I haven't tried to install it on the same partion as OS 8, but I've installed it on the same machine as 8.6, and everthing is fine and dandy - classic works just fine.
I've heard that it handles it well. At least one person on the macosx-talk list said that it was super-fast. Unfortunately, I've also heard of people having to disable the second processor, so it sounds like there are issues with some of the machines.
X11 already compiles on Darwin, they have it in their CVS repository. You can take a look at: http://anoncvs.opensource.ap ple.com/cvs/Ports/XFree86/. Unfortunately, you have to register with them to get access to their CVS server.
As far as an X11 -> Quartz compatibility layer, that would be great. Tenon (www.tenon.com) has created an X server that runs on OS X and sounds like it integrates pretty well. They have a description & screenshots here.
Mac OS X is a long way from the old Mac OS. It is nearly impossible to create a competitive Java VM for the old Mac OS because it's lack of PMT, and other wierdness with how threads work and such. Mac OS X is a full blown UNIX-based platform, so Java is a much more direct port. I'm fairly confident that they can create a solid Java VM for OS X.
There's nothing wrong with keeping support for legacy devices as long as you don't break any of the new features to do it.
How much support do you think USB would have gotten if the iMac had serial ports? Hmm - we use serial, and get the entire macintosh market, or we use USB, and only get the iMacs. Everyone would have continued making serial peripherals, and the USB ports would be useless.
That was the only way to jumpstart the USB market - it was at a standstill before the iMac.
Your right, the clones were faster, cheaper, and Apple couldn't compete with them. In an open field, Apple can't compete.
The clones were faster and cheaper, because they took apple designed hardware and software, used cheaper components and cases, and were able to use the faster chips earlier because they were selling in smaller quantities. That isn't open competition, and it wasn't a good idea. If Apple hadn't quit licensing the clones, they would be gone, and there would be no Mac platform at all. But maybe that's what you wanted.
Okay, so what was the last major innovation to come out of Apple? The over-bloated Quicktime format? See thru cases? What exactly have they innovated in the last 5 years? They did do up a spec for Firewire, then demanded licensing fees that pretty much assured little in the way of industry support.
Firewire is a pretty good example, and those licensing fees are now gone. (Which didn't go straight to Apple in the first place, but a consortium of firewire developers). And the iMac was a lot more than a see-through case - it was the first real legacy-free PC. Why is it the PC world can't get rid of ISA slots and serial ports? How about making wireless networking standard on every computer they make? And USB would still suck if it weren't for Apple creating the market by making it the only way to add peripherals to the iMac. Innovation is more than just creating a new technology.
They've got a GUI that's integrating Win95 features into it and call it innovating.
Which Win95 features are you speaking of? Contextual menus? That's the only thing I can think of. The Win95 task bar is basically the apple menu + a window bar, and I personally prefer the application menu on the MacOS. If you think that the dock in OS X is a ripoff of the task bar, you're a bit off - the dock existed in NeXTSTEP long before Win95, and Win95 got a lot of its stuff from there.
Can you get any more closed than Apple?
Have you checked out http://www.publicsource.apple.com? They are opening up a lot - the entire core of OS X is public source, and in a live CVS repository, as well as a cool crossplatform networking library, and their streaming video server. Don't tell me that this is their obligation because of the BSD heritage - the BSD license allows you to close the source, and the NeXT stuff was all closed.
Apple is a much different company now. Pretty much the entire board of directors has been replaced, and most of their upper management came from NeXT. I think you need to get over stuff from the past, and look at what they are doing today.
I agree that you are 'overly indoctrinated with Li/*nix'.:)
Seriously though, I think that most mac users would argue that a 'case preserving' but 'case insenstive' filesystem is a feature, not a bug. In fact, I think that you would agree that this is actually harder to implement than a case insensitve filesystem.
If you think about it, it really makes sense from an end user point of view. When you think about things, do you do it with case in mind? When someone is speaking to you, are you constantly wondering if their words start with capital letters? No, of course not. And if I'm searching for a document on my drive, do I really want to look for 'important presentation' but not 'Important presentation'? No. At the same time, a 'README' in a directory full of mixed or lowercase files sticks out nicely.
