's a bit of a bummer, but I know enough people with Combo Drives for it to not be a big deal. I installed iLife 05 and iWork from DVD using target disk mode and a friend's iBook.

  194. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    Haha, well, even better. I was barely 7 at the time.

  195. Mod parent up! by amdg · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the clarification! That is some good info and it is definitely better than the calculator in Windows that people keep comparing this to.

    Someone mod the parent up!

  196. Oh wow lookie here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    64-Bit Audio File Format: Enjoy higher resolution sampled audio with the new 64-bit file format. 64-bits, damn, how do they do it?

  197. Re:charging for . release? by andreMA · · Score: 1
    Ah, OK... I was off by a major release number. I remember not being able to update to 10.2.7 and it doesn't seem that long ago, so I mistook it for 10.3.x.

    Thanks for the correction. (And where in the Hell did that missing year go?)

  198. Re:charging for . release? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
    But the problem is Apple hasn't got this sweet deal that everyone buying an Intel machine is subsidising it like Microsoft has.

    You mean you can buy a Mac without Mac OS now? How much cheaper is it?

  199. API by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Movie player? Or actual API and its usage?

    API, as hinted at by Wikipedia - "provided basic underpinnings that are still in use today".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:API by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      And compared to MCI and DirectX - much earlier I bet.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  200. Bluetooth Headset Support by binder520 · · Score: 1

    This is something cool: Use your Bluetooth headset as an input and output device, enabling hands-free audio conferences in iChat AV and more.

  201. Best feature: RPN calculator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been waiting for this for a long time.

  202. MISSING FEATURE: Suspend to Disk for Powerbooks. by torpor · · Score: 1

    Godamn, I pay $3000 for a laptop, and I can't suspend it to disk?

    This really irks me, even though I'm a fanboix.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  203. I think you misunderstand marketshare ... by uberleet · · Score: 1

    While it is true that computer sales figures have to add up to 100%, market shares do not have to add up to 100%.

    If each member of the computing public owns a pc that dual boots windows and linux, and a macintosh (heck, let's have it dual boot OSX and linux), then microsoft, apple, and linux each have 100% market share.

    Why is that? Because an application developed for a particular platform (windows, linux, apple) could be purchased and used by any of the people in the computing market place, hence, 100% market share.

  204. big difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a big difference between intelligent criticism and retarded bitching by asshats. Most of the posts you are describing fall into the latter category.

  205. Re:charging for . release? by taskforce · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Spotlight is a full-fledged system service, not just a user interface. Application developers can very easily add Spotlight to their own applications. For example, look at Mail. The additions to Mail to support Spotlight searching were trivial. In fact, the total code size of an early Spotlight build of Mail was significantly smaller, because we off-loaded all of the indexing and searching to the Spotlight service, removing it from Mail.

    You're obviously making your point from a developer's point of view: mine is as an end-user, who doesn't have the tiniest idea about developer technologies. I'm sure everything you said about Spotlight is true, as you seem to know your stuff, however to the end user, who wants a search function, it's Copernic.

    Um. No. Dashboard widgets are little Web Views. They're essentially Web applications running in little floating windows. I'd suggest you check it out before just arbitrarily declaring it to be the same as something else.

    Again, it's clear from my ignorance that I'm not a developer. I do know however as an end user that Widgets are Widgets. If I understand correctly what you're saying, you're saying that Dashboard is different to AveDesk/Samaurise/The rest because it pulls it's information off the Internet. Avedesk/Samaurise/The rest, to the best of my knowlege, also do this, hence the Weather Widget, (which can be skinned to be exact clones of the Tiger widget, and has been available since the first shots of Dashboard were released) POP/IMAP mail checker, etc.

    We're not including free fonts. We're including professionally designed and licensed fonts --fully Unicode-savvy, of course -- that would cost hundreds of dollars if bought after the fact.

    The Longhorn Readability Fonts are free: Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas, Constantina and Corbel. They look pretty professional to me.

    You don't understand the feature. This doesn't really surprise me at this point, because it's clear that your goal here is just to post criticisms without a whole lot of concern about truth.

    My apologies, it wasn't clear which features had been added in the explanation on the Apple site, so I incorrectly assumed that Apple's uber-modern "World's Most Advanced Operating System" already fully supported RAID that was fully laid down in 1988, and that they were merely fixing a bug or two.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
  206. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The boot up of XP is significantly faster, as is the initial log in.

    No it's not. It just seems to be faster because XP keeps loading services in the background as the desktop comes up, but is extremely sluggish until thsoe services are started. Another reason why XP seems to be faster is because people are typically comparing the boot time on their old pc to their new one - of course a 3 ghz p4 with a gig of ram is going to boot up faster than a 1 ghz with half a gig of ram.

  207. Java Jive? by stefaanh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad I did not find any references to a Java 1.5 upgrade.
    Does anyone know if this is to be expected in the near future?
    There is for instance good SmartCard Token Support in Java 1.5 (PKCS#11) amongst other important language and framework features...

    --
    --------
    * Sigh *
    1. Re:Java Jive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. Though not part of 10.4, it will only run on 10.4. Look for it soon after the 10.4 release.

  208. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please do us all a favor. You are so vastly out of your depth here, you should just shut up. Immediately, if not sooner.

  209. The solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Punch you real hard with the UNIX manual so you stop getting stupid ideas.

  210. Re:Snerdware: Groupcal 2.0 - Works! by greylingrover · · Score: 1

    Hey Saha, my "day-job" employer just started using the Snerdware apps a while ago. They work really good. There are still a few limitations, such as AddressX only importing a small subset of Exchange contact data (doesn't pull in the mailing address, etc.), but all the good stuff is in there and we run a database with all the contact info if anyone ever needs it. The only odd problem seems to be that GroupCal comes "unhooked" sometimes. It could just be my install, or perhaps it loses the connection when iCal is updated, but otherwise it works great. You do have to subscribe to each pub calendar that you want, which can be a pain if you need to re-install. Otherwise, Snerdware has saved our OSX users from the scourge of Exchange.

    --
    --- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
  211. Hopefully they got ACLs right by melted · · Score: 1

    My wife and I use the same Mac, so we want to share pictures folder and iTunes folder in a somewhat secure manner. As ridiculous as it sounds, Mac OS X Panther won't allow you to do it. You can put whatever you want into Shared folder, but once you create some files the other user will NOT get write permission on them. There's no way around this short of setting a very lax umask that permits RW access to anyone.

    In Windows I'd just put the correct ACL on the folder and by default all new subfolders and files would "inherit" the permission.

    I've already ordered my copy, but please oh stranger, if you have a prerelease builds confirm they've fixed this.

    1. Re:Hopefully they got ACLs right by myov · · Score: 1

      The only workaround I've found so far is to run a cron script every few minutes along the lines of:

      chgrp -R group_containing_all_users /Users/Shared/*
      chmod -R 775 /Users/Shared/*

      (or you could also chmod 777)

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    2. Re:Hopefully they got ACLs right by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1
      You can create an Applescript in /Applications/Applescript/Script Editor that says something like this:

      on adding folder items to this_folder after receiving added_items
      do shell script "chmod -R go+rw /Users/Shared/Music"
      end adding folder items to

      1. Save it as a Script in ~/Library/Scripts/Folder Action Scripts.
      2. Right-click or control-click on the folder whose files you want the script to modify whenever files are added.
      3. Choose "Attach a Folder Action".
      4. Select the script you just made.
      5. Click Chooose.

      Now any file you put in that folder will have read/write permissions for everyone.

      You can create another script that does the same thing for a shared Pictures folder.

    3. Re:Hopefully they got ACLs right by melted · · Score: 1

      >> You can create another script that does the same thing for a shared Pictures folder

      Yeah, and for entire giant subtree of folders under that folder, too. :0) Man, I do hope they go the ACLs right for sure. I've already plunked down the cash for the Tiger, and I'm getting it regardless, but if they don't fix this I'll be pretty darn disappointed.

  212. Re:IT NOW ONLY TAKES TEN MINUTES TO COPY A 17MB FI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hay, that alone is totally worth $130.00 for a service pack.

  213. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple just ripped off PARC.

  214. $129 isn't overpriced when its FREE by aventius · · Score: 1

    I love when my university gives away OS upgrades for Apple and Microsoft for free (at least they used to give Microsoft upgrades for free... at least Office Pro is still $24 for Mac & Windows).

    --
    [insert lame joke here]
  215. Why the above is funny by itistoday · · Score: 3, Informative

    ditto is a command on OS X and some BSD systems that's used to copy files. On OS X it has the flag -rsrc that ensures it copies the resource forks of various documents and applications. Currently on 10.3, 'cp' will ignore the resource forks, breaking some applications that use them.

  216. Re:2 words: by justsomebody · · Score: 1

    Ok,

    In 1986 Novell released Advanced NetWare version 2.0. With version 2.0 and all subsequent packages a NetBIOS interface has been included; Novell implemented NetBIOS encapsulated in IPX/SPX. Later Microsoft reverse- engineered the technology to provide encapsulation of NetBIOS in IPX/SPX that is compatible with the Novell implementation.

