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."
Yes. It trumps Vista, of course
Is that really a big accomplishment? I mean, really? XP trumps Vista.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Doesn't look like they got the GM. Their dock is on the side and isn't sporting the revised look.
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.
The lack of such a feature that has been around for eons in the Unix/Linux world drives me crazy!
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.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9043838 all on one page print link
It's pretty damn easy to use as an app launcher now - hit apple-space to open it up, type the first few letters of the app's name in, then hit apple-return to open the top hit. Out of interest, how would you suggest it be made better?
Haha, fisher price PC, that's a good one.
Btw, my FisherPriceBook Pro has a UNIX core, I ssh into my CS university account from home to do my work, do my programming in what is IMO the best IDE I have had the pleasure to use.
What "more power" do you have that I don't?
The 2D dock can be enabled using the following:
defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock
$2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
Tech-Recipes got a copy. Here are their first 20 tutorials about the new features of Leopard.
If you prefer the old dock style, Mac OS X Hints has that tutorial now as well.
Anybody going for a T-shirt tomorrow?
This is a feature that should be high on anyone's list: the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y". I just love being able to package up these types of changes into a command-line like that.
It makes a directory for itself on the root of the drive, no partitioning needed. :)
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac trolling fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while you attempt to rephrase a old troll from kottke.org. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be trolled more often, I'm rarely trolled once a year. If that.
In addition, during this trolling attempt, I can not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even my assistant is straining to keep awake as you type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while waiting for your various trolls, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Wintel troll that has been posted faster than its Mac counterpart, despite Wintel users generally having less of a life, and more time to hang out on Slashdot. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs circles around you, and a small Perl script could out troll you most times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh troll is a superior troll.
Mac troll addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to troll a Mac user over other faster, cheaper, more stable people.
Because Apple's point releases are called 10.x.y, not 10.x. For instance, Tiger, which is 10.4, was released in April 2005, swiftly followed by 10.4.1, 10.4.2, etc, all the way up to 10.4.10 (the current version) and 10.4.11 (probably the last version, due probably tomorrow). These 'point point' releases provide the 'bug fixes and a few little extras thrown in' that you describe, and are free, automatic downloads through Software Update. It's these 'point point' releases that are equivalent to Microsoft's Service Packs. Leopard, 10.5, isn't a 'point release' at all in anything other than name. The only reason it's called 10.5 and not OS XV is because Apple like having the X/Ten play on words. Y'know, it's after OS 9, but it's also UNIX, ho ho ho. A quick run through http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html will show you that Leopard consists of much more than 'bug fixes and a few little extras thrown in', such as a completely new backup system, redesigned and simplified system preferences, a completely rewritten scheduler, full 64-bit architecture, and a whole lot more.
Bear in mind that numbering schemes are simply marketing and entirely arbitrary.
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
How is this possible? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to google for exactly how MANY developers Microsoft has versus how many apple has....but Microsoft had at least 5000 developers that worked on Windows Vista. While they must have lowered their standards in the last few years, originally microsoft was only hiring top graduates from top schools like MIT and CMU.
They have a gigantic number of some of the best people they can buy.
So why does their stuff suck so much by comparison to a small corporation? Apple cannot afford nearly the resources Microsoft has...I wouldn't be surprised if their OS X team had 1/5 the people.
I know that skill matters...but surely the top of the class people at Microsoft are no worse than the hippies at apple?
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.
I've seen it run on a 1Ghz G4. Some of the new features are a little chuggy (spaces, stationary in mail, etc), but it works fine overall. I'm planning to install it on an 800Mhz G4 iBook, I think it'll run fine.
Both of those machines have maxed out ram. I'd recommend at least 1GB of ram for average usage patterns, more if you're into multi-tasking.
As for features that existed on both Tiger and Leopard? Many of them are much faster on leopard than tiger. Spotlight absolutely screams on leopard. Results start appearing as you lift your finger from the key, even on the 1Ghz G4. I've uninstalled quicksilver, since spotlight is just as fast now.
No, none at all, apple only have serial keys on their super expensive pro apps.
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
Ther is a bit of a double standard, yes, but dropping support for OS 9 isn't like droping support for Windows 98. The Win32 API in Vista is basically and ancestor of the Win32 API in Vista. OS 9 apps, on the other hand, are a whole different kettle of fish.
OS 9 wasn't a modern operating system. As an OS it was, in many ways, decades behind Windows 98. The OS 9 API was based on a model where memory management and scheduling by the OS simply didn't happen... the application got a chunk of REAL memory and until it voluntarily gave up the CPU noting could touch it. To work around this, they created a really gimpy partition model. Multitasking in classic Mac OS was handled conceptually through the window system... there really wasn't an OS underneath it at all, not even as much as there was in Windows 3.1.
Jobs wanted to get rid of the ghastly classic Mac OS API in 1997, but Adobe and a few other big manufacturers dug their heels in and told him they'd abandon the Mac if he didn't come up with a way forward.
So first of all he came up with a bridge API called "Carbon". Carbon applications got an API that couldn't do all the fugly old classic stuff, but were ready to at least run on Rhapsody (what OS X was originally going to be called) once it was revamped to support it. Carbon was introduced for OS 8 and became a standard part of OS 9. After OS X came out people really pushed developers to switch to Carbon... but there were still a bunch of die-hards that insisted on running some software from 1994 that had no Carbon version.
Several times in the early 2000s Jobs pulled the last G4 Powermac capable of booting OS 9 and running classic apps native, rather than under the "classic" emulation environment. Each time there was an outcry... until 2005, when it vanished and nobody complained. Six months later he announced the Intel macs that would not ever be able to run pre-carbon "classic" apps from the dark ages.