That is why Apple has gone to the extra trouble of writing a 'case preserving' but 'case insensitive' filesystem. If you really don't like it, I would guess that's because you've gotten used to case sensitive systems, and not because of any real advantage. Generally, I don't see a big advantage to the ability to have two files in a directory that differ only in case. If the content of those two files is different enough to need them both, they probably should have names that reflect that.
> Even the users that would rather not know about the internals of the system will encounter it sometimes.
I agree with this. Fortunately, current versions of the MacOS aren't as bad as people make it out to be.
> So they were right to focus on marketing instead of programming?
Now that's just stupid, and not what he said at all. Focusing on the user dosn't have anything to do with marketing. Why do you think mac users are so loyal, because we like the commercials? No. It's because the MacOS is the only OS I've ever used that feels like it was designed with the user's needs in mind.
For an example of user-focused design, take a look at directory layout. If you are designing a system for use by non-techies, you want it to be obvious where files go, and what they are for. You have a 'System Folder' where all the system files go, and not/etc,/dev,/var, and so on. There is no reason you couldn't have a/system, and put all those things in there, but Linux/Unix isn't designed from the user point of view.
That's what people around here don't understand - a good easy to use GUI takes a lot more than a pretty window manager and a nice file manager. It has to go much deeper than that.
Your comment reveals that your point of view is coming from an OS where the GUI is just a shell.
On a pre-OS X mac, the GUI _is_ the OS - there really isn't any other way to interact with the system. The GUI is the whole point of the OS. Apple made some design tradeoffs in 1984 to enable that GUI. Preemptive multitasking and memory protection weren't feasible given their hardware constraints. Thankfully, we'll see the benefit of those things soon with OS X.
Personally, I tend to agree with the author that MacOS is a 'best-of-breed' OS, at least for the things I really care about. Personally, I'd prefer a mac that crashed twice a day (mine doesn't crash nearly that often) than linux with any of the currently available GUIs. Why? Because I interact with the GUI all day - this is what is important to me. If I crash, that's just a minute of rebooting time that I can spend to go get a snack or something to drink. It's not that big of a deal.
Given the design goals of MacOS (great UI), nothing else comes close. This is why it is 'best of breed'. The fact that those design goals don't match what you care about doesn't make it 'poor'. I wouldn't use OS 9 for a critical server, but for desktop use, I think it's the best.
Your statement that "the Mac interface hasn't changed much since 1984" tells me that you haven't used a Mac much since then. Tabbed windows, windowshading, contextual menus, button views, document proxies*, control strip, new looks, pop-up folders**, heirarchical apple menu (used to be single-level), and thats just the things I could think of in 5 seconds. There are plenty more.
However, the fact that the fundamentals of the interface have stayed the same just tells me that they designed it well from the beginning.
*Most people don't know about the document proxies. Any window that directly corresponds to a document has an icon in the title. Grabbing that icon and dragging it is just like dragging the document itself. A very cool feature.
**Popup folders are really cool too. Do a "click & a half" on a folder (double click, but hold down the second click) and the arrow turns into a magnifying glass. Holding the glass over a folder opens it. Dragging the glass over another folder opens that one, keeping the first open as well, until you find the folder you want. Release the mouse button, and all the folders but the one you want close. You can also do this while dragging icons - just hold the icon over a folder for a second, and it opens, and you can do this till you put it where you want it. Then everything closes neatly.
What hardware innovation might that be? I haven't seen anything but incremental improvement on the PC for quite some time. Really - show me some.
Since when did PCs really start using USB? When Apple included it on the iMac. When did they start coming with Firewire standard? Oh that's right, they don't.
I don't see anything in the way of hardware innovation, unless you count Intel trying to shove RAMBUS down everyones throats, so that they can have a lock on RAM as well.
Oh wait! The legacy-free PC! Nevermind, just a copy of the iMac.