    IBM Tokenring was in 1985 and NetBIOS dates to 1983

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  217. Re:charging for . release? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    XP is substantialy slower. I used 2k for the longest time, and then for whatever reason (I think a reinstall) I put XP on it, and my computer is slow as shit. Fucking Athlon XP 3200 and I can barely stand to use the damn thing. And this is after I've turned off all the themeing stuff.

    OS X WAS slow as shit, but it hasn't been for quite some time. By contrast, if Tiger provides the same speed increases that we've been seing for some time now, that is an improvement, because as it stands, OSX has been up to normal speeds since panther first came out.

    Dashboard did not alredy exist from third parties. Don't give me the crap about konfabulator. I used it. It was shit. Slow, resource hog and nothing really useful from it, and the damn stuff took up space on my desktop. Dashboard is everything I wished Konfabulator could have been. Remember, bundling is not in and of itself evil. It's when you can't remove the bundled apps that you get into evil.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  218. Re:charging for . release? by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

    Yearly? Panther (the last version of OS X) arrived in 2003. This is 2005. 10.0 was $129. 10.1 was FREE with major new functionality. 10.2 and 10.3 were $129. Lets see here... $387. Now in that time the Microsoft side has gone through Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Thats $400 in upgrades. Windows is still higher. And considering this is probably the last upgrade on the Mac side before Longhorn, it will eventually be $600 to keep your PC current at least, compared to $387 on the Mac assuming you used Mac OS X since day 1 and didn't have a computer that came with it.

  219. Re:Actually that['[s pretty nice for a lot of peop by js7a · · Score: 1

    My OSX box has no idea what kind of printer I have, only that it prints PCL. Just sayin'.

  220. Re:charging for . release? by toddestan · · Score: 1

    Of course Microsoft didn't charge for SP2--it was a bug fix! They sold you a broken OS and they're doing the right thing and trying to fix it--and they made you wait 3 years. Who would charge for that? Oh, wait--Microsoft would. I seem to remember paying a lot for Windows 98 because it fixed Windows 95. And for only $200 too!

    Well Apple sold you 10.0, atleast they didn't charge for 10.1, but if you wanted a usuable OS you had to pay again for 10.2. So it's not like Apple is any different. Especially if you want to go back a bit an look at all the broken crap Apple released back in the 90's.

  221. 200 new features... by rtphokie · · Score: 0, Troll

    from microsoft = feature bloat
    from apple =

  222. Automater! by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

    I have to say that the thing I'm really looking forward to w/Tiger, is the Automater app!

    I was a big fan/user of Automate , and AutoHotKey for the Windows platform, and was really looking forward to working with AppleScript on the OSX-side of things.

    However AppleScript's code/syntax is really difficult for me to get into. It's attempt at being an "easy to read/use" code is SO different than anything I've used before, that it makes i hard for people who've scripted for other languages, be it Perl, Windows-Scripting, or *nix , or whatever, to easily pick it up.

    It's a powerful language... I just wish the syntax was a little more... "computer-like", rather than the mix of normal speech, and computer terms that it is.

    However Automater promises to make a lot of the simpler things easy, similar to the aforementioned Automate app, for Windows. I may still have to write some code for some of the more difficult operations, but Automater promises to make the simple things a lot easier, I think.

    1. Re:Automater! by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      automater is going to finanly open the power of action script to masses. and best part is it will be invisable to work flows, thsi will just get done.

      and it should be neat to see what 3rd party devlopers can do with as they update thier apps to take advantage of it

    2. Re:Automater! by Mechcozmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Tiger AppleScript will now auto-complete stuff that you type in the Script Editor app. That way, you can "learn as you go" by typing.

  223. Stop whining... by solios · · Score: 1

    ... get four Mac using friends, squeeze a hundred bucks each out of them, pool your money together and get an ADC account. I did this with some friends of mine and we consider it money well spent.

    500$/year gets you Server and Client builds, update builds, and advance info/data of just about everything. The downside is that you can't talk about it until it's on store shelves or in Software Update.... but the upside is that it's cheaper as a group effort than buying a single copy of the OS yourself. There's also the 1337 factor of knowing the new toy inside-and-out months or weeks before everyone else starts OMFGing about it.

    1. Re:Stop whining... by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      Is it allowed to share an ADC account?

    2. Re:Stop whining... by solios · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. You join up and you get a handful (I think the number depends on how much you pay / the membership "level", iirc) of "keys" that you can assign to any other ADC member.

      Getting an actual ADC membership is easy - you just sign up. Getting the cool stuff is what costs the money.

  224. Have they fixed their PPTP implementation? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 1

    Until now, MacOS X's PPTP implementation has been largely useless because it routes ALL network traffic through the VPN connection instead of letting your ordinary Internet traffic use the connection you already have. Thus, if you tunnel into your office, your ordinary Web browsing goes through the office and then BACK out to the Internet while the VPN is established. Is this fixed in "Tiger?" Nothing on Apple's Web site says.

    1. Re:Have they fixed their PPTP implementation? by AcornWeb · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe that may be the way it is supposed to work. From what I've seen when I was setting up the VPN server for 10.3 Server, you need to specify on the server that the VPN client should only use your tunnel for certain subnets.

      Which PPTP VPN server are you using?

      --
      Your Windows PC is my other computer.
  225. Re:charging for . release? by myov · · Score: 1

    Did you get a free upgrade for the last Microsoft "point release" (Windows 5.0 to 5.1 or in marketing speak 2K to XP). You didn't?

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  226. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If they're using 3D acceleration for their 2D UI, it must have some need for benefitting from 3D acceleration.

    Absolutely correct. Graphics card manufacturers haven't done much for 2D acceleration since about 1998; 3D acceleration, however has leapt ahead drastically in the last 10 years. As a result, the cards are much better at drawing lines, curves, textures, etc in 3D mode than they are in 2D mode. So why not use 3D mode? Benefits include the use of hardware shaders for realtime effects previous relegated to expensive hardware (Core Image, Core Video), compositing (with transparency!) offloaded to the video card (Quartz Extreme), and so on. Stick to your VT100 if you like, but these features will provide measurable benefits to many people.

  227. Re:charging for . release? by unclethursday · · Score: 1
    "They're the first to implement it but MS had certainly already thought about this feature before and their version will be better".

    I particularly like the fact that he somehow automatically knows that the Longhorn search feature will be more "further-reaching" than Spotlight. Being as we haven't even seen MS' version demoed, we can't know. The fields that Thurrot covered in his review concern generally the GUI. And, apart from Spotlight, there is little revolution in this area from Panther to Tiger, merely refinements. Most of the people that will upgrade won't notice a big difference in their habits.

    Yeah, I noticed that. He completely left out things such as Automator (which I will most likely use extensively), and instead focused on the general GUI, Spotlight, and Dashboard. Out of all the new things in Tiger, Dashboard is the one I am least interested in. The general speed increases and speed boost in Safari are things I want to know about, not if this program looks different or not.

  228. Re:charging for . release? by ChilyMack · · Score: 1

    Mac OS 10.4 = Win 5.6

  229. Re:charging for . release? by Rico_Suave · · Score: 1

    Sure... .NET Framework
    DirectX 9
    the addition of IPv6
    a rewrite of the firewall
    major security infrastructure improvements
    a radically improved update mechanism
    Set Program Access and Defaults
    Windows Media Player 10 (contrast this with the awful WMP 8 included with XP RTM)
    the addition of things like handwriting to Messenger
    the security center
    a simpler wireless UI
    etc. etc.

  230. Have you tried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... setting the directory to be setuid? From the chmod man page:

    Directories with the set-user-id bit set will force all files and sub-directories created in them to be owned by the directory owner and not by the uid of the creating process, if the underlying file system supports this feature: see chmod(2) and the suiddir option to mount(8).

    By creating a user specific to that directory, putting all 3 of you (you, wife, new user) into the same group, and using a umask of 755 (off the top of my head, better double check it) you should be able to get what you want.

  231. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by macmastery · · Score: 0

    I meant that it's a difference in Tiger from Panther, not from XP.

  232. Anyone knows when MacOS XI will be here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We seem to have been on this tenner a long time.

    1. Re:Anyone knows when MacOS XI will be here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mac OS XI ditches the previous Unix underpinnings and goes back to OS 9 technologies; the long awaited Copland.

      I've got an early beta here.

      Shit I've broken my NDA with Apple....

  233. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And by paying $129 for what should be a free Service Pack, whose interests do you have at heart? Not the users, obviously.

    Apple needs an honest slogan -

    Mac OS X 10.4: The stupidity tax!

  234. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You're joking right?

    .NET Framework - I think you should take a little peak at the functionality provided by Apple's APIs and the BSD core, plus all the unix tools, before you comment on how great MS's little hack job is.

