Slashdot Mirror
Apple's OS X Leopard In Depth
jcatcw writes "Computerworld begins its Week of Leopard with an in-depth review and image gallery covering Apple's newest version of OS X. Is it worth the wait? Well, Yes. It trumps Vista, of course; the Finder, Quick Look and Cover Flow provide better functionality and eye candy; Time Machine is the biggest undelete ever and the restore function is one of the coolest things we've ever seen; it has iChat; and has lots of updates under the hood. The answer might be no if you're lacking in the hardware department - an FAQ on how to get ready for the new version will help."
Of all of the new features of Leopard, I really cannot appreciate the addition of translucency to the menu bar. As a long time Mac user this really seems like one of those "because we can" features rather than it making any sense.
I would sure as hell take KDE 3.5 over any Windows environment.
Also something must be wrong with the news post, how can finder be better than anything?
For programming and the command line, give me bash. For anything graphical at all, I'll take vista any day.
Clearly you haven't tried OSX. You get a consistent, fluid and high performance GUI. When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose. Beats having to run Cygwin on a Windows box.
Linux just doesn't have a mature desktop environment available, and that's the point of a graphical interface!
Er, who's talking about Linux? This story is about Mac OSX Leopard...
Linux Users: Because the apps I use most frequently don't exist under Linux and have no true equivalents, therefore I buy Windows.
They are ProTools, Cubase SX3, FL Studio, SoundForge8, Reason 3, Rebirth 2, Flash MX, Illustrator, Vegas, and more.
The apps I use infrequently, has linux equivalents or exists natively like Eclipse, NetBeans, and assorted FPGA dev apps. I keep both Win32 and Linux machines at home.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Sorry, if that kind of computer wouldnt be "quite snappy", it would be an utter disgrace...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
No reason to get bent out of shape.
Some day you'll grow up and get a job. Then you'll be able to buy a new computer, rather than running Slackware on your older brother's hand-me-down Packard Bell.
What the guy above me said, plus I have to ask just what comparable features did Windows XP SR1 and SR2 provide? Integrated backup solutions?New collaborative messaging environments? Major file manager and desktop redesigns? Redesigned mail, notes, and calendaring systems? New graphics and developer subsystems (Core Animation)? Improved performance on existing hardware?
How about major security upgrades and multicore enhancements? Oh, wait. SR2 did add a firewall, didn't it? In addition to rolling up a couple of hundred security patches.
My bad.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Free? Yes. Deos less than 1% of the population even know what BSD is? Answer: Yes. Does less than 1% of the population want to learn BSD? No.
You mean I can pay $129 and have a great OS? I spent more in time reading the first 20 pages of "Teach youself UNIX" than the cost of that OS. You are a breed that is far from the norm. Realize this, please.
I don't consider Lisa to be a boner. A strong argument can be made that without the work done on Lisa we wouldn't have the Mac, OR Windows for matter. At least in their present forms and on the same timeline.
Yes, $10,000 per system was probably a bit strong... but consider that a good computer at the time would still set you back $5,000, that hard drives were so expensive they were considered only for workgroup solutions, and that Xerox expected people to pony up one HUNDRED thousand dollars for a Star system.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Funny, I can say the same thing about Vista...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
"If your computer doesn't meet those specs, it's time to upgrade your hardware or stick with Tiger for now. And if you're still running Mac "Classic" OS apps, forget it. Leopard drops support for what was once Mac OS 9."
So when Vista needs beefier hardware and some Windows 98 apps are broken on it, the reason is because Microsoft sucks and it's their fault for requiring a current computer to run their current OS. But when Leopard needs beefier specs, it's the user's fault they haven't upgraded by now and it's all taken in stride.
I get it. Makes total sense.
It's all about the vision. And the people in charge.
Just compare Steve Jobs to Steve Ballmer (or Billy, fwiw).
Which of these personalities do you think is more
likely to design an OS that you would like?
Ofcourse it doesn't boil down to individuals but looking
at the heads of a company gives you a good idea of the
companies mindset.
Apple is "cool and hip" because the people working
there *know* what "cool and hip" is.
Microsoft is not cool and hip because, well, it is
driven by people like Steve Ballmer.
The sheer headcount, on the other hand, means
nothing in the world of software developement.
Small and well focussed (on the right goals)
teams will outperform large teams everytime.
You can read up on that in "the mythical man month"
and just about any other ressource about project
management in the software industry.
In fact, developing "good" software (by any metrics)
becomes much harder the larger your team gets.
Programming is not like selling cars. It's more
comparable to an orchestra. More instrumentalists
don't necessarily improve the result but definately
increase the effort to manage them.