Besides, when you weren't looking, Apple decided to use mostly industry standard parts. The RAM - industry standard SDRAM. The hard drives - industry standard ATA66 or SCSI. The video - AGP4x. Pretty much everything on a Mac motherboard is the same as on a PC, except for the G4, and the extra goodies Apple throws in. So the end result all that 'innovation' comes to the mac as well.
Methinks you are trolling, because nobody could be that miseducated. Or could they? I don't think Apple's dominance in desktop publishing has gone away - they just posted record profits, up 72% from last year this time. They're doing the best they ever have. Sure some people have switched to NT, but not the people I know. And they definitely aren't using linux. As far as the performance issue, I don't at all believe that PCs beat Macs "hands down". They may have more Mhz, but Mhz isn't everything. Look here for a look at a 450Mhz G4 beating out 1000Mhz chips easily. And anyone I know who has used Linux on a G4 says it blows away Linux on a top of the line PC. AMD & Intel have done an amazing job bumping up Mhz, but they still have all the old x86 architecture slowing them down. PowerPC doesn't have the Mhz, but they can get more than twice as much done per cycle, keeping them in the performance game. I'll be the first to admit that G4s aren't for everyone, but they are a lot better than you think, and certainly worth running linux on.
400MHz G4 1MB L2 64MB SDRAM 10GB Ultra ATA DVD-ROM/DVD-Video RAGE 128 Pro 10/100BASE-T 56K internal modem
Ram & HD upgrades you would want to do yourself, cause Apple charges a bit much. You can probably find lower prices if you shop around, that price is straight from the apple store. A lot of other places will have the same prices but throw in extra ram or something.
Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you correct someone else. Quicktime is "an API for manipulating media of different formats easily, which could be quicktime, mp3, avi, real, wav, or anything". (Except quicktime doesn't currently do real.) It is also a file format.
The quicktime player is just a simple application that uses that API. If you don't like the interface, you can use the quicktime 3 player on top of quicktime 4, and it works just fine. (Since all it does is access the quicktime media layer.)
This is _not_ true in any way. They have said on several occasions that Darwin is not the foundation for Mac OS X _Server_. However, this is not the same as OS X. From Wilfredo Sanches' diary on Avodgato:
One year later, we're about to roll out Darwin 1.0, the first version based on the new kernel (based on Mach 3.0 and some of FreeBSD 3.2) which includes our new C++ driver toolkit (IOKit) and a bunch of other new goodies. This is the release our developers have been waiting for, since it includes the CoreOS that we are building the _final Mac OS X product on_.
Give me a break. "new Apple-branded processor"? Motorola and IBM sell PowerPCs, not Apple. They just sell computers based on them. And how much more open can you get than an open-source kernel and BSD layer? And what do 'cutting edge games' have to do with processor performance? How many of these do you see on Sparcs or SGIs or Alpha? And I've seen more of them on the Mac lately than on Linux, although that could quickly change.
How can you define what they did as _right_ without creating a slippery slope that is going to wind up extending far beyond this case?
Let them get with this, and maybe ten years from now nobody will have any protection from blatant copies of original designs. It can go both ways, you know? Even for designs way more than original than the iMac.
There isn't even a ROM chip anymore on new macs. What used to be in the ROM is stored in a file in the system folder, and loaded into RAM at boot. Booting is actually controlled by Open Firmware, which as the name implies, is open.
Not very original I'm afraid, but funny. Anyone else here a fan of The Onion?
Re:Filesystems question
on
MacOS X DP3
·
· Score: 1
DP2 can boot off either HFS+ or UFS, which doesn't have any of the HFS+ stuff in it. Supposedly they're gonna keep it that way.
Re:Your wish is granted
on
MacOS X DP3
·
· Score: 2
As a matter of fact, John Carmack (yes, that John Carmack) has recently posted an early port of X for Mac OS X Server, and says that it should be working on Darwin shortly
Slashdot Mirror
Active Internet connections (including servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address (state)
tcp 0 0 *.22 *.* LISTEN
tcp 0 0 *.80 *.* LISTEN
tcp 0 0 *.427 *.* LISTEN
tcp 0 0 *.548 *.* LISTEN
tcp 0 0 *.759 *.* LISTEN
tcp 0 0 *.762 *.* LISTEN
tcp 0 0 *.sunrpc *.* LISTEN
I turned on sshd (installed by default!) and apache myself. I also cut out all the lines without a LISTEN.