    DirectX 9 - Well I think we all know OpenGL is leading the industry. Apple knew when to let go of QuickDraw. Time for MS to realize it can't control every aspect of the industry.

    the addition of IPv6 - Few years late, but ok.

    a rewrite of the firewall - Something that shouldn't needed to be upgraded in the first place! OSX has been rock solid since 10.0. The only "virus" was a proof of concept a few months back. I don't think I have to remind you of windows' security track record. Hell, I've never run any anti-virus or anti-spyware programs on my macs. NOT ONCE in 10 years.

    major security infrastructure improvements - See above.

    a radically improved update mechanism - Been there since OS X 10.0.

    Set Program Access and Defaults - Yes, more flawed windows security.

    Windows Media Player 10 (contrast this with the awful WMP 8 included with XP RTM) - Apple has always provided updates to state of the art quicktime player for free.

    the addition of things like handwriting to Messenger - Handwriting AND speech recognition built right into OS X. The latter lets you launch scripts or apps from a speakable items folder.

    the security center - :)

    a simpler wireless UI - Not simpler than OSX I assure you.

    Clearly you haven't used OSX more than just tinkering around in some store or something. If you were a serious power user or developer, you'd know that OSX is clearly a better platform for both users and programmers.

    Don't even get me started on other features. 200 more to an already impressive list if you ask me. Did I mention that this post is spell checked via the system-wide spell check feature?

  235. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Who cares what Microsoft does? We're talking about Tiger. You're not doing a great job of persuading any Mac owner that this point.point.point release should be a free download.

    I have four Macs, here, all running Panther. I'm sitting this one out.

  236. Re:charging for . release? by Professor+S.+Brown · · Score: 0

    .NET - We get API updates for free too. 10.3.9 for example brought some very nice WebKit API additions DirectX 9 - We get OpenGL updates for free IPv6 - Nice of you to join us, your a few years late though Firewall - We've had one from the start. Updates - Ditto, ours has been fine from the beginning. WMP10 - Quicktime updates have always been free MSN Updates - Likewise with iChat Security Centre - Thats basically a fix, not a feature Simpler Wireless - It doesnt get any simpler than OSX I use Windows more than I use OSX, its my primary platform, but if you seriously think Tiger is just a 'service pack' then you are either being deliberately stupid or you don't know much about OSX.

    --
    Shitram Brown, PhD
    Professor of Mathematics
  237. Re:charging for . release? by unclethursday · · Score: 1
    Damn you for beating me to this. ;-P

    Did I mention that this post is spell checked via the system-wide spell check feature?

    May the gods bless this feature until the end of times. I didn't even know about it for the longest time, but now I can't live without it. I knew about it in iChat AV, AppleWorks, TextEdit, etc., but not Safari. Now I have been using it, and I can't live without it. Now my comments are t3h c0rr3ct $p3ll1ng!!!!!one!!!1111!!!!!eleventyone!

  238. Who says it was broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until now, MacOS X's PPTP implementation has been largely useless because it routes ALL network traffic through the VPN connection instead of letting your ordinary Internet traffic use the connection you already have.

    If you're VPNing into an OS X Server, whoever set it up is incompetent. Mac OS X Server's VPN service allows you to set that on the server end of things.

    I always set it so only traffic to the internal IP range (i.e. the servers on the client's LAN) gets passed across the VPN, and everything else just goes from the VPN user's cable/DSL connection out to the internet.

    1. Re:Who says it was broken? by Brett+Glass · · Score: 1

      That setting isn't part of the PPP negotiation and therefore cannot be dictated by the server. It's set on the client. Windows has a simple box in the client configuration that says "Use default gateway on remote network" that one can check or uncheck. MacOS X does not. It always does wrong thing (it routes EVERYTHING through the VPN tunnel). So, your boss gets to see everything you browse, all of your webmail, etc.

  239. The Apple acceptance curve on Slashdot by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apple has done really well reaching out to the nerd set over the last few years. What acceptance they've gotten here is well-deserved.

    I've been on Slashdot since '99, and I noticed initially there was quite a bit of resistence to most things Apple. The groupthink about Apple seemed to be, "Yeah, they make shiny widgets that graphic artists like, but they're toys unsuitable for people who know anything about computers."

    The release of early builds of OS X started the ball rolling in the right direction. Apple's foray into Open Source with Darwin at first was greated with enormous skepticism, but after a while people started to realize that Apple wasn't just pulling a publicity stunt. The evolution of Apple hardware got more people interested in Apple, and the titanium PowerBooks in particular made quite a few Slashdotters to realize that OS X on a PowerBook was essentially a very capable UNIX machine with a great form factor and nifty features.

    Subsequent events (the launch of the iPod, the foray into online music, the G5 boxes, and the continuing improvements to OS X) have changed a lot of minds. I seriously doubt that Slashdot has become infested with Apple fanboys who drool at the opportunity to mod up comments that make Apple look good. My take on it is that Apple has changed for the better, and they're coming out with hardware and software that many Slashdotters like.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:The Apple acceptance curve on Slashdot by Vengie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1 Cogent/Coherent assesment of trend.

      Sorry, you said it all so succinctly it left nothing else to be said whatsoever. Shame we cant sticky your post to the top of every Apple thread.

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  240. Re:charging for . release? by paulymer5 · · Score: 1

    "You're obviously making your point from a developer's point of view: mine is as an end-user, who doesn't have the tiniest idea about developer technologies."

    I do believe that's a big part of the point: Tiger is more for developers then end users. CoreImage, CoreAudio, gcc 4.0, XCode 2, and all of the new scripting and searching hooks are going to be underutilized for a while. But then developers are going to start releasing software that uses these new features, much more significant in the long term.

    Give it a couple of years. When you can search everything, and I do mean everything, from a single interface, the point of Spotlight may become apparent. When you can automate anything, anything, from a simple click and build GUI, the reasoning behind Automator may become apparent.

    "If I understand correctly what you're saying, you're saying that Dashboard is different to AveDesk/Samaurise/The rest because it pulls it's information off the Internet."

    No. They're webviews because they're written with extended JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. They're extremely easy to develop and design, as a result. (And in this, I recognize they're strangely similar to Konfabulator widgets. However, Konfabulator does extremely odd things with its threads and child processes, so said widgets are the most amazing resource hogs.)

    Everything new in Tiger is not meant for you, oh doubtful naysayer. But when developers start releasing ever more useful applications, which would require full multiples of time to develop on another platform, please, reconsider your postings.

  241. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, no! Not cool points!!!

  242. Re:2 words: by geekee · · Score: 1

    Maybe Apple should have focused on preemptive multitasking and memory management in the 90s instead of producing the crap that they did. MacOS was the worst OS on the market from the mid 90s until OSX

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  243. Correction to Frequent Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A corporation is a single entity, like you or me. More significantly, it is a singular noun.

    Don't keep referring to Apple as a plural noun (e.g. "Apple are ...")!

    It's singular, like one person. "Microsoft is ...," "Intel is ...," and "Apple is ..."

    1. Re:Correction to Frequent Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an instance where British and American usage differ.

  244. Re:charging for . release? by telbij · · Score: 1

    There are two points where Thurrot isn't particularly convincing. One is his endless comparision between Mac OS X and what Microsoft offers, that ranges from "It's some kind of imitation of Windows" to "They're the first to implement it but MS had certainly already thought about this feature before and their version will be better".

    The most incredible was his claim that XP-SP2 is arguably a more major upgrade than Tiger. I'm not intimately familiar with XP, but as far as I know SP2 was mostly security features. I'm sure that makes a huge improvement in usability, bringing back your Win box from the brink of death, but Tiger offers actual features that apply to actually using the computer.

    It's funny how many Mac haters there are out there. If you like Windows so much, why would you give Mac zealots the time of day? Instead these guys get so incensed that people like Macs even though they are barely on the marketshare radar. There's some kind of Mac-envy going on. Not sure if they're jealous of the computer itself, or just the satisfaction that Mac users enjoy, but it certainly is telling.

  245. Re:charging for . release? by mattyohe · · Score: 1

    anyone else notice that almost all things mentioned in this list are not usability additions... but things to secure a Windows box?

    --
    - what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
  246. Re:charging for . release? by peebeejay · · Score: 1
    Thanks. That's the first time someone has spelled out the XP improvements. However, six of the eleven items listed (I won't count "etc. etc" as an item) concern security - things that should have been working in the beginning. One item is .NET, which is nothing to brag about, and that leaves DirectX 9, WMP10, handwriting to Messenger, and improved wireless UI.

    In the same time, covering Jaguar, Panther, and now Tiger, MacOSX offers these NEW features: Inkwell, Rendezvous (now Bon Jour), Apple-tab application switching, Expose, iChat, iChatAV, look-ahead searching, Spotlight, a functioning fax replacement, iSync, Automator, Dashboard, Printer setup in System prefs, several versions of Quicktime including H.264, fast user switching, VoiceOver (this thing actually makes computers usable for the blind, and for them, has to be the single greatest thing to happen to computers), Safari, and, of course, etc. etc. Security was excellent to begin with, and only got better since, usually with free upgrades.