Does anyone know what holds MS back from adding the Multiple Desktop feature? I know it can be had with 3rd party software, however last time I used one it really slowed down my machine and caused some crashes.
Lack of customer interest.
I won't comment on the quality of the programmers -- both companies draw from similar pools -- but the way they manage those programmers is significantly different. Probably the biggest beef I have with Microsoft's management is their devotion to Jack Welch's (of General Electric management fame) idea of doing a company reorganization ("reorg") roughly every 16 months. Not everyone moves around, since certain people don't make sense to move, but there is disruption. This kind of management "theory" makes sense when everyone is viewed as unskilled, interchangeable production units, but it doesn't make sense in software where the value is in slowly acquired knowledge of the source code base, and knowledge of how to interact with everyone on the team to minimize team issues. Reorgs flush some of that away, every time. I realize they teach from Jack Welch's playbook in most MBA programs, but Microsoft needs to abandon this practice. There are other major differences between the two companies attitudes and group dynamics as well. You really have to have worked inside one (or preferably both) to get a good comparison.
Another, more minor beef, is Microsoft's philosophy that others will put up with things that they wouldn't personally put up with. For instance, internal to Office, Clippy is known as TFC_* in function names... based on a comment from Bill Gates that "I don't want to have to deal with That F*cking Clip every time I want to print." Bill hates it, but he nevertheless still shipped it. In contrast, Jobs would never ship a feature he hated; he'd view it as a personal affront. This attitude pervades Microsoft. For instance, everyone at MS realizes the overly tiered pricing scheme is customer hostile -- they know many customers realize they're being either nickle and dimed or had -- but they still ship it because it maximizes revenue in the short term, regardless of damage to long-term company goodwill. Jobs won't dish out something he wouldn't personally put up with. Perhaps it's ego, or perhaps he understands that Apple's success depends almost entirely on goodwill. This all sounds handwavy, but it's another major difference in the the two company philosophies.
I could spend all day comparing the two companies; it's fascinating. And no, not everything about Apple's culture is superior.
Let these videos show you what the parent mean, they kind of explains the difference of Steve Jobs vs Ballmer quite good:
:D
:)
Jobs and mac: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSiQA6KKyJo
Ballmer and Win 1.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
Pick your flavour
Regarding small vs large teams, a good example of this may be the development of DragonFlyBSDs Hammer filesystem vs Suns ZFS, we'll see how fast Hammer gets done thought
Look, windows isn't annoying to use because it has to run on a greater variety of hardware. It's annoying to use because it was designed by assholes.
It amuses me that 90% of the comments here that are above my minimum-score filter are intelligent retorts to completely unfounded or inaccurate Apple slams.
This is like a testament to a new phenomenon- battered-user syndrome. You won't get a divorce because you've already invested so much...
On the other hand, it seems that so many things in OSX have to be tweaked in this manner. I wouldn't expect the typical user to be able to figure that one out, or how to undo it should they decide they want the 3D dock back for that matter. Atleast if you direct the user to some panel, there is some hope that they might remember how to get there in the futere.
Is this sarcasm that went over everyone's head? It's always the first complaint about Linux systems. "I don't want to use a command line!" (I'm a long-time user and prefer the command line for many things,though)
Put identity in the browser.
I think the biggest factors are inertia and target market. Microsoft wants to satisfy as many people as possible and that means satisfying big corporations who are going to make big buys. That means that they are going to have a great deal of resistance to any changes that will require expensive re-training. It's hard to innovate under those circumstances. Furthermore, the Microsoft idea of "winning" is dominance in market share. This leads them to design for the lowest common denominator: something that the greatest number of people will be satisfied with even if no one will be thrilled by it. Apple would much rather have greater mind share and be seen as having the best products, therefor they are willing to make choices that might turn off some, even many or most, users if the changes raise the quality of the product. This makes it much easier to innovate.
Two main factors here.
First, Microsoft is fanatical about backwards compatibility, and Vista has to continue to support every crufty little hack that worked on Windows 3.0 fifteen years ago. Apple will throw you overboard after five years or so -- for example, Classic mode has been removed completely from Leopard and so Mac programs from before the OS X era will no longer run on Macs.
Second, Apple controls the hardware, and so has to do vastly less programming of device drivers for every motherboard, graphics card, disk controller, etc. that has ever existed. They really just have to worry about third-party USB devices.
OK, maybe it wasn't a failure of marketing after all, since "Previous Versions/Volume Shadow Copy" pales in comparison to the usability of Apple's Time Machine.
