Slashdot Mirror


OS X Mountain Lion Out Tomorrow

Apple revealed in its third quarter earnings release today that OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion will be released tomorrow, July 25th. "As a quick recap, the $19.99 software update brings a handful of iOS features to Macs, including the notes and reminders apps. It adds a few other things, like Twitter integration, Apple's Game Center and iMessage services. There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed." The release also noted that iOS 6 will be coming out this fall, and that the company sold 17 million iPads in the third quarter, up 84% from sales in the third quarter of last year.

230 comments

  1. Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will they finally fix their WiFi woes?? My brand new macbook pro drops connections more than I drop the end of

    1. Re:Wifi by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

      The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Wifi by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 0

      get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

      The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

      Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    3. Re:Wifi by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.

    4. Re:Wifi by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After upgrading to Lion, my 2008 iMac suddenly started dropping the wifi connection periodically, while my 2010 MacBook Air is rock stable. Anyhow, that's my experience. Anyhow, we'll need a bigger sample in order to determine if Macs really have more wifi-issues than Windows computers. Statistics matters.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    5. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know some HP models are notorious about WiFi issues, I've never heard of that issue with Macs..

      I've had 3 MBPs and work in a Mac exclusive office that runs WiFi, you'd think we'd have more issues.

    6. Re:Wifi by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

      That's the exact opposite of my experience, where I've had no trouble passing traffic on an overloaded conference network where some nearby non-Apple weren't even able to get a DHCP lease. In my office environment, I can't recall ever hearing a Mac user complaining about Wi-Fi issues where it didn't turn out to be an actual network outage. I'm not saying that Macs are magic or have some special hardware that no one else in the world gets to use, but I'll assert that they're solid machines with good hardware that performs well.

      You know, it could be that you've read complaints from the stereotypical Mac hipsters who were annoyed that their expensive new machines didn't magically solve the network problem they already had. That probably wouldn't surprise me. They seem to work well enough for the rest of us, though.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get your hardware fixed.

      Get... get it what? FIXED? I'm not sure I understand. Are you telling me the GP paid a not-insignificant markup for a luxury, premium laptop which proponents will consistently reiterate is made of superior parts and Just Works(c), and it's flawed?

      And for fuck's sake, just take the damn router down like a civilized human being next time. Maybe you wouldn't be paying for housing repairs (i.e. fixing gaping holes in walls where wireless routers used to sit) or stepping on loose pieces of plastic and silicon (i.e. from smashed routers) so often if you didn't go apeshit over every minor inconvenience you see in electronic devices. Your hyperbole does not serve you well.

    8. Re:Wifi by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you telling me the GP paid a not-insignificant markup for a luxury, premium laptop which proponents will consistently reiterate is made of superior parts and Just Works(c), and it's flawed?

      In related news, there's a BMW repair shop near my house. There's a difference between "well made" and "magically impervious to any kind of damage or defect imaginable".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear. The wireless connectivity on my 2009 MacBook has never been anything other than awe inspiring. Solid as a rock from start to finish.

    10. Re:Wifi by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

      Ahahahahahaha, yeh... No.

      Macs are notoriously good at just working on wireless, something that microsoft didn't get sorted for a long time in windows due to hundreds of different bits of hardware, each with its own crappy driver and stupid branded control centre to connect.

    11. Re:Wifi by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Dont need to. I know a LOT of people with mac's and they dont have ANY problems. most of the time it is a crap access point and you will find that Windows people are having the same problems. If I listened to the "internet" then all Segate Momentus XT drives were crap. less than 2% had problems yet that 2% was 100% of the noise screaming about the problems with OSX and Macbook Compatibility.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Wifi by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.

      I wasn't very specific in my original post, but there are known issues with Apple's 802.1x authenticator code. WPA Enterprise is less commonly used with Macs than consumer-level wifi, which is probably why our experiences are so different. For what it's worth, I've never had a problem using wifi anywhere where there was WEP/WPA-PSK security (or no security). I'm perfectly happy with the MBP I use for work, as are thousands of others who use them at my company. And the WPA supplicant in Lion works better than SL, but isn't quite 100% yet.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

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

      Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

      The odd thing about web searches is that you can make it appear there are widespread problems of many things:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+pro+keyboard+backlight+problem
      http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+pro+dial-up+doesn't+work

      etc, etc.... neither of the results from these searches means these things are 'notoriously' problematic. It just means you're *LOOKING* for people with that problem.

      edit: find it funny that the CAPTCHA is 'rhapsody'

    14. Re:Wifi by edelbrp · · Score: 1

      I thought it was par for the course to have iffy WiFi on my MBP until I spent an afternoon testing each component. I found two culprits: A bad ethernet router which was effectively cycling one of its ethernet ports continuously, and elsewhere in the network, an old cat-3 cable that was trying to run at 100-baseT speeds.

      Besides that, I used to have a wireless telephone that would kill the network each time I used it, but I have long since replaced that. Also beware that each WiFi channel spans two additional channels up and down (e.g. channel 5 is actually using 3,4,5,6,7) so beware of conflicts with other networks in the area.

      In short, do your due diligence and find the source(s) of your problem. What you are experiencing isn't normal if everything is working and configured correctly. And I hate to sound like I am pushing Apple products, but you might be safest to use an Airport base station vs. a third party WiFi router. It at least is easier to configure with a Mac and gives the benefit of Airplay and printer sharing, if you need it.

    15. Re:Wifi by Meeni · · Score: 1

      It happened to me. One of the numerous MacBook I had over the years would just not connect to channel 11. Worked flawlessly with other channels, but not with 11. The "genius" fix was to set my access point to another channel. Too bad the airport authorities were not so keen on doing the same. Anyway, hardware and/or software issues that are never resolved are very common on mac models, if you are unlucky, and don't hope on the genius to help you if it is expensive.

    16. Re:Wifi by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      No problem here. My netbook can connect to networks under OSX without any problem. Funny thing is sometimes XP has issues connecting to the same network, on the same hardware.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    17. Re:Wifi by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1
      I had that problem. Forcing DHCP renewal helped. Please see the following articles for more information (I hope this helps you and other Mac-using Slashdotters!):
      • http://osxdaily.com/2011/11/06/lion-wi-fi-problems-solution-mac/
      • http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/os-x-lion-serious-wi-fi-disconnect-problems-for-macs-and-solutions/
    18. Re:Wifi by Tapewolf · · Score: 2

      get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

      The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

      No, for me at least, it's definitely failing inside the operating system (which ATM is still 10.6).

      For starters I've used three different types of Wifi module on this mac mini, and as many different brands of AP. I'm currently using an Airport Express as the access point, and for a long time I ran both the internal wireless and an external USB dongle on the mac to try and give me some failover capability.

      What always happens is that the Wifi stack reports station disconnection "due to inactivity", which is perverse because it normally happens while watching youtube or some other high-bandwidth operation (hence, downloading 10.7 is going to be impossible). Once the failure has occurred the entire network stack will go down permanently, taking out all the wifi modules and making it impossible to bring them back up again without rebooting the mac.

      A Google search found that it is possible to prolong things by setting a terminal to ping the router continuously in the background. IME that will usually get you about a week of connectivity before it crashes again. If you don't, expect to have the network stack die several times a day.

    19. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your alleged problem with an earlier release certainly has nothing to do with Windows, unless you're out to troll Apple. Your statistic of one doesn't help us. Had it actually been an Apple OS compatibility with Apple Wireless card problem it would have been widespread. It wasn't. If it had been, the problem would have been corrected long ago and would still be irrelevant to this discussion. If it had been relevant you should have included full details of the cause and a description of the fix.

      I once saw a change in wireless behavior after an OS update. On noting that others with the same laptop and wireless configuration were not affected I dug deeper and found that it was a easily corrected non-standard timing setting in the (non-Apple) router. The OS change improved wireless reliability in congested areas.

      Please try to keep posts useful. Thank you. Slashdot and other sites are suffering from too many corporate, political, or government related shill/troll/spam submitters, posters and moderators as it is.

    20. Re:Wifi by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I've both read about this issue online and experience this problem with a client whom also upgraded to Lion. But I've got a late 2008 MacBook with Lion and I haven't had a single WiFi issue. I guess I'm lucky. My unit shipped with Leopard. I ended up performing a clean install of Snow Leopard and then doing an in-place upgrade to Lion.

      There are ways of extracting the original Lion download and making a bootable USB drive out of it. I can only recommend backing up your data and performing a clean install of either Lion or Mountain Lion tomorrow. At least that's what I would do if faced with a similar situation.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    21. Re:Wifi by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 0

      I'm senior engineer in an Apple shop ATM - if your hardware is crap, the mac will have troubles. Period. This is right up there with turn portfast on for STP routers where Mac's plug in, don't have a .local AD domain, and expect more chatter on your network than a "normal" PC.

      I like to point out that the mac equipment is a sensitive little bitch, you'll see the apple kit drop off the network well before pc branded kit - doesn't mean there isn't a problem, just that the mac found it first.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    22. Re:Wifi by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      What known issues? I haven't run in to any in the past few years and I've been installing the devices into enterprise for at least that long. The only thing I've ever had "trouble" with is getting certificates issued for 2-factor auth, not that you can't do it it's just a manual process somewhat.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    23. Re:Wifi by McFadden · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact that you can do it *obviously* means it's true for everyone then.