    Here's my take on the price: it should have been $129 for upgrades from 10.1 and below, $99 for 10.2 Jaguar users, and $69 for Panther users. Bear in mind, that the Family Pack is a great deal, and that there are no heinous license verifications with this upgrade. I ordered Tiger through Amazon, and paid less than $100. That's only $30 more than I thought I should pay, but nobody forced me to do it. I could, of course, have paid $499 for it, and got a great little computer thrown in, as well as a $99 iLife suite, but I think I'll upgrade my hardware when Ocelot comes out, which will still be before Longhorn is finished.

  247. Remappable Modifier Keys! by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

    Did anyone notice (Bottom right of the page, listed under "Unix" -- no of course you didn't, no one reads articles anymore) that you can now remap modifier keys like control and caps lock! There have been 3rd party applications that permit this, with some caveats.

    This is huge for me. I'm going to get Tiger anyway for Spotlight alone - seems like I've been waiting for that feature my entire computing life - but putting the control key where it belongs is icing on the cake.

    Who are these Apple engineers that seem to be paying attention to what users want, and how come none of them are working for Novell/Mandrisa/Red Hat? I mean come on, folks, I'd love to keep using Linux on my home box, but I have yet to find the Linux distro that provides such phenomenal usability. One of my complaints about OS X used to be the non-modifiable modifier keys. And now that's been taken care of.

    Go Apple!

    --
    If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  248. Re:charging for . release? by unclethursday · · Score: 1
    Although it's been said already...

    DirectX 9

    Open GL updates are free on OS X and come with each real point update (10.x.y).

    the addition of IPv6

    Welcome to the 21st Century.

    a rewrite of the firewall

    Mac OS X firewall has been working fine since 10.0, long before SP2's rewrite came out.

    major security infrastructure improvements

    So they fixed things that have been problems for years? Joy. And security fixes as a major feature of a service pack is not a good thing. Apple releases security fixes through Software Update that are security updates alone, not service packs (although the true service packs have the older fixes in them as well).

    a radically improved update mechanism

    Software Update has worked fine for a while now on OS X, since before XP SP2 came out, as well.

    Set Program Access and Defaults

    And, yet, some programs still require the use of being logged in as an administrator account, which has no default settings to prevent unwanted programs from being installed while running that account.

    Windows Media Player 10 (contrast this with the awful WMP 8 included with XP RTM)

    Yay. Quicktime gets updated through Software Update if you want it to, or you can download it from the Quicktime part of Apple's site.

    the addition of things like handwriting to Messenger

    Been in OS X for a while. Has Windows yet gotten a reliable voice activation/dictation software yet? OS X has.

    the security center

    Something else to highlight the security flaws in Windows, and something not really needed on OS X.

    a simpler wireless UI

    As in WiFi? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! WiFi on Windows is such a pain in the ass to set up, it isn't even funny. In OS X (cue overused but true saying) IT JUST WORKS. In fact, I literally just connect to any unsecured network in the immediate area if I choose to.

    Sorry, but it looks like these new features are still behind stuff OS X had in some cases since 10.0.

  249. Re:Actually that['[s pretty nice for a lot of peop by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Then you're probably not in the target market for this feature, are you?

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  250. Re:tiger is a minor release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like I'm not the only with a small penis.

  251. Re:charging for . release? by KH · · Score: 1

    Similarly,

    Mac OS X 10.1 = Darwin 5
    Mac OS X 10.2 = Darwin 6
    Mac OS X 10.3 = Darwin 7
    Mac OS X 10.4 = Darwin 8

    Currently, Mac OS X 10.3.9 gives Darwin 7.9 when you do 'uname -a'.

    This thread is very helpful.

    We should officially start considering those who way "charging money for a point release" trolls by now.

  252. Mobile Home Directory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of these negative posts about Tiger, and not one good thing about its new Mobile Home Directory.

    Now how exciting is that? Apple users can now easily find and execute Bush voters! How can you say something bad about a piece of software that does that -- much less an operating system!

  253. Re:Apple is Microsoft by organum · · Score: 1

    My point exactly.

    "Our company recently migrated to Linux workstations after years of Windows. Can't say that I see much of a difference between Linux and Windows GUIs nor I miss Windows GIU at all."

  254. scientist? or scientitian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simpsons humor, people. Let's liven it up.

  255. Hey Slashdot! by peebeejay · · Score: 1

    Isn't it about time you replaced the "X" icon from how it looked in 10.0 and 10.1 to a more current version? I scan the articles and see the blue X, and I wonder why people are submitting articles about a four year old OS!!!

    1. Re:Hey Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're still waiting for the Gnome icon to be changed -- version 2.12 coming up.

  256. Disc Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is worthy of note that Mac towers since 1999 have a DVD drive standard. Of course, they didn't have the combo drives yet, so the CD-RW ones didn't also read DVDs, as they do now.

  257. Re:2 words: by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

    Sweet. My ransom notes are gonna kick ass.

  258. Re:Will we see... by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "*new since Windows 3.1!"

    And then three years later:

    "We finally copied some of Longhorns features into Linux!"

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  259. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Windows 2K = Win 5.0
    Windows XP = Win 5.1
    Windows Server 2003 = Win 5.2

    Theory:

    (1 OS X point release) < (1 Windows point release) < (4 OS X point releases)
  260. The Original Submission...so it is posted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey.

    I'm the A.C. who submitted the link to the features page. Normally, these submissions go into my browser and I forget about them long after the links are ingored by the moderators. So, it is surprising that the mods felt like posting it.
    Some follow-ups:
    1) I thought that the verbage would be changed; instead it was posted verbatim. Yikes. Me didn't want to come across as some sort of shill for Apple or as a bafoon. I accomplished the latter w/o trying. thanks, /.ers! You really like me.

    2) I submitted it yesterday. My luck tends to be that of a johnny-come-lately and it just seemed like /. would already have a similar post up by the time they read my submission.

    3)Stealth Mode, like some mentioned, is totally about privacy. It may seem trivial to most of you but c'mon, peeps, giving non-technical savvy users that option is welcome. And, the firewall feature is built into Darwin. Any obvious privacy additions to the security features are welcome.
    4) Most of the features are tweaks, simply product enhancements. There's nothing wrong with that. When the Find application in OS 8 became Sherlock with OS 8.5 it changed the way users searched for files on their desktop. It even allowed for searching the internet from within the Sherlock app. Windows search thing still launched the browser--explorer-- and defaulted to MS' search page. BS, that is.
    At base, Spotlight is the better search that seemed to stall between OS 8.5 and OS X. With Metadata not existing, so to speak, in pre-Tiger OS X, the options for search were limited. That is a major reason I don't use X daily. I likes me metadata because I can arrange things the way I want to and not as the OS wants me to. And, the OS "knows" when I move things without popping up warnings or interfering with what I'm doing.
    In OS 9 I can search based on the data in the resource fork. That's helped me out especially when I've had to fix corrupted files.
    And, of course meta-data makes the OS "smarter."
    The goal of comupting advances is still about making the interaction invisible and easier for anyone to use, right?

    Arranging files you create in ways that are best conducive to the way you work is just desired. Metadata, especially since I cut my teeth on System 7-OS 9, makes things better.

    Finally, beyond metadata, the things I dig most about Tiger and while I'll likely upgrade:
    Automator, Core Image/video, Quicktime enhancements. All of those are good for me and my ilk who do multimedia and who don't program. The bulk of the enhancements to the OS assist people like me who aren't code junkies but who want to take fuller advantage of the OS, of Quicktime (which really has so more functionality than Apple seems to promote , like, interactivity and the 3D panoramas of QTVR) and increases our workflow.

  261. Backdoor = all bets are off by SkiifGeek · · Score: 1

    An AC has already made part of this post, but I will finish it off.

    Any time that an application can get inside the firewall and install itself without the explicit permission of the user then that is it, all bets are off. While not all applications installed like this provide a root shell equivalent, it is possible for many of them to turn on and off services at will.

    If your firewall is on your end user system, then it essentially ceases to exist once your system is compromised, as it can easily be switched off or have rules changed to allow malicious traffic, while still appearing complete.

    However, if your firewall is on a separate system, it is more likely to maintain its integrity if your system is compromised.

    1. Re:Backdoor = all bets are off by argent · · Score: 1

      I made that point too: once you get inside the firewall's trust boundary, the firewall ceases to be a firewall.

    2. Re:Backdoor = all bets are off by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not *exactly* true. Yes, all bets are off, but few current trojans / viruses / worms are smart enough to automatically disable the firewall.

      Certainly there exist scenarios where the firewall won't be of any protection, but the standard worm / virus will be foiled by this. It's like not wearing a hardhat in a consruction area, because you might still be crushed by an I-beam.

      Also, client firewalls protect you from internal threats (ala, sasser). We didn't get hit by Sasser even when it got loose on the LAN by people's private laptops.