Actually I agree with you on the marketing department failures of Microsoft. Microsoft's marketing has always sucked, and especially in comparison to Apple. Microsoft can market a nugget of gold and people will see it as a rock, Apple can market a rock and people will see it as gold.
As for the usability, I did say time machine was prettier, but I wouldn't say easier or more usable. Like I mentioned before, MS's version of the technology works seamlessly as it is available from a right click from any folder or dialog box, even in applications that are as old as Win3.1 days. And even though it isn't as pretty, right clicking on a folder or file is pretty easy to do.
Apple's Time Machine is pretty but it 'needs' the applications to be time machine aware to take full advantage of the features.
MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does.
But I completely agree on the marketing issue, it is something Microsoft just doesn't get, and even when they have something of value, it never seems to either make news or even gets to the people reviewing Micrsoft products that 'should' know about it as they are technology journalists.
Going back to the Win98 days, it was the first time I can remember thinking, why doesn't anyone talk about the important features that make such a difference between Win98 and Win95. Things like realtime sound mixing at the OS level, GUI scripting & automation, etc.
And to this day, most people can't even list a lot of these distinctions between Win98 and Win98 or other OSes of the time, that were very much revolutionary or worth noticing.
Strangly, it is kind of sad, as some 'bright' developers at Microsoft put good work into something and even Microsoft doesn't publically show off the features, and the rest of the world never seems to see them either.
Heck I wouldn't even know many things about MS products if it weren't for the strange areas of work I'm involved with that bridge UI and OS studies and also being exposed to things at a development level.
One really strange thing is during the Alpha and Beta phases of products like Vista, or Win98, you learn more about the architecture and features of the OS than is ever revealed to the majority of the public and tech community. Maybe MS needs to have their developers step in and write part of their marketing, because a lot is lost between them and what the sales and marketing put out.
Sorry for the long post, ended up venting about MS instead of just responding. Take Care
But that's the point: Normal users aren't really supposed to figure this out. As a software developer and UI designer, it's part of my job to make sure every UI decision doesn't result in a new preference. 90% of the time, preferences are cop-outs: If the design team can't decide on what solution is best, they make it a checkbox. Don't do that. It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.
What Apple does is the right thing: Make what they think is best default. Don't make preference for it. But if somebody absolutely needs to have his Dock look different, give him a way that does not involve changing the actual application resources.
I've just written about this: Don't make preferences until you absolutely have to. Furthermore, it wouldn't work: Many Mac applications have no windows. Why would, say, an unzip application need a Window? Unless you unzip an actual file, there's no need to show a window; so where would you put the menu bar? What about applications that have small windows, but wide menus?
It just makes no sense.
Which is why it is a shame that Apple not only ship a system with so little RAM it is too slow to run the installed OS well, but also make it incredibly difficult to upgrade the RAM to a reasonable level. Yes you can have the RAM factory upgraded when you buy the system, but at a large price premium, and it is no good to those who don't realise they need more until after using the machine.
I have never understood why Apple don't have a removable panel on the mini to allow RAM upgrades, it is a system that works perfectly well on the iMac.
Well crappy performance from something that's crappy and used in a huge number of unsuitable situations is to be expected regardless of platform.
Well crappy performance from something that's crappy and used in a huge number of unsuitable situations is to be expected regardless of platform.
:) Not to mention how much they can kill available CPU when some stupid site decides to have pop-unders appear every 10 minutes with Flash content - yuck. Truth is, too many gee-wiz marketing divisions mis-understand the difference between movie and informational web sites.
Ah someone who has the same beliefs as me
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I know a lot of people who have worked at MS. They do hire a lot of people directly out of school. Mostly, the culture promotes hiring people who have "drank the kool-aid." People straight out of school have often not been exposed to a lot of different, real-world solutions. Smart and experienced are both valuable characteristics, but MS seems to actually avoid the latter intentionally as part of their culture (for standard hiring practices, not in all cases).
My company is really picky about hiring. Occasionally we hire people from MS who are looking for a change. MS has never hired anyone away from us, although Apple, Google, and Sun all have. Apple, on the other hand has a blended culture, including the old guard Apple UI experts, the NextStep rebels, and people from the traditional UNIX and Linux backgrounds. I think Apple is currently benefitting from the diversity of experience they have, while MS is suffering from group think and over management.
Also, being a monopoly MS makes money no matter what they do, whereas Apple goes out of business or people get fired if they don't consistently improve the product. At the highest level, Apple has to compete which drives them to innovate, while MS does not have to compete to make money and in fact can make more money by figuring out technological methods of gouging their existing customer base. How many of the technologies added to the last few versions of Windows were designed to benefit MS and MS's partners RIAA, MPAA, rather than to benefit end users.