    24. Re:Wifi by tyrione · · Score: 1

      get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

      The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

      Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

      Horse crap. This isn't Mac OS 9 and earlier. Macs are ten times easier to set up wireless than Windows. Then again, the Apple Base Station Extreme is a dream compared to the 3rd party crap on the market, for Linux, FreeBSD and OS X. The only one that's a pain in the ass is the XP laptop.

    25. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bigger sample means nothing if there were not randomly chosen.

    26. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.

      Yes your problem cannot possibly exist because i have anecdotal evidence to the contrary!

    27. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahahahahahaha, yeh... No.

      Oh yes how silly of us all to postulate that an Apple product could have a problem, we're all just holding them wrong.

      Macs are notoriously good at just working on wireless, something that microsoft didn't get sorted for a long time in windows due to hundreds of different bits of hardware, each with its own crappy driver and stupid branded control centre to connect.

      Fanboys will do anything to ignore a problem and change the subject to a competitor, who gives a fuck about what Windows does if you use a Mac? Lion (and if you bother to search you'll find out) has problems with maintaining wireless network connectivity (and yes, before you get all antsy in your pantsy i'm sure Windows has problems too, maybe even worse ones, but who cares). Instead of just being a douchebag apologist how about doing some research?

    28. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs are ten times easier to set up wireless than Windows. Then again, the Apple Base Station Extreme is a dream compared to the 3rd party crap on the market, for Linux, FreeBSD and OS X. The only one that's a pain in the ass is the XP laptop.

      Are you really that much of an apologist that you only acknowledge a problem if a competing solution has a better implementation? I'm using OSX, not Windows or Linux or BSD so i don't give a fuck about how well they do or don't work, I only care that as soon as I upgraded to Lion my Macbook started having WiFi connectivity issues but all other devices are still fine.

    29. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will they finally fix their WiFi woes?? My brand new macbook pro drops connections more than I drop the end of

      I maintain a network that has over 300 MacBook/Macbook Pro's.... I have no wireless issues at all...

    30. Re:Wifi by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      I have a MacBook Air (2011) and I have noticed that it 100% cannot find any base stations on channel's 13 or 14, which sucks. Perhaps your problem is related to the channel?

    31. Re:Wifi by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone. I've got a mini (on 10.6) that has happily sat beside my TV for something like five years now, connected through wifi. I've never noticed a problem with it. The bluetooth was flakey for a while after I replaced the hard drive in it, but after opening it up again and making sure the antenna was well connected it seems to be fine.

      It seems like you have some kind of interaction happening between two or more of the hardware, OS, and installed software, which is irritating as hell when it happens to you (and usually causes people to complain on discussion boards) but it isn't indicative of a universal fault in the OS.

    32. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found this with my upgraded version from Leopard to Snow to Lion on my mid year 2007 Macbook. A back up and fresh install of Lion (format the drive and install clean) resolved those Wifi woes for me

    33. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone

      Please leave slashdot, you are obviously a moron.

    34. Re:Wifi by Galestar · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between "well made" and "magically impervious to any kind of damage or defect imaginable".

      Of which Apple products are neither.

      --
      AccountKiller
    35. Re:Wifi by tsa · · Score: 1

      Yep. Even with Windows on my MBP I have more problems connecting to wireless networks than with OSX.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    36. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wireless connectivity on my 2009 MacBook has never been anything other than awe inspiring.

      wow you really need to get out more!

    37. Re:Wifi by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone. I've got a mini (on 10.6) that has happily sat beside my TV for something like five years now, connected through wifi. I've never noticed a problem with it.

      It happens to enough people for there to be discussions of it, complaints about it and partial workarounds like the ping trick. I was hoping that 10.7 would fix it, but making it awkward to get on physical media and the very real possibility of it not supporting the most stable wifi module are putting me off upgrading. I don't think 10.8 will work on this mac anyway. Oh, and it's worth mentioning that the problem didn't occur at all until 10.6.

      Supposedly things are a lot more stable if you don't use WPA or WPA2, but frankly, that's a very bad idea. It's worth pointing out that the mac is the only one on the network which craps itself like this, the linux boxes and laptops with a myriad of different wifi adaptors are all completely stable, even when pulling down a gigabyte or so for a distro upgrade.

    38. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      on my horribly old 2009

      Whatever happened to that whole "we pay more for Macs because theyre designed to last longer" mantra that gets thrown about so much?

      I thought the entire justification for paying in excess of $1200 for a mediocre specc'd laptop was that the thing would last more than 3 years?

    39. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone.

      Thats simply not true, and its not how bugs work. It is entirely possible that there could be a bug that affects only a subset of users or has a specific trigger that not everyone hits.

    40. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      This is right up there with turn portfast on for STP routers where Mac's plug in, don't have a .local AD domain, and expect more chatter on your network than a "normal" PC.

      1) STP and portfast are switch settings, not router. STP prevents switching loops on a local segment; a router would have no need for that, since each of its interfaces will be on a separate segment and routing protocols are designed to prevent loops.

      2) Whether or not portfast is set should have no impact on your network connectivity, except for a slight delay (~10-30 seconds) on initial plug-in. After that it will work fine, and IIRC unix-y OSes like OSX tend to keep trying DHCP quite a while before giving up, so you shouldnt even have any DHCP issues.

      3) .local is not "necessary", and its not "bad practice" not to use it. It can be useful if you want to limit DNS from attempting to resolve outside, but it is entirely possible to have AD host your internal and external DNS and use a .com or .net.

      And really, im not clear what STP has to do with AD domains. I would recommend you brush up on what STP and portfast actually are before boasting about your IT knowledge, or criticizing others for their supposed lack thereof.

    41. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      That's the exact opposite of my experience, where I've had no trouble passing traffic on an overloaded conference network where some nearby non-Apple weren't even able to get a DHCP lease.

      Your faith in your hardware is misplaced; whether a computer gets a DHCP lease is going to have remarkably little to do with the platform it is on, and more to do with the quality of the link. The wifi card will have a good deal to do with it, as will the antenna placement, but for the most part those arent things unique to apple. I would hazard that their wifi hardware is made either by Atheros, Broadcom, or Intel, just like everyone else.

    42. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Macs are ten times easier to set up wireless than Windows.

      Windows is 2 clicks, type in a password, hit connect.

      OSX is 2 clicks, type in password, hit connect.

      Where are you getting 10 times easier? Theyre quite similar experiences, tbqh.

      Then again, the Apple Base Station Extreme is a dream compared to the 3rd party crap on the market

      What are you using to judge something to be "third party"? Is Linksys third party? What about Buffalo?

    43. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You can get well-built, high-specced laptops for much cheaper than the Macbooks. Its just that some people insist on comparing $2200 Macs to $500 laptops, and then asking why this part is plastic or that part isnt multi-touch.

      Macs are well built, yes. But lets not pretend that theyre the only option out there for "well built".

    44. Re:Wifi by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      get your hardware fixed.

      This is a Mac we're talking about.

    45. Re:Wifi by macshome · · Score: 1

      The OP might not have stated it too well, but STP and .local domains are two well known, but separate, issues that have occasionally created issues for Mac sysadmins. These issues have been largely resolved over the years though.

      For what it's worth, Cisco recommends always using portfast on endpoint ports and Microsoft recommends not using .local domains.

    46. Re:Wifi by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If it affects a subset of users it must be interacting with something that is specific to those users. If it has a trigger then it's interacting with that trigger. Software is deterministic.

    47. Re:Wifi by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      But lets not pretend that theyre the only option out there for "well built".

      For the record, I never said or implied anything of the like.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    48. Re:Wifi by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      No, it won't. That's not a problem with the OS, I can assure you 110%.
      My Macbook Pro & Macbook Air both with Snow Leopard & Lion have dealt with some of the worst wifi setups and have functioned without any problems.

      Might want to check other vectors of problems with your wifi connectivity.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    49. Re:Wifi by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Nothing you just said disagrees with anything I just said. Mac is using the same quality hardware as in other good laptops. My comment about neighboring machines not getting leases was a commentary on the junk hardware used on some low-end laptops, in comparison with my Macbook which was decidedly non-finicky on the same networks.

      Objectively, Macs are nicely specced, designed, and built. That doesn't imply that there are no good non-Apple laptop vendors. I'm in a conference room filled with equal numbers of Macbook Pros and ThinkPads, and they all seem to be chugging away happily.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    50. Re:Wifi by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      How much further does he need to go? Is wireless different where you are?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    51. Re:Wifi by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      There's a huge (HUGE) difference between a fanboy and a Unix engineer who uses it because there's work to be done and not worry about the laptop/desktop working.