I haven't tried to install it on the same partion as OS 8, but I've installed it on the same machine as 8.6, and everthing is fine and dandy - classic works just fine.
I've heard that it handles it well. At least one person on the macosx-talk list said that it was super-fast. Unfortunately, I've also heard of people having to disable the second processor, so it sounds like there are issues with some of the machines.
As far as an X11 -> Quartz compatibility layer, that would be great. Tenon (www.tenon.com) has created an X server that runs on OS X and sounds like it integrates pretty well. They have a description & screenshots here.
Mac OS X is a long way from the old Mac OS. It is nearly impossible to create a competitive Java VM for the old Mac OS because it's lack of PMT, and other wierdness with how threads work and such. Mac OS X is a full blown UNIX-based platform, so Java is a much more direct port. I'm fairly confident that they can create a solid Java VM for OS X.
How much support do you think USB would have gotten if the iMac had serial ports? Hmm - we use serial, and get the entire macintosh market, or we use USB, and only get the iMacs. Everyone would have continued making serial peripherals, and the USB ports would be useless.
That was the only way to jumpstart the USB market - it was at a standstill before the iMac.
The clones were faster and cheaper, because they took apple designed hardware and software, used cheaper components and cases, and were able to use the faster chips earlier because they were selling in smaller quantities. That isn't open competition, and it wasn't a good idea. If Apple hadn't quit licensing the clones, they would be gone, and there would be no Mac platform at all. But maybe that's what you wanted.
Okay, so what was the last major innovation to come out of Apple? The over-bloated Quicktime format? See thru cases? What exactly have they innovated in the last 5 years? They did do up a spec for Firewire, then demanded licensing fees that pretty much assured little in the way of industry support.
Firewire is a pretty good example, and those licensing fees are now gone. (Which didn't go straight to Apple in the first place, but a consortium of firewire developers). And the iMac was a lot more than a see-through case - it was the first real legacy-free PC. Why is it the PC world can't get rid of ISA slots and serial ports? How about making wireless networking standard on every computer they make? And USB would still suck if it weren't for Apple creating the market by making it the only way to add peripherals to the iMac. Innovation is more than just creating a new technology.
They've got a GUI that's integrating Win95 features into it and call it innovating.
Which Win95 features are you speaking of? Contextual menus? That's the only thing I can think of. The Win95 task bar is basically the apple menu + a window bar, and I personally prefer the application menu on the MacOS. If you think that the dock in OS X is a ripoff of the task bar, you're a bit off - the dock existed in NeXTSTEP long before Win95, and Win95 got a lot of its stuff from there.
Can you get any more closed than Apple?
Have you checked out http://www.publicsource.apple.com? They are opening up a lot - the entire core of OS X is public source, and in a live CVS repository, as well as a cool crossplatform networking library, and their streaming video server. Don't tell me that this is their obligation because of the BSD heritage - the BSD license allows you to close the source, and the NeXT stuff was all closed.
Apple is a much different company now. Pretty much the entire board of directors has been replaced, and most of their upper management came from NeXT. I think you need to get over stuff from the past, and look at what they are doing today.
I agree that you are 'overly indoctrinated with Li/*nix'. :)
Seriously though, I think that most mac users would argue that a 'case preserving' but 'case insenstive' filesystem is a feature, not a bug. In fact, I think that you would agree that this is actually harder to implement than a case insensitve filesystem.
If you think about it, it really makes sense from an end user point of view. When you think about things, do you do it with case in mind? When someone is speaking to you, are you constantly wondering if their words start with capital letters? No, of course not. And if I'm searching for a document on my drive, do I really want to look for 'important presentation' but not 'Important presentation'? No. At the same time, a 'README' in a directory full of mixed or lowercase files sticks out nicely.