  262. Re:charging for . release? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

    "AIM Profiles in iChat AV" isn't exactly a huge innovation

    No, it's not. But we got 17,438 requests for that feature from users. It doesn't have to be big to be important to our customers.


    Make that 17,439. Where do you request this?

  263. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    What, for 5 years?

    I don't disagree with you, the Apple of the time was pretty poorly run.

    In 10 years, will we be remembering the current era as a time when "Microsoft should have focused on security and usability instead of producing the crap that they did. Windows XP was the worst OS on the market from the early 00s until [insert future OS successor]"

  264. Re:charging for . release? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

    You do realize that there's no need to submit the feature request because the feature has already been added, right?

    For actual feature requests, use https://bugreport.apple.com/

  265. Stealth mode annoying to network users? by SkiifGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    I fail to see how the stealth mode on the firewall will annoy legitimate users of the network, unless you define legitimate users to be something which I don't.

    Even based on the page you linked to, there is no information which would lead to other users on a network being annnoyed based on your system applying stealth mode. It could be inferred that problems with DHCP lease allocation could cause the same IP to be allocated to two users, but the ISP should have sufficient technical expertise to not get into such a situation (otherwise they shouldn't be an ISP). The only possible way that stealth mode would impact other users ability to use a network would be if the network gateway, or the ISP, applied stealth mode.

    The worst it could do to an end user is drop them off the network if they did not respond to ICMP pings, or heartbeats used by the ISP.

  266. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOUR A SHIT HEAD APPLE FAG!

  267. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the iPod looks like a well-used bar of Ivory soap with a metal backplate, and I'm not alone. Usability goes far beyond the UI - iTunes DRM, the hoops through which one must jump to get songs off it, battery replacement issues, and -- most glaringly between even the Jukebox and the iPod, and a little important for an audio player -- audio quality all hurt the iPod. I used my Jukebox with one hand - the play, next and back buttons, and volume were all within easy reach. Finding a specific song was more of a hassle than an iPod, unless you actually paid attention to how you put the music on the device. It didn't reward laziness like the iPod does, I give it that.

    And yes, Creative's early stuff was ugly, but -- if you're referring to the Jukebox -- it was the size and form-factor of a portable CD player, certainly not the Mac mini.

    Both are certainly flawed, and the iPod is definately an improvement over the Jukebox. But it's just not as far as I thought the audio player industry would be by now, considering what the Jukebox did back when it came out. All those years and all we get is a bar of soap with a clickwheel and crappy bass?

    Apple should count its lucky stars Sony didn't see the future as well as Creative did.

  268. Does Tiger ship with new Mac hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or do they charge extra?

  269. Re:charging for . release? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No. They're webviews because they're written with extended JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. They're extremely easy to develop and design, as a result. (And in this, I recognize they're strangely similar to Konfabulator widgets. However, Konfabulator does extremely odd things with its threads and child processes, so said widgets are the most amazing resource hogs.)


    Do you even realize that the Active Desktop feature in Windows98 has and was doing this almost 7 years ago.

    Many products used comparable technologies. How is this innovative for Apple again? Besides the fact that programs like Konfabulator perfected the applet desktop concept a long time ago as well.

    Ya, we can run Web applets on our desktop, just like the Windows98 users could 7 years ago.. Hurray...

    Oh, and we have Ok, and partially working RAID support now. Hurray, just Like WindowsNT did back in 1993, oh wait WindowsNT RAID support back then was more complete than what we offer even today. oops.

    Give me a freaking break...

    There are more 'fixes' than features, and bundled concepts they have ripped off MANY other companies.

    How about the direct Burn to CD feature - wow.. Adaptec's DirectCD was doing this back in 1998 as well, it was an instant burn process, NO staging as well.

    Apple should be ashamed of every feature they tout as THEIRS or INNOVATIVE or REVOLUTIONARY when it was a feature or function that existed in other products and OS long before Apple even got their act together in making a solid operating system like OSX. Shame on Apple for stealing thunder and then telling the world that Microsoft only copies them. Shame, Shame... Shall we talk about the Xerox lawsuit they won against Apple for the GUI? Funny, no one seems to mention it anymore either... Apple is now the INNOVATOR. Geesh...

    Spotlight, the wonderful new search feature? (You say it is special because it is a Service)... Bull... MSN Desktop Search is just as freaking functional and it is an experimental beta for God's sake. It has API sets for application developers just like Spotlight (so it accessible just like your service) and also tracks and references MetaData that NTFS supports natively, as it has since 1993 as well.

    Sure this is a great new release for OSX, and I will upgrade my Macs... But to tell the world how wonderful Apple is and how advanced this 'Tiger' is, is the one that truly is living in a cave and hasn't noticed the rest of the industry around them for quite sometime.

    It is a good update, it is nothing special. PERIOD.

  270. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    Did I ever deny attribution or credit to PARC? I only suggested we owe credit to Apple.

  271. Re:Will we see... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Flamebait? Ah, I get it: When Microsoft copies somebody else, sharpen the ol pitchforks. But when Linux distros FINALLY get features that Windows had for years, it's sacred.

    Honestly guys, if you can't take a little poke here and there, maybe you should consider not dishing it out.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  272. Re:Stealth Mode already ported to Linux! by Doyle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Simply save it to a shell script called view_grandchild_photos and give it desktop link. Voila - she'll be running in stealth mode in no time! ;)

  273. Re:charging for . release? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
    OS X WAS slow as shit, but it hasn't been for quite some time. By contrast, if Tiger provides the same speed increases that we've been seing for some time now, that is an improvement, because as it stands, OSX has been up to normal speeds since panther first came out.

    You've got a strange idea of "normal". My 1Ghz iBook runs OS X with similar performance to the ca. 450Mhz P3 I use at home for my Win2k3 DC.

    OS X starts to approach "snappy" on G5-class machines and high-end dual G4s. But it's still far, far less responsive than Windows.

  274. Re:2 words: by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    Sony have a hard time seeing the present of portable music, let alone the future. That's why they are barely a blip in that market.

    If you're going to talk about usability, how does DRM affect the user? I ripped about 200 CDs yesterday for my fiance's new iPod. No DRM. Of course, here in Australia I can't buy from the iTMS, but even if I could, Apple's DRM is the least restrictive.

    We don't have the choice between DRM or no DRM with online music. The music industry will never allow that, and after years of online piracy, I have to say that seems fair - people have shown time and again that they'd rather get something for nothing. The industry's been bitten and are responding with DRM to protect their copyrighted music. That's not to say that I believe that their tactics of suing file-sharers are anything but dubious, but they have the right to protect their stuff in the face of rampant piracy.

    So given that we are going to have DRM on legally retailed music, what sort of DRM would you like? Apple's model trusts the user more than most.

    I'm digressing a bit though.

    Moving music *from* a portable device is a bit of an odd thing. I've got the music on my computer already, so why would I want to send it back to my computer? Unless you're talking about backups (better handled by an external HD anyway) or piracy, I can't think of a reason to do this.

    As for battery replacements - the thing lasts for about two years! It's a bummer that we can't easily change the batteries ourselves, but that's not a deal-breaker and it's not a usability issue (unless you want to change the batteries every week).

    The iPod is where it is for a reason - it's the best mp3 player on the market. It's not just the ads (which many people I know haven't even seen) or marketing, but the device is actually a really good one. After seeing my fiancee take to hers (and she's not a Mac user or Apple fan) I have to say that it's almost trivial to learn how to use it.

  275. Stealth mode by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

    So stealth mode is supposed to go down like this, right?:

    Windows H4xx04: OMG wut wuz dat?
    Windows H4xx04-2: ya i got hit to ....

    OS X H4x04: OMG PWNED1111

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  276. FWIW by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    The distinction about Mail2 and HTML is this: You can now compose email as html -- meaning you can type in messages using tags like table, img, a, code, etc. Mail1 would let you copy and paste in rich text, and turn it into html when it sent it to someone else, but you couldn't compose the mail as html. To clarify a little more, if you pasted a bunch of html into a new message it would just send that code with all the tags escaped and such... like on Slashdot the difference between "HTML Formatted" and "Extrans" and "Plain Old Text". I can think it's really only that useful to people who want to make glossy pretty html emails like ADC sends you. Of course the new Safari's "mail this web page" feature could easily be used to get this functionality. Eh. Sorry for rambling.

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  277. but wait, there's more by MadAhab · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sometimes I love Apple, sometimes I hate them. Sometimes they do great software, sometimes they screw their users as bad as any commercial software company.

    This time, they done good. First: it looks like the iSight now can route audio through the system like any other mic; before, it was an expensive webcam with a crippled microphone. This should, for example, mean that Garageband can use it for recording audio input, which is convenient (and currently impossible). Second, the Audio Unit Lab is going to be interesting. It allows users to create Audio Units - which in Garageband means software instruments and which generally might give the Mac a built-in, midi-accessible sampler. It's hard to believe on the one hand - I doubt it would have features to encroach on, say Ableton Live - but on the other hand, with some pre-loaded audio, a cheapo Casio keyboard with midi ports, an isight, and Garageband, you'd practically be a moble radio station - podcasting anyone?