      I've been using Lion on both of my laptops (pro & air) with absolutely no connectivity issues in at least 3 states. There's no fanboyism to this, just stating facts.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    52. Re:Wifi by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a conflict issue with wifi signals in your area, since it's channel specific.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    53. Re:Wifi by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Just for the records, I manage Windows AD domains. It's exceedingly bad practice to use an external domain root suffix for an internal private domain. For example, never use .COM especially if the whole domain of example.com is the same outside as it is internally. Otherwise, you're now having to manage your private DNS records in attempt resolve split DNS hell. It's why both Microsoft and their SBS servers recommend using .LOCAL for internal uses. It solves so many DNS problems. Some use .WAN or .DOM. Which ever you prefer I suppose. But .LOCAL is perfectly valid and encouraged as a Windows AD domain.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    54. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge (HUGE) difference between a fanboy and a Unix engineer who uses it because there's work to be done and not worry about the laptop/desktop working.

      denying there is a problem - in spite of people evidently having such a problem - and then saying how windows is worse (even though no one mentioned windows) is most definitely fanboyism.

      I've been using Lion on both of my laptops (pro & air) with absolutely no connectivity issues in at least 3 states. There's no fanboyism to this, just stating facts.

      anecdotal evidence != facts, i'm glad you don't have any problems, but that is clearly not the case for everyone.

    55. Re:Wifi by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Macs are ten times easier to set up wireless than Windows.

      My Mac has Windows and OSX installed on it, they don't seem any different in terms of ease of connection to wireless networks...do you care to explain what you mean?

    56. Re:Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge (HUGE) difference between a fanboy and a Unix engineer who uses it because there's work to be done and not worry about the laptop/desktop working.

      I've been using Lion on both of my laptops (pro & air) with absolutely no connectivity issues in at least 3 states. There's no fanboyism to this, just stating facts.

      And denying a problem exists in the face of evidence to the contrary whilst having a bash at Windows is clear fanboyism, the problem obviously exists.

      These bugs are usually fixed quickly, with most disappearing in the 10.x.1 and 10.x.2 releases. Lion differed in both the nature and longevity of its bugs. Bugs in basic functionality like WiFi connectivity and Web browser stability bedeviled many Lion users, and it took Apple several releases over many long months to address the worst of them.
      http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/os-x-10-8/

    57. Re:Wifi by exomondo · · Score: 1

      No, it won't. That's not a problem with the OS, I can assure you 110%.

      Apple disagrees with you. I had WiFi connectivity problems on one of my MacBooks but it was fixed after 10.7.1, in fact you can see in the about pages for the updates that WiFi connectivity was most definitely an OS issue:

      Improve the reliability of Wi-Fi connections. OS X Lion Update 10.7.1

      And later there was another OS update addressing WiFi connectivity issues:

      Resolve a Wi-Fi connection issue when waking from sleep. OS X Lion Update 10.7.3

    58. Re:Wifi by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      Yeah that sounds like a reasonable conclusion based on the little info I provided. Unfortunately, the reason I tried those channels is they're totally free in my area. All my other equipment is fine but the MBA cannot even see the signal on channel 14 and it drops it badly on 13. Doesn't really bother me - it's just "one of those things".

    59. Re:Wifi by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone.

      Oh gees...you're not serious are you? Look at the update changelogs and you'll see entries for improving WiFi connectivity, now what are these a modification to? The Operating System...but hang on, not everyone had problems with WiFi connectivity so why, if it is as you say, would they put out a fix for the operating system? That's a bit strange isn't it.

    60. Re:Wifi by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, you're now having to manage your private DNS records in attempt resolve split DNS hell.

      Unless you explicitly want your internal AD records resolvable from the outside, in which case it can be a viable solution. And IIRC, Microsoft has moved away from their adamant "use .local" position.

    61. Re:Wifi by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Wireless is a mess. I have found windows XP computers that just completely refuse to connect properly to specific routers, so you have to change security to yucky WEP from WPA. I lost two hours to realize that the standard-ish WAP TKIP + AES combo solved the problem without having to reorient all the other devices already set up there, but it was annoying.

      Linux is even worse... back in 2005 it was the whole ndiswrapper tragedy, while these days RedHat-based distros and some Ubuntus force you to do static IP. WPA_supplicant would reconnect over and over in Ubuntu 9. To top all things off, you are affected even in VM's which distros apparently aren't paying attention to, so even your LAN tests are foiled by misteryous errors that result in a networkless Linux you can't download anything new into.

      And don't even get me started on Wifi file transfer issues. 300Mb wireless may sound better than your old maxed out 100Mb ethernet connection, but in practice the numbers don't add up due to overhead, and you BETTER remember to MOVE rather than "copy" a whole home folder over wireless, so you can resume it 4 or 5 times for every random connection drop. You're better off with the slow trusty wire for emergencies

  2. Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We keep replacing our desktop environment every once in a while, now recently with Unity/GNOME3. Have we actually gone anywhere? At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago.

    Can the Linux desktop survive that long?

    1. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying the GNU/Linux world revolves around Unity/GNOME3?

      For shame.

    2. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      X is almost that old. It started in 1984.

      You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

    3. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Sure but how many share your choice of DE?
      I guess we're talking twm or similar.

    4. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a fan of Unity/GNOME3 myself, but when you took a look on the statistics on distrowatch.com you could see, that for top 5 distros Unity/GNOME3 is main DE. So basically yes, it revolves around it ;)

    5. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I gave up using Linux and switched back to OS X as my main machine because I can still install maybe 80% of the command line tools and libraries I need, plus I still have a decent UI to fall back to and the usual array of commercial binaries etc. I can also run a decent amount of games and don't need to worry about driver support. If I need to use Linux, I just ssh into a box somewhere or use a VM. Homebrew makes package management a cinch.

      The only desktop environment I've enjoyed using in Linux is Cinnamon. KDE is fine and productive, but I still think needs to look a bit more slick.

    6. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I do not know and I do not care. I would assume plenty though, has its own version of ubuntu.

      XFCE if you really care.

    7. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I went the other way. Bought a Macbook air and had to install linux. Even after getting FFM to work using a pay for product and installing fink and iterm2 it was still a pain in the ass. I could never get the 10 key input working in vim on any server I connected to, lack of X style highlighting and middle click paste, and so on.

      To each his own.

    8. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have we actually gone anywhere?

      Yeah. When I started using Linux in 1995 it was rather challenging to get X to run at all. To get a good functioning X people often had to buy a commercial X server. There were 0 GUIs. Microsoft announced they would not be porting their IE for Unix to Linux and people were upset. There were real questions as to why would anyone use Linux when for not much more money you could get an SGI or Sun workstation, there were also alternatives like SCO on x86 and AIX.

      Today there exist 2 major GUIs with large suites of applications. There exists a full office productivity suite which is capable of stealing market share from Microsoft Office, on the Windows platform. With the exception of Trident all the major browser engines are either open source of available for LInux. The server space is dominated by Linux and Linux desktops play an important role in server development. SGI, Sun and SCO are all dead, AIX is weak. No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux. The Linux kernel is arguably the most advanced kernel available.

      That's real progress. Maybe not enough to beat Windows and OSX but there is no question there has been progress.

    9. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by DdJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

      So's mine, even though it basically is OSX.

      Ever since about 1989 or so, my favorite GUI environment has been NeXTstep. My employer got prerelease access (since we're Carnegie Mellon, where the Mach kernel came from), and it's essentially been my favorite desktop environment since version 0.8 or so, back when I taught myself Objective-C programming on it.

      I pretty much hated "classic" MacOS and didn't like most Apple products except HyperCard and the Newton, right up until Apple required NeXT. So much of what was great back then is still here. I wish they'd managed to keep the old application remote display mechanism (NXHOST =~ DISPLAY), but the unreasonably-licensed Adobe Display PostScript pretty much put an end to that... alas.

      If Apple screws it up too much (and signs are that they might, though I don't think they have yet), well, I'll probably end up switching to Ubuntu with GNUstep.

    10. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah good times - remember spending days just trying to get your scroll wheel working with X? I think my scroll wheel was button 7 and 8.

    11. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Odd. I had no problems with X11R5 on linux in 1994-1995. in fact... yggdrasil had everything you needed. you did need a decent video card, and the bigest annoyance was that I could not afford a 17" monitor to run at 1024X768 that most apps and GUI's wanted. Again you mention there were 0 GUI's. TCL/TK was alive and well. and FVWM was a fine window manager back then in 1995...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Hi Lumpy.

      You might have been saved by being at 640x480. Often the higher video resolutions had chip specific settings but VGA was a standard.

      There were plenty of window managers. I used (and still often use) WindowMaker. TK is a graphical toolkit, so was Motif. But a GUI is much more.
      -- Consistent Policy
      -- Higher level widgets
      -- An object broker
      -- Sound support
      -- desktop applications

    13. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      My impression was there was huge progress from 1995 to (say) 2005ish. But after that things slowed. Essentially the Linux desktop was good enough, but Linux as a platform is now held back by other non-technical things: the kernel "no ABI" philosophy, the fragmented distributions, Windows is now also "good enough", specific applications that businesses rely on (Office, Photoshop, etc) even if there are equivalents.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    14. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux.

      That's a big surprise to those of us who bought a Mac so we could have a nice Unix workstation.

      I can run a Linux desktop (or a thousand, if you want me to) but I switched so that I could stop messing around with my desktop and spend my time using it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had to buy a commercial X server if you were using some odd hardware. If you read the documentation and you bought hardware that was compatible with Linux, or 386BSD, then you were good to go.