MOST apps released *for* OS 9 are not "classic", they're carbon-based, and run under Rosetta.
Most apps released before OS 9 have been carbonised.
NO intel macs have ever been able to run pre-carbon apps.
Don't think of this like Microsoft abandoning Windows 98 apps. Think of it like Microsoft abandoning apps that needed direct access to hardware registers and video memory. The kind of stuff you have to run under Bochs even on Windows XP. It just sounds worse because Apple left it SO late to get rid of that old "application-centric" environment and actually ship an operating system that was actually an operating system.
The real double standard is the resistance of Apple fanboys to admit just how bloody awful OS 9 was.
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.
Leopard is no more resolution independent than Tiger was. If you enable it via Quartz Debug you'll see that it's horribly buggy and unusable even with Apple's own applications. Or at least it was as of 9a559, I haven't checked with the GA version.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
But it does backup your computer. You can examine the disk from other Macs, and the first backup it makes is of your entire system so it can do a complete system restore if need be.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Acronis isn't a good example...
When you see Time Machine think Vista 'Previous Versions' with a prettier UI, and no ability to track or keep file changes on the volume.
Vista does both on volume backup copies of changes and external backups automatically, and presents them in the same 'previuos versions' UI timeline list.
Just like Time Machine, in Vista you can view folders or documents at any previous time whether they are a recent change that is still stored on the volume or a backup from six months ago on an external hard drive.
Vista also does this more transparently, without the need for application integration because of its simplicity in accessing the previous version via a simple open/save dialog box.
Time Machine's UI is much prettier, but since it has less functionality than Vista, and adds overhead by backuping up files every hour, the pretty UI doesn't make up for the lack of features.
Does anyone else find it strange that Vista's backup and previous version system is more advanced than OS X's Time Machine, and yet you hardly ever see it mentioned on a review or when people are talking about Vista. Apple adds a generic version of the same thing, and the press and fans go wild...
And I'm not even saying this to discount OS X's Time Machine, as it is a good feature and a great feature for OS X and Mac users, but strange how something gets accolades when Apple does it, and is dismissed when Microsoft does it and even technically does it better.
That's what Time Machine does. If you put the Leopard install DVD into a new Mac, one of your options is to plug in a Time Machine disk and restore your whole old system to the new computer. That's as backed up as any backup system I've ever used (and a hell of a lot easier).
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
noidentity: OK, open up the terminal
user: What? Is that in my Dock?
noidentity:..erm ok, then go to HD > Applications > Utilities > Terminal
user:OK
noidentity:Now type defaults write com...
user:Where do i write 'com', on my note pad?
noidentity:no, no I mean type write
user:I don't have a type writer
noidentity:sigh. No, the word write, type the word write
user:I think i typed it right, w r i g h t thats right, right?
--- Time Passes ---
noidentity:OK, now, using the keyboard on your computer, type the following words -boolean YES;
user:Whats a hyphen?
--- sound of gunshot ---
user:Hello?
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
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.
This article should clear up your confusion about Time Machine.
From the article (page 3):
The Time Machine settings in System Preferences show the time scheduled for the next backup. When that time arrives, it displays a progress thermometer during the backup, which typically only takes a few seconds, unless you've generated a huge amount of new content in the last hour. Again, that's because Time Machine doesn't scan through your entire drive looking for changes, but rather only consults FSEvents for a listing of what has changed recently.
and more from page 4...
Time Machine has been frequently compared to Microsoft's Shadow Copy (or Volume Snapshot Service), because both systems involve file backup. In reality, they are not really very similar at all. Microsoft uses the background Shadow Copy service to duplicate files on the same disk. Those shadow copies record a "snapshot" of the file at a given moment in time, and can be accessed by the user using Previous Versions (which shows up in the file properties viewer), or tapped into by an external network backup system. Backing up these "shadow copies" simply prevents the external backup system from running into problems trying to back up live files that may be locked by the user working on them.
The data backup features related to Shadow Copy are only useful if a Windows machine is running in an environment with a server backing them up. Shadow Copy is not in itself a backup system, although it can present a listing of duplicated files that were captured by the shadow copy service. Without a dedicated backup system, Previous Versions only shows local shadows of a file. It does not copy files to an external disk for safekeeping, and its shadow copies can't be browsed through by the user in the file system by date or by query. Shadow Copy is certainly not an easy to use consumer backup solution (nor is intended to be), which is what Time Machine expressly is.
In Windows Vista, Microsoft also tied Shadow Copy into System Restore, which allows users to roll back their entire PC software install to a previous point in time. This is not a backup system either; it's a system wide undo. System Restore is oriented around undoing the problems caused by installing a software title, a Windows software update, an unsigned hardware driver, or some other event that causes problems that need to be rolled back. It doesn't go back and find something lost from the past; it reverts the clock to a previous checkpoint and throws away the future from that point forward. System Restore is not even loosely related to Time Machine in what it does, how it does it, or why it exists.
Actually, their whole series on Leopard called The Road to Mac OS X Leopard is rather good. Lots of facts and history.
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. This is wrong. See my previous anonymous post.
Time Machine doesn't require any special changes to applications although it offers some cool stuff that way. It's main purpose is to be a complete backup system that actually gets used because it's helpful and doesn't get in the way. Vista's Shadow Copy doesn't backup to a second hard drive. Shadow Copy also doesn't restore files that have been deleted. Those are the two main purposes of Time Machine. From what I can tell Vista's Shadow Copy appears to be no lower to the file system than Time Machine and FSEvents.
Yeah i know where you are coming from with the non bootable thing, but you don't have to install leopard then restore time machine. As part of the installation leopard will ask you if you have a time machine folder with data you want to restore.