    And the Audio Unit Lab is on http://www.apple.com/pro/musicaudio/tiger.html and NOT on the 200 list!

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  278. Re:charging for . release? by paulymer5 · · Score: 1
    "Do you even realize that the Active Desktop feature in Windows98 has and was doing this almost 7 years ago."

    Dashboard is nothing like Active Desktop. Active Desktop lets you use a page from a server or a local file. Dashboard is a space for individual widgets, not full web pages, and the extended JavaScript allows hooks into OS X's API.

    I'm not familiar with setting up Active Desktop to, say, run cron jobs or searches, poll information about the current network connection and system status. Without resorting to ActiveX or other such architecture, I do not believe Active Desktop can interact with other applications, such as iTunes or iCal. Dashboard Widgets can, and with relative ease.

    Besides, you can only run one Active Desktop page at a time, not the many componentized widgets of Dashboard.

    "Many products used comparable technologies. How is this innovative for Apple again?"

    I ask you, who claimed this was innovative? Not I. Go argue with those that did. And those other products with comparable technologies are not part of the system. They are add ons. It's comparable to saying "Microsoft is stealing the idea of a firewall by adding it to their system." The idea of the firewall is a good one, and thus integrating it into Windows is an excellent feature.

    Konfabulator has not perfected the widget. In fact, Konfabulator is rather laughable in its approach. It's a nice application, sure, but it sucks up 25MB of real memory and significant CPU cycles for each open widget. Yes, I want to lose a quarter of my system resources for a dozen widgets. Konfabulator, for all its nice JavaScript extensions, is also still fairly limited in its API hooks.

    "Shall we talk about the Xerox lawsuit they won against Apple for the GUI? Funny, no one seems to mention it anymore either..."

    You just did, and I thank you for it. But then again, everyone else is being sued or has been sued, as well. Apple is neither the exception nor the example.

    Now, again, nowhere did I say Apple was the innovator. So, I ask you, again, why are you flaming me?

    "Spotlight, the wonderful new search feature? (You say it is special because it is a Service)... Bull... MSN Desktop Search is just as freaking functional and it is an experimental beta for God's sake. It has API sets for application developers just like Spotlight (so it accessible just like your service) and also tracks and references MetaData that NTFS supports natively, as it has since 1993 as well."

    Yes, MSN Desktop Search is available, but is not immediately a part of the system. Again, this is one of the points.

    As far as the MSN Desktop Search API hooks, I find the documentation on them exceedingly difficult to locate. If you could point me the link (or the path in MSDN), I would appreciate it.

    Again, MSN Desktop is optional. Thus, developers need to consider whether taking the time to add functionality is worth the consumer response. Since Spotlight is something that may be assumed, I warrant it will receive extensive support from Mac developers.

    "How about the direct Burn to CD feature - wow.. Adaptec's DirectCD was doing this back in 1998 as well, it was an instant burn process, NO staging as well."

    And Windows XP can do this?

    The point, I reiterate, is that the functionality is built into the system; no third party software needed. There are technical concerns with instant segmented burning, and staging is an interface choice that allows users to add, move, rename, modify, and delete before finalizing the disc.

    "There are more 'fixes' than features, and bundled concepts they have ripped off MANY other companies."

    Where did you get this idea? I'm staring at the list on Apple's site, and though I'm questioning why Font Book Scriptability is listed twice, the points seem to be new features. Perhaps you could elaborate.

    What companies? Besides, at the risk of redundancy, why are you telling me? I never claimed

  279. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    iTunes DRM: What iTunes DRM? None of the files I've encoded ever got DRMed, and all the files I've purchased through the iTMS played on all iPods.

    Hoops: Um, it's a firewire device. Drag music on, drag music off.

    You mean how to grab music out of the iPod library? They didn't make these hoops to be obtuse or difficult, extracting out of the library is 'difficult' because it makes it 'easy' for the iPod. Your music is sorted into 100 folders in the manner of a hash table, guaranteeing an average minimum and maximum seek time when you access any song. The songs themselves have no real human usable names because all the information (names, tags, artists, etc) are stored in a database file, guaranteeing nigh instantaneous song access because the database file is always loaded in memory.

    Battery replacement: $99 through Apple (easy, if slow) or $29 diy (a little more complicated, but fast). You mean the fact that they don't use 'standard' alkaline batteries? They use special batteries to achieve their form factor and weight. They sacrificed long term maintainability for long term and immediate usability, and it seems to have worked because the average consumer has accepted it.

    Audio quality: You mean there isn't enough bass? Granted, some players have more, but most are on par. Apple gets points for actually being slightly louder, all around, than most other players.

    Jukebox: You mean you can select a playlist, an album, an artist, or a song with one hand? Because the usage you described, "play, next, back, and volume" sounds like the iPod shuffle. You also said, "It didn't reward laziness like the iPod does," and I think you're confused because you attribute to laziness what is actually good design. Your Jukebox makes it harder for you to use in two ways: You have to pay attention to how you put your music on the device, and you have to pay attention on how to use the device.

    Don't you think that's silly? The point of the device is to listen to music, not to teach you how to organize your music or how to use the device.

    iTunes solve those two issues quite simply: It organizes your music for you in automatic artist/album folders, if you want to browse the folders, and it maintains a database of all the information on your music so you access the music by any aspect, not merely filename or folder:
    Artist
    Playcount
    Type
    Album
    Composer
    Genre
    Comment
    etc

    iTunes also does other things to improve your experience; you insert the CD, and it automatically rips (if you let it). You plug in your iPod, and it is automatically synched (if you let it).

    All you have to worry about are three things:
    Inserting CDs into the computer (or buying them or dragging them into iTunes)
    Plugging in your iPod (since it not only synchs, but charges, through it's connection to the computer)
    Deciding what you want to listen to on your iPod

    Anything else is a pointless exercise. Creative is lucky that Apple hasn't actually pushing as hard in the market as it could have. Apple decided to take a nice healthy profit, instead of slashing margins to totally own the market. As it is, Apple is pretty close to owning the market in the flash AND hard drive markets, and there is still things they can do to further marginalize Creative.

  280. Re:2 words: by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    Ahem... Xerox is still around. I know 'coz I'm sitting here typing from a Xerox owned resource in a Xerox office.

    BTW PARC (and our other research centres) is still inventing new stuff for geeks to drool over when it finally hits the market, we just have to get better at developing and marketing stuff ourselves rather than just licensing or abandoning them.

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  281. Re:2 words: by steeviant · · Score: 1

    I guess you could blame this one on Google, who pretty much had the first desktop search out there. In fact, they'll even sell you a search appliance for your intranet.

    You can probably lay the blame squarely at the feet of Dominic Giampaolo, file system guru and developer for the now defunct Be Inc, currently working in the File System and Spotlight groups at Apple. Giampaolo's work was hugely influential to a similar feature to spotlight in BeOS, which relied heavily on advanced features in Giampaolo's BFS filesystem.

    In fact, Apple users probably have him to thank for the marked improvements in HFS since his hiring, including journalling and auto defragmentation.

  282. gentoo by blais · · Score: 0

    oh well.

    emerge --sync
    emerge --changelog world

    and i have a long list of new stuff every day.

  283. Re:2 words: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    Haha, fair enough.

    Do I have it right? Just because I read it on the internet doesn't make it automatically true. Did Apple license stuff from Xerox?

  284. Re:2 words: by mister_tim · · Score: 1

    XP's files and settings transfer wizard, since 2001.

    Actually, that's completely different - and briefcase (mentioned below) is differetn as well. iSync synchronises contacts, calendars, bookmarks and various other things. You primarily use it to synchronise your Mac with a PDA, movile phone, online .Mac account etc, but via .Mac you can use it to synchronise all those things between two Macs. The other beauty is that it's a one button sync with all the devices mentioned - so as long as they are all plugged in when you click the button to start the process, then everything gets the same up to date version - and it checks all the sources to make sure that it has the most recent version. It's a very, very useful feature.

  285. Re:2 words: by Cliff.Braun · · Score: 1

    Creative, with 13 buttons (maybe it was 11) could not. If you are refering to the Nomad Jukebox, it's 11 buttons a scroll wheel and a hold switch. There was an IR port on the front that i've never seen used. As someone who used to be a Creative labs lover, starting with the first nomad, I have to say that they are good at hardware(used to be better) but their software is painful to use at best. I loved my original nomad, I'd still use it if it worked with XP. It's tiny, has a FM radio, and a screen. In fact, I'm going to pull it out again(was looking for a small radio, am idiot) I dont know what the point of this was, but Apple makes elegant things that work, everyone else makes things that almost work.

  286. Re:charging for . release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gah! Are people really that dumb? Every single goddamn Tiger thread, we have this goddamn paying-for-point-release argument. Apple uses different versioning system which does not compare to Windows. How hard is that to understand. If I define my software version number to:
    A.B.C.X.Y.Z where Z indicates bug fixes, Y minor update, X major revision, C change of architecture, B change in processor support and A for the support of quantum computing, is version A.B.C.X+1.Y.Z is not a major update because it's a triple point release in your definition? Do I need to change the processor support to even qualify as a minor update (a point release)?