      So, in 1995 SGI and Sun were anywhere near the price of a commodity Linux workstation? Are you serious? They were more than ten times the price of comparable PC hardware, on a good day.

    16. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Grandpa,

      You forgot "Get off my lawn!".

      Sincerely,
      Young WhipperSnapper.

    17. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I run a Mac too. But there is no question it is an inferior Unix to Linux. When I need to Unix stuff, and not desktop productivity stuff I use Linux. And I believe that's generally the case. Look at how lightly supported Macports is.

    18. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No they weren't. In 1994 when /.'s parent company got into the Linux workstation business a good Sun ultra was $7k, though you could get the bottom line for $4,295. Used Indigos were coming down to the $2k range. The Indy was out. The spread was between the $2k x86 desktop and the $7k low end workstation.

      And no, they were never 10x the price of comparable PC hardware. PC wasn't comparable in 1995. You were getting a much worse system for a lot less money.

    19. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      I found Homebrew to cover almost everything Unixy I need on a regular basis. I run plenty of Unix daemon - PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. - on my laptop on a regular basis, and they do about as well as I'd expect them to on any laptop.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    20. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Homebrew is even more meager in its offerings. Postgres, Apache... run well on Windows. I understand you are getting what you want from Mac, I am too most of the time. But that's different than saying Macs are remotely comparable to Linux boxes when it comes to the depth of Unix software.

    21. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X is almost that old. It started in 1984.

      You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

      I go commando, you insensitive clod!

    22. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago."

      In what ways is it "very similar"? Oh yeah, it's got a menu bar across the top of the screen. ;)

    23. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Megane · · Score: 1

      I remember when the X servers all wanted to probe your fucking monitor to come up with the OCD perfect scan configuration (which never worked on my random monitor), instead of just letting you pick from a list of VESA standard rates (and making the probe an advanced option). So I just stuck with Slackware in text mode and went back to MacOS as my GUI. It was a great day when OS X Public Beta came out. Even though I blame it for killing my Pismo's battery (it didn't turn everything off at sleep), it was like night and day. It ran a *nix and best of all it didn't sit there for 9 seconds after wake-up trying to reconnect to the network like Open Transport did. (Thank you Steve, for the "lifetimes saved" argument!)

      And now I've recently upgraded to one of the last of the 17" MacBook Pros (the last until they can get a Retina screen that big), and downgraded it to 10.6.8 which runs all my old PPC apps, instead of the Vista-ey mess that is Lion. (The only thing I liked about Lion was that you could resize windows from all four edges.) And now Mountain Lion sounds like a Win8-ey mess.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    24. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Well 95 you could pick if you were lucky. Otherwise you had to try and find the right settings in a how-to. Those days were tough. But as I see it, probing now works that time in the between was the pain for the gain.

      I just switched to a retina so my PPC apps are gone. Going to be on 10.8 soon but I just spent the last month on 10.7. I rather like the Virtual Desktops with a trackpad. I'm a fan of Mission Control, best virtual desktop setup I've ever used. I only wish that

      a) I could name them
      b) They didn't switch positions

      I hate the new scroll bar on 10.7. Other than that, pretty much the same.

    25. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The top 5 distros on distrowatch are Mint, Ubuntu, Mageia, Fedora and Debian. Mint and Debian offer one the choice of DEs, Ubuntu comes w/ Unity by default, Mageia comes w/ KDE by default and only Fedora comes by default w/ GNOME3. Mint in fact offers versions in KDE, XFCE and LXDE, in addition to Cinnamon. So how does Mint's numbers say anything about DEs?

    26. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      > At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago.

      Have you used Macintosh System 7? Or even System 9? I mean. There are windows. And the buttons are on the left. But the similarities pretty much end there. I guess Windows 7 sort of looks like Win 3.1. And Unity just like bare X11.

    27. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      There exists a full office productivity suite which is capable of stealing market share from Microsoft Office

      I love Linux, and many many things about it.... but lets not pretend that Open Office is on par with Office. I would put it as "substantially less irritating than Google Docs, but less functional than MS Office". I use it on my laptop (being cheap and not particularly caring about an Office Suite), but it has a number of things that it fails at.

      Not to mention-- and yes, this is totally petty-- its remarkably unpolished and makes me feel like Im in a time-warp to the 90's when I use it. You can say "who cares", but unfortunately a lot of users, and they have expressed that to me when we have used Open Office as a stand-in when we ran out of Office licenses.

      If OSS folks want their software to succeed, they need to try to remember that technical prowess is really irrelevant if the product is aimed at end users and lacks any kind of polish.

    28. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      But that's different than saying Macs are remotely comparable to Linux boxes when it comes to the depth of Unix software.

      Well considering that OS X is Unix (officially) and Linux isn't, I'd say that's false. That's not to say that OS X is superior to Linux, only that it is more of a Unix than Linux.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    29. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No that doesn't mean much of anything. The Open Group pays money to certify Unixes, OSX paid years ago and Linux never did. Linux has replaced big box Unix vendors all over the world and has become the core development platform for Unixes. SGI (IRIX) switched to Linux, IBM (AIX) switched their focus to Linux, SCO switched to Linux (during the Ransom Love years, not after), HP (HPUX and Digital Unix) switched their focus to Linux....

      I'd say that outweighs anything the Open Group could ever say.

    30. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      but lets not pretend that Open Office is on par with Office.

      I didn't say on par, I said capable of stealing share. There is a $300 price difference per head. Microsoft itself got its marketshare in many areas by offering a somewhat worse product at a much better price. February 2010 in Germany, Open Office passed the 20% mark (MS Office was at 72%). There isn't good data for the US but anecdotally I know of lots of home users using OpenOffice/Libre Office / NeoOffice. I know of multiple small business that have switches and I know of some a few midsized businesses that make it their default. Open Office is stealing marketshare and the reason is price.

      And your own comments BTW are perfect examples. You use OpenOffice because it is free and you don't care much. You use it as a stand-in at work. That's stealing share. You don't have to love it, you just have to pick it, to count.

      As for features, I have 5 office suites: MS Office, iWork, NeoOffice & Libre Office, Mellel & Omni (together they make a suite). I'm switching for the next year away from MS Office not because I don't think all around its not the best of the 5, but because they haven't fixed their font problem for retina and that outweighs everything else.

    31. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd managed to keep the old application remote display mechanism (NXHOST =~ DISPLAY), but the unreasonably-licensed Adobe Display PostScript pretty much put an end to that... alas.

      Not really. Replacing PostScript with PDF for the display model was sensible, because PostScript is Turing-complete and there were lots of fun things you could do by being able to run PS code on someone else's monitor (some security holes, but even without them a denial of service was easy). Apple made the decision not to provide a stable protocol for client to window server communication. This has some advantages - they can modify it in every point release if they want to without having to care about backwards compatibility - but it means they sacrifice remote display.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      I love Linux, and many many things about it.... but lets not pretend that Open Office is on par with Office. I would put it as "substantially less irritating than Google Docs, but less functional than MS Office". I use it on my laptop (being cheap and not particularly caring about an Office Suite), but it has a number of things that it fails at. Not to mention-- and yes, this is totally petty-- its remarkably unpolished and makes me feel like Im in a time-warp to the 90's when I use it. You can say "who cares", but unfortunately a lot of users, and they have expressed that to me when we have used Open Office as a stand-in when we ran out of Office licenses.

      Have you tried LibreOffice lately? 3.5 does quite well in my experience with the only real issue I have is the syntax for equations in Calc being different from Excel. With respect to the GUI - I wouldn't say it's unpolished, however it does look Office 2003-ish. It needs to be updated to new workflow concepts - ribbons/tabs, etc. I know the ribbon is reviled around here but once you get used to it it's quite slick.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    33. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Darby · · Score: 1

      I tried Homebrew. It caused the machine to reboot every time I connected to the VPN at work using Cisco's AnyConnect. Really annoying since that's how I got libvirt installed which is the primary thing I need for my current development.

    34. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I miss the NeXTstep dock. It was the most functional dock I've ever used. And the menu system. Man, the whole UI and 'finder' were so much better. I miss my cube. :(

    35. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      "They're all gonna laugh at you!"

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    36. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That's why I love Window Maker under Linux.
      It's reminiscent of a good thing.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    37. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      in 1994-1995, a GUI meant you had a graphical user interface. There wasn't really much more to it.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    38. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Inferior?
      Different is the word, not inferior.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    39. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No it meant much more than that and long before 1994-5.

      Limited drag and drop existed in the original mac OS 1.0, Windows 2.0, OS/2 1.1, etc... A gui even then was far more than a window manager.

    40. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GUI = Graphical User Interface. It's the definition.

      Now I think he is confusing GUI with Desktop Suite.

    41. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's not the definition it's the etymology.

    42. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No I meant inferior, you are free to disagree but not to redefine what I said. And if you want to disagree list areas of traditional Unix functionality in which OSX is superior.

    43. Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop by jcr · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on the menus and the Workspace app. Disagree about the dock. In NeXTSTEP, the number of dock slots is limited by the height of the screen.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. designed to fend off malware by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    Why would you need this on a Mac?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:designed to fend off malware by ThePeices · · Score: 2

      designed to fend off malware

      Why would you need this on a Mac?

      to um...fend off the malware?