That is why Apple has gone to the extra trouble of writing a 'case preserving' but 'case insensitive' filesystem. If you really don't like it, I would guess that's because you've gotten used to case sensitive systems, and not because of any real advantage. Generally, I don't see a big advantage to the ability to have two files in a directory that differ only in case. If the content of those two files is different enough to need them both, they probably should have names that reflect that.
> Even the users that would rather not know about the internals of the system will encounter it sometimes.
/etc, /dev, /var, and so on. There is no reason you couldn't have a /system, and put all those things in there, but Linux/Unix isn't designed from the user point of view.
I agree with this. Fortunately, current versions of the MacOS aren't as bad as people make it out to be.
> So they were right to focus on marketing instead of programming?
Now that's just stupid, and not what he said at all. Focusing on the user dosn't have anything to do with marketing. Why do you think mac users are so loyal, because we like the commercials? No. It's because the MacOS is the only OS I've ever used that feels like it was designed with the user's needs in mind.
For an example of user-focused design, take a look at directory layout. If you are designing a system for use by non-techies, you want it to be obvious where files go, and what they are for. You have a 'System Folder' where all the system files go, and not
That's what people around here don't understand - a good easy to use GUI takes a lot more than a pretty window manager and a nice file manager. It has to go much deeper than that.
Your comment reveals that your point of view is coming from an OS where the GUI is just a shell.
On a pre-OS X mac, the GUI _is_ the OS - there really isn't any other way to interact with the system. The GUI is the whole point of the OS. Apple made some design tradeoffs in 1984 to enable that GUI. Preemptive multitasking and memory protection weren't feasible given their hardware constraints. Thankfully, we'll see the benefit of those things soon with OS X.
Personally, I tend to agree with the author that MacOS is a 'best-of-breed' OS, at least for the things I really care about. Personally, I'd prefer a mac that crashed twice a day (mine doesn't crash nearly that often) than linux with any of the currently available GUIs. Why? Because I interact with the GUI all day - this is what is important to me. If I crash, that's just a minute of rebooting time that I can spend to go get a snack or something to drink. It's not that big of a deal.
Given the design goals of MacOS (great UI), nothing else comes close. This is why it is 'best of breed'. The fact that those design goals don't match what you care about doesn't make it 'poor'. I wouldn't use OS 9 for a critical server, but for desktop use, I think it's the best.
Your statement that "the Mac interface hasn't changed much since 1984" tells me that you haven't used a Mac much since then. Tabbed windows, windowshading, contextual menus, button views, document proxies*, control strip, new looks, pop-up folders**, heirarchical apple menu (used to be single-level), and thats just the things I could think of in 5 seconds. There are plenty more.
However, the fact that the fundamentals of the interface have stayed the same just tells me that they designed it well from the beginning.
*Most people don't know about the document proxies. Any window that directly corresponds to a document has an icon in the title. Grabbing that icon and dragging it is just like dragging the document itself. A very cool feature.
**Popup folders are really cool too. Do a "click & a half" on a folder (double click, but hold down the second click) and the arrow turns into a magnifying glass. Holding the glass over a folder opens it. Dragging the glass over another folder opens that one, keeping the first open as well, until you find the folder you want. Release the mouse button, and all the folders but the one you want close. You can also do this while dragging icons - just hold the icon over a folder for a second, and it opens, and you can do this till you put it where you want it. Then everything closes neatly.
I code in Perl all day on my mac, because BBEdit kicks the shit out of vi & emacs.
Of course, BBEdit saves the files to my linux box over FTP, so you could kind of say I program on linux, but I'm doing all the typing on my mac.
So I guess that makes one.
What hardware innovation might that be? I haven't seen anything but incremental improvement on the PC for quite some time. Really - show me some.
Since when did PCs really start using USB? When Apple included it on the iMac. When did they start coming with Firewire standard? Oh that's right, they don't.
I don't see anything in the way of hardware innovation, unless you count Intel trying to shove RAMBUS down everyones throats, so that they can have a lock on RAM as well.