    Some people! *Sheesh*

  287. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    XP's files and settings transfer wizard, since 2001.

    iSync does a lot more than the XP transfer wizard. E.g., sync phone numbers between Address Book and cell phone. Wirelessly (Bluetooth), with one click.

    And this is already present in Panther.

  288. Re:2 words: by podperson · · Score: 1

    Networking, introduced in 1990 with AppleTalk and AppleShare in System 7

    More like System 3 if not System 2 (and hardware support from the first Mac). The ANU Math department's Macs were running AppleTalk over their existing phone lines in 1985. System 7 added personal file sharing.

    Color support, which allowed for Photoshop and other image programs, in 1988 with System 6

    I was pretty sure this was wrong, so I checked.

    1. Original MacOS supported 16 colors (but no hardware support).

    2. Mac II shipped in 1987. Internal color representation was 48-bit (we're only just seeing mainstream support for this). Two graphics cards were initially offered, one supporting 16 colors from a 32-bit palette and another supporting 256. A 24-bit card soon became available.

    3. It ran on System 4.1.

    Mac II specs

  289. agreed by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    however, novell explicitly allows you to do this. try it. if you like it, then support...

    sum.zero

  290. it's official then... by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    suse is garbage!

    give me a break. suse is a perfectly good, albeit idiosyncratic, distro. i have had few problems installing it on a very wide assortment of hardware. that said, it's just a distro and not a religion.

    your single bad experience, for whatever reason it occurred, is hardly the basis for leaping to the conclusions you do. especially considering suse is a $$ commercial distro...

    sum.zero

  291. Re:2 words: by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    Don't recall all the history perfectly, but most of it was licensed for stupidly little money given how important some of these things became: e.g. GUIs, ethernet, etc...

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  292. That's not what I meant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Suggest doesn't give you the results instantly, but only completes your query. Read the grand-grand-grand-parent again.

  293. Discontinuous selection by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the new features that Apple did not mention, is that all built-in text fields, including the editing areas of TextEdit and (presumably) Mail, allow discontinuous selection now. That is, you can select a word here, a word there, a rectangular chunk somewhere else. You can then copy, cut, paste, etc.

    Maybe it is just me, but I like being able to do that!

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  294. iSync still crippled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks great, but...

    • iSync still doesn't support Nokia 6230. Come ON, folks! This is one of the best selling phones in Europe!

    • It is still impossible to symply sync bookmarks or mail folders between my powerbook and my desktop. Come OONN!!! Do they really think I will pay for a .mac account just to be able to do that? I may be a mac user, but I'm not that stupid!

    I mean they stopped crippling Quicktime (at least the "200 features" site mentions fullscreen mode - allthough not as a feature). Is iSync the Quicktime for professional users now? ("We give you all the fancy shmancy features you may never need but charge you for the basic ones.")

  295. Re:Actually that['[s pretty nice for a lot of peop by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

    Imagine when your coffee maker is running out of coffee, it tries to sell you more coffee - except that the coffee is half a pound less and twice as expensive as a bag down at your local grocery store.

    It might be a *feature* if we were getting a great deal on printer supplies because it's being supplied by Apple, but we're not we're getting marketed to. I don't approve of that.

    Furthermore - I don't approve of Apple using my fsking operating system as a platform to sell me crap like .Mac.

  296. Re:charging for . release? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    See, my experience is just the opposite. My 1 Ghz TiBook runs faster than my Athlon 3200 box at home.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  297. Re:charging for . release? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    I'm not familiar with setting up Active Desktop to, say, run cron jobs or searches, poll information about the current network connection and system status. Without resorting to ActiveX or other such architecture, I do not believe Active Desktop can interact with other applications, such as iTunes or iCal. Dashboard Widgets can, and with relative ease.

    Besides, you can only run one Active Desktop page at a time, not the many componentized widgets of Dashboard.


    Ok let's stop you right there... You truly don't anything about the Active Desktop feature of Windows. Applets can fully interact with the OS, Run applications on the Applet Pages, and you can run as many applets on your desktop as you want.

    I have had a calendar page and Weather map I have used on my desktop for almost 6 years. Trust me you can run 100s of Active Desktop pages at a time if you wish.

    Again, MSN Desktop is optional. Thus, developers need to consider whether taking the time to add functionality is worth the consumer response

    True for the extent of its availability today, but you are forgetting that NTFS and metadata has been a part of the WindowsNT File system for years, and developers do use it.

    Spotlight is a nice technology, but it is nothing new... Just like Sherlock was nothing new, even though Apple made a lot of people thing it was.

    As for the 'Spotlight' search features that will for show all your Word Documents on your system no matter where they are located and 'save' this folder view is also not a new concept.

    Windows was able to save Search Folders since Windows 95, unfortunately many people never used them because Microsoft didn't tell all the Windows fanatics that they had invented the wheel with this simple feature.

    If you will also notice the 'search' folder concept in a more 'evolved' version was first introduced in Microsoft Outlook, which was in development for a more than a couple of years before Apple started on Spotlight. So again, who is photocopying whose technology?

    And Windows XP can do this?

    The point, I reiterate, is that the functionality is built into the system; no third party software needed


    Actually Microsoft considered licensing this form of CD burning, as they licensed the engine from Adaptec anyway, and Microsoft licensed the Roxio engine as a courtesy, as Microsoft actually had in house code for CD burning

    Microsoft however was under the microscope of product bundling, and by providing this full functionality into WindowsXP was considered by managers to be a red flag to the DOJ and everyone out to lynch Microsoft for bundling more products into the OS.

    When Apple does product bundling and screws the companies that made a competing product everyone thinks Apple is wonderful, and yet when Microsoft even goes to the extent to license the components they want to integrate (even though they could develop the software themselves) they are flamed as bundling too many features into the OS.

    It is really sad, as Windows users would like their OS to be as full featured as possible, but with the 'government protecting us from ourselves', Microsoft will no longer be able to just add innovation without approval from the US govt and EU.

    Apple's small market share is the only reason they are able to get away with this.

    I shall give you "a freaking break", when you stop ranting and begin discussing.

    I actually apologize, as my comments were not intended to be directed at you solely, and more of a directed post in regard to many of the statements and reactions of many of the zealots that have no idea what they are talking about.

    You know your Mac OSX facts far better than most people; however, I still attest that your understanding of the features that have been available or are available in other OSes for many years are old hat, even though they are cool and new for Mac users.

    Just look at OSX - Windows NT, or Unix users could have made

  298. Re:Typical illiterate asshat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations on proving to the world that you are an illiterate, fucking asshat.

  299. No, they won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. FireWire. FireWire is "expensive" in terms of ISVs and VARs because the chip costs more since it's more compilcated. It's "not useful" because more people have USB mice than IEEE 1394 hard drives. In short, there's not enough FireWire out there.

    2. OpenFirmware. OpenFirmware is light years beyond the PC BIOS and most people couldn't care less. If they switched, it would be complicated, expensive, and the only people who would care are hardcore geeks. That being said, OpenFirmware gives you stuff for free, like being able to write a useful FireWire stack inside the BIOS relatively easily. This is *not* easy with typical PC BIOS. Once again, "too expensive."

    One of the things I like about Apple is that they're not afraid to add the little things that big vendors think are "useless" because they'd "cost too much" and "not enough people would use it." They're also not afraid to invest in new technologies to make their computing experience better.

    Contrast this to the ever-backwards-compatable x86 platform. Why can't we have OpenFirmware with:
    * a built-in bootloader
    * Target Disk Mode
    * silly games
    * no stupid "4 primary partitions per disk" limitation
    * telnet or ssh
    * netboot via TFTP

    So screw x86 and your old-ass technology. Maybe if more people switched you'll see that in PCs, but until then, they're just getting later and later to the game.

  300. Re:2 words: Xerox did get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xerox Alto 1972

    They didn't get it 'right'--at least not right enough to bring to market. The Mac made the GUI useable.


    Actually, they did get it "right". Far more "right" than the Mac. The Xerox Star was released as a product before the Mac, and included world-wide integrated email and printing, with distributed file servers. But Xerox didn't really understand the market. Their marketing group insisted that the minimum purchase be 3 Star workstations, a filing (disk) server, and a print server, about $50,000. This put the price point into territory where only corporate IT managers could approve it, and they didn't know what to make of it.

    The genius of the Mac was that individual department managers could approve the purchase out of their budget, without having to go to the top of the company. And people could buy it for home.

  301. You still don't understand by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    How is adding the ability to order something from a program "being marketed to"? It can be, if the program is saying "hey - you're low on ink - order here!!!".

    But what I am saying is that while iPhoto lets you order prints, it's never pushy about it - you have to activate that portion of the software, it never asks you if you want to. That is the difference between being marketed to and simply adding convienince to the product. And because iPhoto could have worked that way but they chose not to, the whole printer-ink thing will probably be about the same in not really making you use it (or go around it).