      Seriously dude, did you even read what you just wrote?

    2. Re:designed to fend off malware by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:designed to fend off malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's because you're running the thing designed to fend off the malware.

    4. Re:designed to fend off malware by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Yes because it *fends* the, off.
      Didn't you pay attention?

    5. Re:designed to fend off malware by perpenso · · Score: 1

      But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

      Because the system is designed to fend off malware perhaps? ;-)

    6. Re:designed to fend off malware by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed.

      In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine. That's why it's "needed".

    7. Re:designed to fend off malware by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine.

      If you don't like it, uncheck the box and install anything you wish. That's what I'll be doing.

      For the typical home user, though, I think it's a reasonable limitation that's not likely to impact what they can do *at all*.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:designed to fend off malware by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      No, it's a setting that you control and can override on a per-app level.

    9. Re:designed to fend off malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

      Oh you might want to rethink that, apparently Macs (and Linux boxes for that matter) tend to be crawling with malware making them a very significant threat vector according to the windows admins where I work. The funny thing (as in Haha! Schadenfreude!) is that 99.999% of this malware our *nix boxes are apparently crawling with is Windows malware (scanned my boxes, didn't find any but if they say so...). For this reason it seems Mac and Linux desktop boxes must be eradicated from the company network wherever possible which has made for some interesting interdepartmental meetings since my department does a lot of Unix/Linux server and some workstation development and the majority of the *nix geeks haven't used Windows for a decade or more. So you see, Macs and Linux boxes are a serious malware menace.

    10. Re:designed to fend off malware by stripes · · Score: 2

      There is a checkbox in System Prefs to turn it off. Or if you control click on the app and select open it will launch (and white list for future launches).

      It is really so people don't double click an app that has an icon that looks like a MP3. Or maybe they won't launch what looks like PhotoShop, but isn't. If it gets enough adoption from 3rd parties I can see it being a huge help to the average user. If it gets low adoption it'll be more useful for folks that really know what is going on.

    11. Re:designed to fend off malware by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      #!/bin/bash
      sudo rm -rf

      "Just type in your admin password". Congratulations, you just ran malware.

      Now worms that propagate themselves over the internet like stuxnet, not so much.

    12. Re:designed to fend off malware by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

      But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

      Oh you might want to rethink that, apparently Macs (and Linux boxes for that matter) tend to be crawling with malware making them a very significant threat vector according to the windows admins where I work. .

      ... Yeah. Windows admins usually are the uncontested experts about OSX and Linux malware ...

  4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With hundreds of slashdot commenters, this is bound to be true for a handful of those*.

    *: Assuming regularly distributed birthdays, since AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to birth date.

  5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell the launching of a OS of such shitty patent-ptrolling company had to happen on my birthday?

    If gives you something to do with that $20 gift card that your grandmother will give you.

  6. iPad sales up 84% by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?

  7. extraordinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Revolutionary release.

    1. Re:extraordinary by chrish · · Score: 1

      Where's +1, Sarcasm when you need it?

      I was looking through the full list of new features yesterday for some reason to upgrade (I don't use iCloud, I already have Steam, and I'm not Chinese) and found awesome revolutionary new features like "We're in the process of getting FIPS-140 certification" and "Chess now knows about Game Center".

      --
      - chrish
    2. Re:extraordinary by crovira · · Score: 1

      I'm replying to this message using the voice recognition feature, it's amazing.

      That is really changing how I'm using this MacBook Pro now on.

      GUIs alone or so 1984.

      --
      MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  8. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A leopard never changes its spots.

  9. Year of the Linux desktop by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Designed to fend off malware. Why would you need this on a Mac?

    Because of users. When the year of the Linux desktop arrives Linux will need to do the same thing. :-)

  10. Can't complain... by mlts · · Score: 1

    What I am going to be curious about is how the GateKeeper signed executable functionality will help in the wild against Trojans.

    Assuming users are smart enough to not turn it off because a Web ad for a "pr0n viewer" or a free iPad told them to.

    1. Re:Can't complain... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      It won't, and never will. But it is something. And with enough somethings the sum of somethings may become fairly large.

    2. Re:Can't complain... by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a simple lock and unlock function for system preferences panes. So, for instance, you could have GateKeeper turned on for the family Mac, which would give the kids the freedom to install any software that is signed, but you would need the admin password to install unsigned software. It's a step up from the admin-only software install approach.

  11. gatekeeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to ctrl-shift and click on the pi symbol

    1. Re:Gatekeeper by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's so restrictive to have the choice of what sources you want to trust for installing software.

    2. Re:Gatekeeper by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      Huh? Optionally restricting the OS to running only signed binaries, and checking certificates haven't been revoked is ridiculous? What fantasy land do you live in?

    3. Re:Gatekeeper by acoustix · · Score: 2

      Is this anything like Gatekeeper from The Net?

      If so, stay away! ;)

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    4. Re:Gatekeeper by zoloto · · Score: 1

      Dont' feed the trolls. There are plenty of them in this discussion.

  12. GateKeeper eh by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

    1. Re:GateKeeper eh by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Maybe. Its still rather hard to do since OSX is a dev machine. Macports needs to keep working. But I assume the barriers are high enough that this is a useful out.

      On the commercial side: the combination of pushing customers to the App Store and the App Store imposing restrictions is starting to change the software culture. On several products I buy the App Store version and the downloadable versions are different. I'd imagine those companies are going to be switching to App Store only within a few years.

      That being said, the walled garden on iOS isn't too bad so far.

    2. Re:GateKeeper eh by MoronGames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and that's a good thing for most users. Consider this: Most users don't care about whether or not they can run unsigned software. Many of those users don't know how to install software that they can't buy from a store, or through something like an app store (since they now know about app stores from smart phones and Apple pushing their app store on Macintoshes.) These people are not going to go poking around online to try to find software to install. Many of them wouldn't know how to install software that they did download! The walled garden is arguably better for these people. Want to extend your computer's functionality? Go on the App Store and download a new piece of software by clicking install and putting in your password.

      As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to install and use software outside of the Mac App Store, it's my opinion that an OS X "walled garden" is a hugely excellent feature for the majority of users.

      --
      hey!
    3. Re:GateKeeper eh by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

      There are three settings to Gatekeeper.

      First is the walled garden - Mac App Store apps *only*.

      Second is the default secure - Mac App Store apps AND verified developer ID signed apps. The latter is a program where developers buy a signing cert from Apple, then the developer can sign anything with it. Just like the current code signing certificate Microsoft has, except the OS enforces the signature.

      Third is the "full open" mode - any valid executable can run. Developers probably will use this mode to avoid needing to get a signing certificate (and we'd hope developers are smart enough to not click on any random executable that comes their way...).

      The second is default because there are a whole class of programs that cannot work under the Mac App Store. First - the Mac App Store has a limit of $999.99 as the maximum price - some programs cost more than that (e.g., AutoCAD 2012 vs. AutoCAD 2012LE (which IS on the Mac App Store)). Second - big names don't want to be subject to the Mac App Store terms - they want to do things their own way. You know, a little company called Adobe who makes a little-used program call Photoshop. Or a tiny Washington-based company who makes an insignificant productivity suite they called Office.

      Finally, another reason is utilities - disk defragmenters, disk repair tools, data recovery suites, even things like hardware drivers cannot be done via the Mac App Store - they must be distributed separately.

      Hell, developers cannot distribute a DEMO version of their app via Mac App Store - they have to host those themselves.

      I think for a good 60% of users, the Mac App Store is all they need. For another 35% the default setting is perfect, and the last 5% are hopefully smart enough to be the ones to turn it off completely and not do stupid things.

      As for the signing requirement - well, a developer can't sign any old binary as their name is attached to it. If they sign some malware, it won't be long until said certificate is revoked by Apple and all apps signed by that developer stop working (until overridden by the last option, or they approve the app again). So developers have an interest in not signing everything.

      Heck, Firefox did the smart thing and got TWO certificates - release builds are signed with one, and nightly builds and such are auto-signed with the other. This prevents the revokation of one key from disrupting firefox development.

    4. Re:GateKeeper eh by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

      Walled garden can be nice. I had a fox regularly coming into my garden shitting on the grass. It stinks. Badly. Didn't quite need to put a wall around the garden, put some spikes on top of the bit of fence that the fox or foxes used.

      You can choose three settings: 1. Allow only apps from the App Store (known maker, vetted to some degree). 2. Allow only signed apps (maker of the app is known to Apple). 3. Allow anything. Signed apps also have the advantage that the OS knows when the app is upgraded that this is indeed the same app, so it can trust the upgraded app in the same way as the original.

    5. Re:GateKeeper eh by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with the walled garden is the term "walled garden". That's what seems to get the geeks' knickers in a twist. Why not think of it as an immune system, of sorts? Would you rather go about your daily business without a working immune system?

    6. Re:GateKeeper eh by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to buy software from a third party without giving Apple 30% by going through the Mac App Store....

      FTFY

    7. Re:GateKeeper eh by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      A walled garden is more like a bubble. If you lived inside a bubble your whole like your immune system would deteriorate. Stepping outside the bubble would probably kill you.