Oh wait! The legacy-free PC! Nevermind, just a copy of the iMac.
Besides, when you weren't looking, Apple decided to use mostly industry standard parts. The RAM - industry standard SDRAM. The hard drives - industry standard ATA66 or SCSI. The video - AGP4x. Pretty much everything on a Mac motherboard is the same as on a PC, except for the G4, and the extra goodies Apple throws in. So the end result all that 'innovation' comes to the mac as well.
Methinks you are trolling, because nobody could be that miseducated. Or could they? I don't think Apple's dominance in desktop publishing has gone away - they just posted record profits, up 72% from last year this time. They're doing the best they ever have. Sure some people have switched to NT, but not the people I know. And they definitely aren't using linux. As far as the performance issue, I don't at all believe that PCs beat Macs "hands down". They may have more Mhz, but Mhz isn't everything. Look here for a look at a 450Mhz G4 beating out 1000Mhz chips easily. And anyone I know who has used Linux on a G4 says it blows away Linux on a top of the line PC. AMD & Intel have done an amazing job bumping up Mhz, but they still have all the old x86 architecture slowing them down. PowerPC doesn't have the Mhz, but they can get more than twice as much done per cycle, keeping them in the performance game. I'll be the first to admit that G4s aren't for everyone, but they are a lot better than you think, and certainly worth running linux on.
What are you talking about? G4s start at $1599.
400MHz G4
1MB L2
64MB SDRAM
10GB Ultra ATA
DVD-ROM/DVD-Video
RAGE 128 Pro
10/100BASE-T
56K internal modem
Ram & HD upgrades you would want to do yourself, cause Apple charges a bit much. You can probably find lower prices if you shop around, that price is straight from the apple store. A lot of other places will have the same prices but throw in extra ram or something.
Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you correct someone else. Quicktime is "an API for manipulating media of different formats easily, which could be quicktime, mp3, avi, real, wav, or anything". (Except quicktime doesn't currently do real.) It is also a file format.
The quicktime player is just a simple application that uses that API. If you don't like the interface, you can use the quicktime 3 player on top of quicktime 4, and it works just fine. (Since all it does is access the quicktime media layer.)
This is _not_ true in any way. They have said on several occasions that Darwin is not the foundation for Mac OS X _Server_. However, this is not the same as OS X. From Wilfredo Sanches' diary on Avodgato:
One year later, we're about to roll out Darwin 1.0, the first version based on the new kernel (based on Mach 3.0 and some of FreeBSD 3.2) which includes our new C++ driver toolkit (IOKit) and a bunch of other new goodies. This is the release our developers have been waiting for, since it includes the CoreOS that we are building the _final Mac OS X product on_.
(Underscores added by me)
Give me a break. "new Apple-branded processor"? Motorola and IBM sell PowerPCs, not Apple. They just sell computers based on them. And how much more open can you get than an open-source kernel and BSD layer? And what do 'cutting edge games' have to do with processor performance? How many of these do you see on Sparcs or SGIs or Alpha? And I've seen more of them on the Mac lately than on Linux, although that could quickly change.
This has gotta be a troll.
How can you define what they did as _right_ without creating a slippery slope that is going to wind up extending far beyond this case?
Let them get with this, and maybe ten years from now nobody will have any protection from blatant copies of original designs. It can go both ways, you know? Even for designs way more than original than the iMac.
There isn't even a ROM chip anymore on new macs. What used to be in the ROM is stored in a file in the system folder, and loaded into RAM at boot. Booting is actually controlled by Open Firmware, which as the name implies, is open.
Well, they are moving from a binary nib format to XML, so you should be able to figure out the format pretty easily.
If you're gonna copy from The Onion word for word, you could at least have the decency to give them credit.
Not very original I'm afraid, but funny. Anyone else here a fan of The Onion?
DP2 can boot off either HFS+ or UFS, which doesn't have any of the HFS+ stuff in it. Supposedly they're gonna keep it that way.
As a matter of fact, John Carmack (yes, that John Carmack) has recently posted an early port of X for Mac OS X Server, and says that it should be working on Darwin shortly