    It all depends on how they implment the feature, but they have been responsible in the past so it's not to unreasonable to predict the same going forward.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You still don't understand by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

      but they have been responsible in the past so it's not to unreasonable to predict the same going forward.

      That statement is false. After setting up a Mac, and also in Mail - .Mac is most definately "pushed" on you as a new mac user.

  302. In what way... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't even remember anything about .Mac in setting up Mail. I could be wrong, when does that occur?

    I'll try setting up a new user and see what Mail does.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  303. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    Would very much like to know how. I've got a Thinkpad X40 with a CD-RW/DVD drive running Windows XP SP1 in it and when I put the CD in I get no options to burn, dragging files onto it don't work, things like that.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  304. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    Wasn't making it up, I can't get it to act like I thought it woudl on my machine. I can't right click on an ISO and say 'burn to disk' and I can't create an image and burn it by dragging files to my CD-R/RW drive running said XP SP1.

    Nice to see I get moderated as a Troll when I really have an issue with being unable to burn CDs at work without software from another vendor running the 'released' operating system. I'm not on SP2 because my company won't let me be not sure if that changed it.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  305. Re:Burnable folders (while in the real world) by dmd · · Score: 1

    Puzzling, though not unheard of - I've seen a few machines here and there where XP just doesn't recognize the drive as a writer.

    You could look at this site under "8. problems".

    official MS article describing the capability ... though really, I can't think of anyone who doesn't use this functionality.

  306. Re:charging for . release? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

    Aagh! ADC! This is probably the third time I've looked through the registration form just to see the "I also confirm that I am 18 years or older." disclaimer at the bottom. My parents use Windows, so I don't really think I can convince them to sign up. Why do they have that requirement? COPPA only requires you to be 13...

    What I was going to request is that away messages shouldn't require a third-party hack to set an auto-response. And iCAR doesn't even set the "Auto-response from" flag, presumably because it isn't able to, as an extension to iChat.

  307. Re:charging for . release? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

    We don't accept input from minors because minors are not legally able to enter into binding agreements.

    And auto-response is not on the list of features we're planning to add to iChat. iChat is a presence program. It's not supposed to be running if you're not sitting in front of the computer.

  308. iPhoto by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    An easy half step is using 'keywords' in iPhoto. When you show the keyword box a set of descriptors (like the cull search in Garageband) will be listed on the left. I set keywords for things like "cats" or "landscapes" or "family" and first and last names and whatnot. Then, for example, when you do an import you select all the thumbnails that show landscapes and put a mark in the keyword box for landscapes. Anyhow, if you know about all this then you can see how cool building up keywords can be. You can build smart-albums for things like keywords "sky, landscape" or "family, vacation, beach, David, Rolfe" etc. Anyway -- the point I'm going for, is all this metadata can be entered in less than a minute with no typing once you have a set of expressive keywords defined. I like captions and comments as much as the next guy, but that is a lot of typing :-D

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  309. Re:charging for . release? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    Have you considered getting your PC fixed ?

  310. Duh, iPhoto. by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    Duh, we're talking about iPhoto. Of course, iPhoto is out and it is trivial to add rich explicit metadata with a couple clicks using the keywords panel.

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  311. Projector Mirroring... by macmurph · · Score: 1

    Hasn't this been around forever?...most recently the f7 key on my TiBook

    Automatic Projector Mirroring
    Automatically mirror your presentations on both your Mac and an external projector.

  312. Classic... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


    Classic runs my old Mac Infocom games, with no problems.

    (Though I prefer running them with a modern zip environment. The old programs insist on a 512x342 window, which is tiny on my 1600x1024 screen.)

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  313. Re:Will we see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bwahahaha...troll. This stuff is great.

    I have a couple of I'm-so-mad-that-your-opinion-differs-with-mine wankers following my posts around slapping on downmods. Bring it on bitches - seriously keep it coming.

    OMG - my Slashdot karma is hurt! I'm going to cry now.

  314. Re:charging for . release? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    why? It isn't reproducing.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  315. Re:Snerdware: Groupcal 2.0 - Works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be careful when upgrading to 10.3.9, Groupcal no longer works after the upgrade, and its not the normal "need to re-install" problem. Its is well and truly broken.

    c.

  316. Re:charging for . release? by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 1
    MSN Desktop Search API Stuff:

    * Channel 9 Wiki

    * MSDN

    Cheers :)
    --
    No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
  317. Re:2 words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moving music *from* a portable device is a bit of an odd thing. I've got the music on my computer already, so why would I want to send it back to my computer? Unless you're talking about backups (better handled by an external HD anyway) or piracy, I can't think of a reason to do this.

    I don't buy my music online. I buy CD's, then I rip them and put them on my iPod so I don't have to travel with a big book of CDs.

    I don't keep my music on my hard drive... I have the CD's as my "backup". So why should I have to keep 1,800 mp3s on my hard drive permanently or rip 100+ CDs all over again when I want to upgrade to a bigger and better iPod?

    Granted, there are ways to get the songs off the iPod, but chances are you'll have to edit the information for most of them all over again. I spent an entire weekend trying to move my collection from one iPod to the other.

  318. ACLs - much needed by Ragetech · · Score: 1

    This is the one that's on my top 3 list:

    Access Control Lists (ACL)
    Go beyond the limitations of traditional UNIX file permissions and enjoy greater flexibility over assigning access permissions to files, folders and network services.

    My wife and I share the same computer at home, and thank God for "Fast User switching" - especially because she's a Japanese native and I'm from the US. One click and a password entry and she's got her own desktop with menus in Kanji.

    But the downside of sharing the same computer is trying to share the same files. Apple puts a "Shared" folder under the home directory root. Does this mean my wife and I can easily work on the same file? No. Permissions are a bitch - I fiddle and fiddle, but things always get reset and eventually gave up. I'm hoping ACLs are going to add a lot for collaboration on the same server.

    Ragetech

  319. Re:2 words: by rreay · · Score: 1

    Files taken back off of the iPod still have the full ID3 information they had when being put on.

  320. ACL's still aren't needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ACL's are not needed and very messy in practice. Here's a process which should cover every scenario using standard UNIX permissions while minimizing root's work:

    Every person is in a group consisting of only himself, i.e. user dilbert is in the dilbert group.

    Every person is in a group with everyone, i.e. dilbert is in the everyone group.

    People may be in groups other than the above two groups.

    Managers provide IT with list of all organizations, each of which have a group. These organizations may have hierarchical relationships or intersecting relationships, i.e. ui_developers, dba, product_foo_developers.

    Managers provide IT with names of people and the organizations they belong to, i.e. dilbert is a ui_developer and a product_foo_developer, but not a dba.

    Managers tell IT when developers change organizations and hence change UNIX groups.

    Managers tell IT when users leave the organization, at which time all files owned by that person are either, 1) chowned to some other active employee or 2) chowned to nobody.

    Managers tell IT when groups are no longer needed, at which time all files owned by that group are 1) chgrped to some active group, or 2) chgrped to nogroup.

    The root directory has permission of 755 or 751 with an ownership of root:root. All directories containing tools have permission of 755.

    Files are initially created with ownership of user:user's_private_group and permission of 644, i.e. dibert creates foo.c with ownership dilbert:dilbert and permission 644.

    Directories are initially created with ownership of 755.

    File owners can change group ownership of any file they own to any group they have membership in.

    File owners can change owner and group permissions on files they own.

    Members of a group can change group persmissions on files that group owns.

    File ownership may be overriden by file parent directory permissions (BSD semantics for propagation of the group id).

    In the above scenario, root is only needed to 1) create new user and group accounts, 2) delete unneeded users and groups and 3) manipulate group membership, 4) change file ownership.

    For more security, you can restrict permissions so that the filesystem tree hierarchy reflects the organizational hierarchy and chroot users in to jails. Details are left to DOD requirements. ;)

  321. Re:2 words: by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    My iBook has a 60GB drive (55 'real' GBs) and 23GB of that is music.

    I know what you mean, but then if your iPod is stolen you have to go back to a digital copy or re-rip your collection again.

    A new iPod is AUS$500, but spending 20-40 hours re-ripping my entire CD collection seems even more expensive to me.

    I have the iBook as my primary music source, then my external hard drive as my backup, and finally my fiancee's iPod as a last resort backup. I don't understand using an iPod as the only digital copy you have.

  322. Re:Snerdware: Groupcal 2.0 - Works! by greylingrover · · Score: 1

    The 10.3.9 licensing problem has been fixed now... check the snerd site. I updated both apps today and everything is happy again. These guys are really on it.

    --
    --- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
  323. Lack of Mail & iCal integration (unlike Entour by sorenkierkegaard · · Score: 1

    I'm looking forward to my copy of Tiger, but I'm disappointed that Mail and iCal haven't integrated features like event and project tracking, like Entourage. Oh well, I'll wait until the next upgrade.