      An immune system is more like anti-virus software that updates its definitions automatically. There are some nasty viruses that can hide from it or disable it, but most get dealt with soon enough, you may have some down time while that happens though.

    8. Re:GateKeeper eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to buy software from a third party without giving Apple 30% by going through the Mac App Store....

      FTFY

      Those people used to be unable to get your software at all. Now they can. Are you saying developers would prefer (X dollars in sales)*(1-30%) to (0 dollars in sales)*(100%), for large positive values of X? Because if they are that stupid, I doubt their software is any good...

    9. Re:GateKeeper eh by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Windows has been doing driver signing since... Vista wasn't it? And Microsoft certainly supports code signing as well.

      Code signing is a security feature, not an evil plot.

    10. Re:GateKeeper eh by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As for the signing requirement - well, a developer can't sign any old binary as their name is attached to it. If they sign some malware, it won't be long until said certificate is revoked by Apple and all apps signed by that developer stop working (until overridden by the last option, or they approve the app again). So developers have an interest in not signing everything.

      Seems like a good idea. Is this something that is already in place? Any idea on what their general timeframe for detecting "in-the-wild" to revokation? And how are the certs revoked-- through an update, or thru a CRL?

      Would be interesting to see MS try to get something similar rolling, but I have a feeling theyll mess it up in translation.

    11. Re:GateKeeper eh by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Yes, code signing is a very good security feature when you're loading code in to the kernel. Unsigned drivers can still be installed if you click the right button on the dialog. Software that can be run in a sandbox under an non-privileged user, not so much.

    12. Re:GateKeeper eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by "installing software"? Most software on OSX doesn't need to be installed, you can run it straight from your Downloads folder.

      But in general I agree. Dumb graphical terminals for dumb users. That's the future.

  13. Gatekeeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Controlling what software can and can not be installed is not malware protection its ridiculous. Why not set up an equivalent to MSE, it minimally interferes with the user's experience and its updated by the people who wrote the OS.
     
      Mac OS X: Now more restrictive!

  14. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you're an insignificant twit. Now go buy some iShit products and some skinny jeans so you can show off at Starbucks.

  15. Not ready. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Developer forums filled with show-stopping (kernel panic inducing) bugs.

    I can't believe they're releasing this. It's almost as bad as the time they released Xcode and upgraded the default debugger from GDB to LLDB, but LLDB included a serious bug that made it virtually useless (you couldn't print out variables without it screwing them up).

    Sometimes I wonder if Apple has a working Q/A department anymore. Oh well, at least we got Twitter and Facebook integration- who cares if your machine panics a few times a day. Last I heard, panics don't require you to forcefully shut down the machine anymore- the kernel just dumps to NVRAM and reboots. And with auto-resume you should be right back where you were before the entire machine went down! Reminds me of that Microsoft powered in-dash car system that rebooted itself every so often as "regular system maintenance"...

    -AC

  16. Out of cats by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Funny

    What will they name releases when they run out of cats? I mean, "10.10 Housecat" just doesn't sound like a product people would be enthusiastic about...

    1. Re:Out of cats by prestonmichaelh · · Score: 3

      Pick a name from this chart? http://xkcd.com/1056/

    2. Re:Out of cats by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      With their new naming strategy it's likely to be *The New OS X*

    3. Re:Out of cats by Zemplar · · Score: 1

      10.10 will be hailed as "Calico" - not only just your typical domestic cat, but another ho-hum OS "upgrade" as well.



      I'm only so bitter as my 2006 Mac Pro won't be supported. Boo. Hiss.

    4. Re:Out of cats by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What will they name releases when they run out of cats?

      Slang terms for portions of the female anatomy.

      Duh.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Out of cats by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dunno, but for the 40th Anniversary of Apple (2016) I'm betting they put out a Cougar release.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Out of cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A new major revision number? OS 11.0

      The problem is that Apple does all of its Mac OS updates incrementally, so they haven't had a major revision in years. One might argue they should have done it with either the 32->64 bit transition or the end of PowerPC compatibility. Maybe greater integration with iOS will be the catalyst for a new major revision number.

    7. Re:Out of cats by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      They'll seal off their walled garden, turn it into a hellhole, and change their naming scheme to snakes.
      Remember the biblical story about the snake and the apple?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    8. Re:Out of cats by Megane · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting for OS X Liger (bred for its skills in magic!)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    9. Re:Out of cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That probably won't be a big improvement over Mountain Lion... http://xkcd.com/999/

    10. Re:Out of cats by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      10.10 will be Ocelot, and 11.1 will be Pangolin....
      wait a second, this seems familiar.

    11. Re:Out of cats by gshegosh · · Score: 1

      But, Lynx is already taken by a text browser ;-)

    12. Re:Out of cats by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      What will they name releases when they run out of cats?

      After Mountain Lion comes.... Space Lion!!

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  17. Re:Now more Chrome-y by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    By the time Mountain Lion launches, it will have been a few days over a year since the previous major release. Hardly 10 minute updates. Plus, it's rare that you meet someone who is aware and legitimately cares about a difference between Chrome version X and Chrome version X+1. In contrast, Apple added a few hundred new features, a few of which people have been requesting for years.

  18. Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.? Or will they start calling it OS-XI, and ten versions later OS-XII? Or will they do what M$ seems to be trying to do, of merging their desktop hegemony and their tablet "OS", and try to strong-arm/strangle the tablet market. They might release iOS-X, the "i" differentiating between regular OS-X, and a new OS for desktops, laptops, etc., that has a more iOS-like interface, allowing them to start at 1.0 again? It could be as iOS devices become powerful enough, they could get a full OS that could power a desktop... and they could add features to the MacAirPowerNoteBooklet (or whatever) to allow use as a tablet OR as a real computer, which would probably drag people in even more...

    Imagine for a moment if Apple's new laptop could be interfaced with via a touch-screen, OR using the mouse/track-pad or whatever, if you could hop back and forth between the iOS environment, and the OS-X one on a single machine... you know they could do it, even if they had to break down and make some kludge, of slapping an iOS environment emulator on top of OS-X... probably would be easier than trying to augment iOS to have OS-X's full capabilities. It could be kind of like (and I know I'm dating myself here...) when you typed "Go 64" into the Commodore 128 console, and got an emulated C-64 machine, capable of natively running any software written for the 64, or which a 64 could run even if it had originally been written for the Plus 4, etc. It would probably be great if for no other reason than to let dev's test out their iOS apps. Or are they already doing this? Anyone know anyone at Apple? Tell them if they're not, they SHOULD!

    Presumably the big-wigs at Apple have already made their decision... or maybe not. If the legacy of Steve Jobs taught Apple anything, it should be that any potentially embarrassing, stupid move they might make should be accidentally "leaked" in advance, to test the waters and see what their cult-members think of it first, THEN announce it's true. I think they've done that more than once. It's Apple's half-baked idea of market research by direct experimentation. OTOH, look at their bottom line and market dominance... it seems to have worked, so... how's that saying go? If it's stupid, but it works... it's not stupid.

    1. Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      No, it will be called "The New OS X".

    2. Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.?

      Probably. It's not as if there's some Iron Law that some particular component or components of a version ID are limited to one digit.

    3. Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes they have made their decision. They believe the desktop form factor and the tablet / phone form factor are fundamentally different and will stay different. The two can borrow for one another but they should have different functions and thus different types of applications. Microsoft is choosing an opposite approach. Consumers are going to get a real choice.

    4. Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... by pbjones · · Score: 1

      MacOSX 9 3/4, the Harry Potter release.

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
  19. Google and Amazon selling tablets at cost by perpenso · · Score: 1

    iPad sales up 84%. Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?

    You can't look at iPad sales in isolation. You have to also look at how the tablet market has grown year-over-year. For example if the tablet market is growing at a faster rate then Apple would be "falling behind". That is what happened with respect to personal computers back in the day. Apple had a huge share of the early adopters but as the rest of the population entered the personal computer market they chose IBM compatibles. Apple sold more computer each year as their market shrunk. With google and amazon selling tablets at cost a similar pattern may emerge.

    1. Re:Google and Amazon selling tablets at cost by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "With google and amazon selling tablets at cost"

      I don't think Apple really cares if Google and Amazon are paying people (or nearly so) to take their tablets. Dominant marketshare is only really critical if you intend to do evil things with it a la Microsoft.

    2. Re:Google and Amazon selling tablets at cost by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      I would care for a couple reasons if I'm at Apple:

      1) Apple is at it's heart is a hardware company. If the market is flooded with low-cost tablets it will drive sales and/or price of the tablets downwards. Either way, Apple loses revenue.
      2) The apps, books and the ad revenue that drive the money for Google, Amazon, B&N, Kobo et al. They could give two hoots about making money (as long as they aren't losing a ton of it) on the tablets as long as they make money on the other stuff.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    3. Re:Google and Amazon selling tablets at cost by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It already happened in the smartphone market. Android makes up the dominant part of the market by unit count. Apple makes more profit than everyone else put together.

      Apple's strategy has always been to make a quality product and sell it to those people who care about such things, and are willing to pay for it. They've said so on several occasions.

  20. Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snow Leopard seems to the gold standard within the OS X universe. I *had* to upgrade to Lion and noticed that its much buggy. Would like a return to the overall performance and stability of SL.

    Also when is Apple going to improve Finder. Its in dramatic need of a long overdue overhaul. Its so bad that the Linux desktop actually has a window of opportunity to surpass the Mac in terms of usability.

    1. Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I thought FTFF was to just remove the notion of files altogether and replace it with Launchpad.

    2. Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? by Meeni · · Score: 1

      And do something with the way keyboard shortcuts are handled. The inconsistent behavior that is the mark of OS-X is ruining productivity.

    3. Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? by zoloto · · Score: 2

      SL is great, but ML is leaps ahead of Lion. After running the GM since its release I can say it's noticeably faster on my early 2009 mac mini.

    4. Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? by speedingant · · Score: 1

      GM is fantastic - far more solid than Lion ever was.

  21. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what?

  22. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Assuming regularly distributed birthdays, since AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to birth date.

    AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to slashdot readership either...

  23. MOUNTAIN LION IS OUT?! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    I didn't even suspect it had teh gay!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  24. Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I "upgraded" from Snow Leopard to Lion at the urging of a friend who had it already and
    that upgrade has been an unmitigated disaster. I then spent many hours getting things
    which had "just worked" working again. The loss of productivity which resulted was significant.

    Snow Leopard was stable, and did everything I needed to do.

    Lion includes a bunch of iOS mimicry which is a stupid mistake and which makes me
    regret being an Apple user because it feels like I have been duped into thinking I was
    buying great design when I have been hoodwinked into buying consumer-level crap.

    Apple's attempt at forcing the merging of iOS device and laptop interface design is
    beyond merely annoying ; it has degraded the usefulness of my machine in a permanent
    manner and there is no fix short of going back to Snow Leopard.

    There will be no further "upgrades" for me, not when reduced functionality at the expense
    of satisfying the idiotic design decision which makes my high-end laptop act like an
    iPad.

    I may be a bit premature but I think this is the beginning of the end of Apple's run of
    making great operating systems and great laptops ( glued-in battery ? No thanks ! )

    Tim Cook is going to be famous for leading Apple into the abyss.

    Mark my words.

    1. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Why upgrade? Only do it when needed. Why not do a clean install instead?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I upgraded to the gold master weeks ago (thanks bittorrent). The upgrade went flawlessly. I would NEVER upgrade a Windows OS, and OSX's track record isn't perfect either, but Mountain Lion's upgrade process seems to have nailed it. Now, do you need to upgrade to Mountain Lion. To be honest, unless you've bought the new Macbook with Retina Display, I honestly wouldn't bother. The differences between Lion and Mountain Lion are minimal, but it does give my Retina Display Macbook a little extra love.

    3. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      Tim Cook is going to be famous for leading Apple into the abyss.

      I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I switched from Linux to Mac in 2006 because I was starting grad school and needed a *nix that Just Works. I've been a happy user, but Lion has been finicky, and the new hardware makes me cringe. I am now working my way back to Ubuntu. The only thing holding me back from using Ubuntu exclusively is that I need my EVE Online fixes, and getting the latest release working on WINE can be interesting.

      But yeah...in general, the shine seems to be coming off of Apple again.

    4. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      I just bought my first ever Apple product, a MacBook Air with Lion. I have been woefully unimpressed with the illogic of many of its features, the inconsistencies in use and design, and some of the downright irritating PITA aspects. Talking with my friends who are long time Apple users, it seems a good 90% of my complaints were all introduced with Lion. Many of of those power-users are of the same opinion as you. It's got some nice features but this will be the only Apple computer I'll be buying for a good long time.

    5. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Regardless of which OS you are upgrading you should always make a backup first so you have a fallback if it all ends in pain.

    6. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Could just put Win7 on it and be happy.

    7. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaand... marked.

      The trouble with Apple is that though no one seems to be saying it, it's obvious to anyone beating his head against the wall in frustration with the more asinine things Apple does, that Apple has a sort of pseudo-monopoly. They have a monopoly on Apple products, which they've managed to differentiate from real computing products (non monopolistic hardware producers,) enough to be their own "walled garden" of computing. You may disagree and question whether or not PC-land is a Microsoft monopoly, but I'll point out that by and large, (and 'till recently) MS has not made hardware. I'm not counting KB's and mice, unless you've got a mouse that can run Windows.

      I'm talking about the fact that there are people who will only buy Apple, who have a MacBook, an iPad, an iPhone, an iPod, who had an... what was it? An eMac? Remember those? If Apple made a camera, (just a camera, like an SLR,) they'd probably buy those too, instead of real cameras made by other companies. That's a form of monopoly, because no one else is allowed to make Apple products. Sure they're competing with PC manufacturers, but not in the same way they compete with each other. It'd be like if restaurants could not serve any form of alcohol, unless they had a special license, of which there were only so many to be issued, and the licenses all got bought up by Applebee's, (pun definitely intended). You can go out to eat at a restaurant, but if you want a cold-one with your meal, you MUST go to Applebee's. Then they add the hookah-bar/marijuana dispensary, and add rooms where you can lay down and quietly trip... no one else has that. Sure there are other places to get your 'jane', but nowhere that serves food, and booze, and has a dance-floor, and a bunch of flat screen TV's to watch the game on, and a gaming room, OTB, an oxygen bar... their monopoly is of goods and services catering to people who are such sycophantic fans of all things Apple that they will buy only that, to the exclusion of all else.

      There are Apple fans, who though they might not admit it even to themselves, would probably buy an Apple iToilet, if they sold one, happily shelling out $700 for the toilet, $86.50 for the special toilet removal and iToilet installation adapter tool, and of course, the extra-soft, self-dispensing iButtWipe that informs you via a soft hum, when you've wiped your butt, and nothing has come off, indicating your backside is clean, without you having to look.

      That's where Apple has gone. In that sense, they have cultivated their own private little monopoly. Unlike the infamous Microsoft monopoly, there was actually a superior product (in many respects) being offered, for a while, though it was definitely NOT at a lower price... they had a niche at the higher end, and you paid for the logo/badge, and the "experience".

      However, it was only superficially superior, it was SLICKER. Now it seems people are complaining about the integration of iOS interface elements with OS-X, which is funny, because I brought that up earlier... if it's true, Apple is eventually going to run out of steam, since competitors are catching up on the experience front, despite the machinations of their army of lawyers.

    8. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS infuriated me at first, but over time you'll get used to all the inconsistencies and stupidities. I still prefer Windows, but I don't think I'm actually any more productive with it, it's just a sentimental feeling.

    9. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I "upgraded" from Snow Leopard to Lion at the urging of a friend who had it already and
      that upgrade has been an unmitigated disaster.

      Anyone who has lived on the bleeding edge of Ubuntu over the last 6 years could have told you THAT.

      Dont like tinkering with your computer? Dont do a day-1 upgrade.

    10. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I have been woefully unimpressed with the illogic of many of its features, the inconsistencies in use and design, and some of the downright irritating PITA aspects.

      For example ?

    11. Re:Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Launchpad is an unmitigated disaster.

      The reverse scrolling is totally counterintuitive for scrolling windows.

      The merge of Exposé and Spaces was clunky and the OS randomly reorganises the individual spaces.

      Of course, by day two I had found out that there are options to turn off wrong-way-scrolling and auto-reorganisation of Spaces, returning my Mac to normal and you can ignore Launchpad.

      One thing still winds me up and that is the fact that the scroll thumb only makes itself visible when you use the scroll wheel or equivalent. I'd like it to appear when I mouse over the scroll bar.

      The other thing is that Apple Disneyfied the Address Book and Calendar applications and almost everybody hates that, especially as some functionality was lost as a result.

      Apart from that, Lion is absolutely fine.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  25. I should care why? Apple's a bitch to deal with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Apple has done anything right it's been to give people something to latch onto. It's products largely suck. It's not to say Microsoft's are any better. But... come on. Apple goes out of the way to make things difficult for people over 30 (and I'm only 25).

  26. "Gatekeeper" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed

    Apple must think people are really too stupid to know where this is going.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:"Gatekeeper" by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at their product line? Their motto isn't "Think Different" its "We think different so you don't have to."

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    2. Re:"Gatekeeper" by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Apple must think people are really too stupid to know where this is going.

      And they're probably right about that. On the other hand, people buy Nintendos, X-boxes, Roku boxes, etc all the time without batting an eyelash, so it's more likely that the people who know where this is going don't really care, or think it is a good thing.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  27. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Informative

    The machine is 64 bit but some components aren't.

  28. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by Rougement · · Score: 1

    I know, I've been taking a crash course on 32 bit EFI, etc. The bottom line seems to be that this is a completely arbitrary decision from Apple. The Mac Pro was sold to me as a "64 bit workstation" and now they say it isn't. I'd say they're on shaky legal ground there. Earlier version of ML also had a working 32 bit kernel and lots of people who are more adept than i have managed to successfully install and run ML using a custom boot loader so it is possible. Apple have dropped the ball here.

  29. Twitter integration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is it with all you idiots?

  30. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    You should go to MacRumors where they have a guy keeping on and on and on and on posting exactly the same nonsense as you do. You could make a friend and drown your sorrows together.

  31. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See, here's the thing you're missing. You have a fully functional machine which is running an OS more than 5 years newer than it, and it's doing it just fine. Lion will continue to work on it and be patched for the foreseeable future, and most software will run on it as well. What obligation does Apple have towards you? Did they sell you a machine that promised more than 5 years of updates? Or did they promise EFI64, which is what's needed to boot ML? (hint: they didn't). They sold you a 64-bit workstation, and you got a 64-bit workstation, and you've had no trouble upgrading the OS twice.

    Via hacks and other messy stuff, you might be able to get it to work, and I expect directions will be available shortly and relatively straightforward, but it's hard to blame Apple for not wanting to mess up the experience. They seem happy to allow "hacks" to extend their product's functionality, but they're not really the kind of company to give you enough rope to hang yourself with, which is how they keep their reputation that anything "Apple-sanctioned" "just works"

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  32. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bottom line seems to be that this is a completely arbitrary decision from Apple.

    No, they very specifically want you to buy the new and shiny.

  33. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    If you haven't bought anything from Apple in 5+ years, why should they care about you?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  34. This is a major OS update?? by Dahamma · · Score: 0

    brings a handful of iOS features to Macs, including the notes and reminders apps.

    They added a notepad. Wow.

    It adds a few other things, like Twitter integration

    I'm sure *everyone* was waiting for this one, it's hard to find a way to post to Twitter these days.

    Apple's Game Center

    aka, poor man's Live, or another way to push more game and DLC purchases.

    iMessage services

    A proprietary IM client that only works with iOS devices, amazing stuff!

    There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed.

    Preventing stupid people from clicking on Malware. Another revolutionary advancement.

    I guess at least it's only $20. Sounds reasonable until you hear Windows 8 will only be $40. Apple marketeers are Gods...

    1. Re:This is a major OS update?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds reasonable until you hear Windows 8 will only be $40.

      Sure, for a limited time and for the bare bones version only.

    2. Re:This is a major OS update?? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Bare bones how? Users can upgrade ALL THE WAY FROM XP to Windows 8 Pro for $40. That's a $40 upgrade from an OS released in 2001 (around the same time as OSX 10.0, in fact).

      When I tried to get a Macbook with OSX 10.3 upgraded to 10.6, the "genius" at the Apple store actually said "oh, we don't support that, but you may be able to find an old version of 10.4 on the Internet, and then we can sell you the 10.5 and 10.6 upgrades". How nice of them.

    3. Re:This is a major OS update?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bare bones how? Users can upgrade ALL THE WAY FROM XP to Windows 8 Pro for $40. That's a $40 upgrade from an OS released in 2001 (around the same time as OSX 10.0, in fact).

      When I tried to get a Macbook with OSX 10.3 upgraded to 10.6, the "genius" at the Apple store actually said "oh, we don't support that, but you may be able to find an old version of 10.4 on the Internet, and then we can sell you the 10.5 and 10.6 upgrades". How nice of them.

      First, no Macbook ever came with 10.3; 10.3 was PowerPC only and Macbooks are Intel only.
      Second, 10.6 comes on a disc for $30 that will install on bare metal (no OS installed) or update any previous version.

      Now I'll let you complain about how Apple charges thirty whole dollars of your hard-earned money for an OS upgrade disc that doesn't give you multiple orgasms, and gloat about how you're not a "fanboi" for not getting said multiple orgasms from an OS update.

  35. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by Rougement · · Score: 1

    iPad, several iPhones, laptops, software and several family members and friends who did likewise.

  36. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by sco08y · · Score: 1

    If you strip out the broken-hearted fanboy stuff, there's a perfectly rational letter in there explaining how his business needs aren't being met by their current product offerings, and that lack of software support for capable hardware is driving him to migrate to another platform.

  37. Kerberized NFSv4 by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

    Someone who is testing says that they've finally implemented it. I'm still skeptical.

  38. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    That's quite an attitude. What have you done for me lately?

  39. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by chriswaco · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree more about Apple abandoning perfectly fine, expensive hardware. My 8-core, 3GHz MacPro2,1 can still run circles around most of Apple's current lineup and yet it won't run Mountain Lion. I specifically waited for "64-bit" hardware so it would last longer. If new MacPros weren't so damn expensive or offered something more than compatibility in return it wouldn't be quite as annoying.

  40. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by gmhowell · · Score: 2

    That's quite an attitude. What have you done for me lately?

    Not a damned thing. Which is why I don't feel bad about you not doing anything for me.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  41. Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    iPad, several iPhones, laptops, software and several family members and friends who did likewise.

    And they all work as described when you bought them? I'm sensing a lot of butthurt for a product that has worked for five years. That has been updated for five years. That presumably will work as it currently does for another five years.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  42. Butthurt by Rougement · · Score: 1, Informative

    Butthurt? I'm pissed that Apple has abandoned the Mac pro 1,1 and 1,2 for no good reason. I bet Windows 8 will install fine and that is a fucking joke.

    1. Re:Butthurt by macshome · · Score: 1

      It's because they are EFI32 and not EFI64. I have a 2,1 as well. Without a soldering iron these aren't going to become EFI64 logic boards.

      You can complain about it here or head over to http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1123.0.html , install a 64-bit boot loader, and be done with it.

  43. Staying away by mattr · · Score: 1

    I have a MacBook Pro 5.2 running 10.6.8. So far I have luckily stayed away from "upgrades" to later OS X flavors.
    My Mom tried upgrading to Lion with her iMac and lost a lot of functionality, then limped to experts with a semi trashed system trying to roll back to use the applications that used to work.
    Since Lion and Mountain Lion sound like totally stupid mobile OS trappings I have no idea why I should even consider upgrading to Mountain Lion. Which is too bad since I have long wanted more advanced technology in areas that would help me in my work, which is why I bought this otherwise fantastic machine.
    One thing though, even though I have an express slot I'm not sure where to find storage that could take advantage of it, unfortunately. Express to USB3.0 connector anybody? It would help when cloning..

    1. Re:Staying away by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Okay, until the second paragraph you were about on the spot with some people's issues with applications needing to be updated to work on Lion. However, the second paragraph I'm raising an eyebrow. What mobile OS trappings (aside from moving the screen up/down with different finger directions than before) are we referring to? I've only seen additions of helpful things that weren't mobile-specific at all.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    2. Re:Staying away by mattr · · Score: 1

      From Apple's page.. http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/
      iCloud, iOS related things, Game Center to play iOS owners, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Vimeo, Sharing, Messages, Gatekeeper. Almost all of the things mentioned have to do with interaction between your Mac and iOS, other people on the Net, and well Gatekeeper is useful but basically it's their store. I'm dubious about PowerNap.
      Dictation sounds useful. If it really is any good I would buy it from the App Store for my current Mac, if they allowed it.

      On the other hand, it seems there are indeed work related improvements. So I will consider it in the future. After making a clone of my hard disk.
      http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/7/#document-model
      Apple has added APIs in Lion that, when used properly, enable the following experience.
      - The user does not have to remember to save documents. All work is automatically saved.
      - Closing a document or quitting an application does not require the user to make decisions about unsaved changes.
      - The user does not have to remember to save document changes before causing the document's file to be read by another application (e.g., attaching an open document with unsaved changes to an e-mail).
      - Quitting an application, logging out, or restarting the computer does not mean that all open documents and windows have to be manually re-opened next time.

  44. RTFM limited CPUs supported by pbjones · · Score: 1

    If the beta was anything to go on then hardware support is tight. Although it will work(?) of any iCPU (i5 etc) and they have been building then for a couple of years, it may not run on your trustily old Core 2 Duo. $20? I'm not upgrading just yet.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:RTFM limited CPUs supported by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      The beauty with Apple is you don't usually need to worry about the CPU, you can just refer to the computer itself. Especially since they built the entire package. The only reason you would worry about the CPU requirement is if you're running it on a hackintosh. If that's the case, you can deal with that problem yourself. Have fun!
      Since I'm a nice guy (and seem to understand how to look data up relatively quickly compared to you), here's your info. (only took me less than 2 minutes total to dig up this info for you)

      OS/X Mountain Lion Technical Specifications
      http://www.apple.com/osx/specs/

      Supported Models:
      iMac (Mid 2007 or newer) - 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
      MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer) - 2.0GHz or 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
      MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer) - 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
      Xserve (Early 2009) - 2.26GHz or two 2.26GHz, 2.66GHz, or 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series “Nehalem” processors
      MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer) - 1.6GHz or 1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
      Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer) - 2.0GHz or 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
      Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer) - Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  45. Support life? by AntEater · · Score: 2

    I see a lot of comments asking "Why upgrade?" or not to bother if what you are currently running is working for you. What about security patches and support? I've searched all over the place and, so far, haven't been able to find any clear statement about when Apple stops support for a particular version of OS X. The "word of mouth" answer seems to be only the current release and one version prior are supported with patches and security fixes. It seems a bit irresponsible to drop support for an OS without letting your customers know that they're system is no longer being updated to protect against the various vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

    --
    Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
  46. Re:What? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Windows 8 isn't due til October 26, no worries.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!