That and also the fact you need at least a 600 G3 so that desktop navigation doesn't take all day.
RAM is more important than CPU power, and the biggest consumer of memory is Classic, the Mac OS 9 compatibility environment. As more apps become native, the need for Classic should deminish.
Is that for real? Ok, they will be one of the largest, but I would have thought that Sun would have been largest, if not SCO (from what I've heard, a lot of people still use SCO Unix, even if new shipments are low). Anyone got any figures on this?
Apple tends to sell roughly 4-5 million machines a year on average. Although that was a bit lower in the last couple of quarters due to the downturn in the economy, their new Ti PowerBooks and iBooks appear to be big hits (having trouble finding one for my sister at the moment). It looks like they sold at least 150,000 copies of Mac OS X to users the first weekend it was out back in March.
I don't know how this compares to Sun, HP, etc in terms of unit sales.
the Classic environment (where OS 9 apps run) takes awhile to load, but once it's running, it's just there and mostly swaps out. This is necessary for viewing PDF's, using SimpleText, and a couple other things still, but new OS X stuff is coming out frequently
There's an OSX native version of Acrobat available for download, and Apple's built-in Preview app gives you no-frills PDF viewing as well. And why are you using SimpleText? TextEdit is a much better RTF editor, and you can use BBEdit or a million other plain text editors.
now-familiar archaeologist/scholar as adventurer. (Why are all of these archaeologists so rich in movies? And so brave?)
I can answer that.
Because the a poor, fearful archaeologist would only have enough funds and courage to venture to the end of the street. It's going to be difficult to find the ruins of ancient civilizations there.
The type of things Disney does today is so much more diverse that it's hard to compare it to its 1950s counterpart.
Personally, I don't care if Disney the corporation fell off the face of the earth. Just save their feature animation department. They are absolutely phenominal when it comes to that.
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
Not only would the UI designers and driver developers be in totally seperate departments and under different budgets, but Microsoft has effectively infinite resources.
Or do Mac users like being told what hardware to buy?
I think you're missing the forest here: the hardware is 50% of the reason people buy Macs to begin with. Mac hardware is industry leading in many areas. No, not every area.
Apple was the first to build an all-USB machine. As far as I know, it also was the first to have built-in 3.5" drives, ethernet, SCSI, wireless anteneeas, FireWire. It's also pioneering low-energy and fanless operation. And the tower cases are the easiest to open and work with out of anything I've ever used.
Apple's hardware isn't flawless, but it's not like most Mac users are saying "I want Mac OS X, but oh shit I have to buy a G4 to run it." That's part of the whole package. Apple is a systems company. If you don't like it, then go buy a PC running Windows or Linux. Or build your own, and recompile your kernel every 38 days. That's fine. But not everyone wants that.
Furthermore, it cant possibly be to hard to get Mac OS X native applications to run on a Mac linux distro
This is a big misconception. Just because both Mac OS X and Linux have Unix-like cores, does not mean that it's easy to port Mac OS X GUI apps to Linux. The APIs are completely different. Mac OS X doesn't use X11 nor GNOME/KDE, for example.
Some people point out up GNUStep as a possible bridge for Cocoa apps to get to other Unix distros, but I'm not sure how well that really works, especially since things have changed since the OpenStep days.
But Carbon apps (Photoshop, Office, Dreamweaver, IE) are not going to end up on Linux anytime soon.
I'm not looking for the most flashy web site. I'm looking for the web site that loads fastest, gives me the information I want, and lets me click the Exit button without flashing a million things in my face.
"Dave, your interest in art is irrational."
You probably don't like books with pictures, either.:)
Believe it or not, there are people that like sites that look nice (gasp!) and want more than raw text. If we were computers, we wouldn't care -- but since we're human, we can appreciate art, entertainment and creativity. Especially when we're crawling through some really boring material.
Now granted, there are times when the site design is so out of control that it actually hampers your ability to get to what you need. But surely there is a happy medium between russian submarine and parade float.
Personally, I don't use much Flash, largely because the format forces me to use applications I don't particularly like, and makes dynamic content generation either difficult or expensive. However, the extremist viewpoint that websites are just about information, and that design is irrevalent is really wearing thin. If that was the case, I think it would have been gopher that caught on, not HTML.
The orginal version 10.0.0 had no openssl or openssh.
Yeah, but the public beta did have OpenSSH and OpenSSL. The first retail release did not have crypto because not everything got worked out with the government in time.
I've been told that the reason older versions of OpenSS[H/L] were included with the update was the same reason -- it takes time to get approval for newer software. I'm not sure how true this is, just what I was told.
You're right - maybe I, like 90% of the population, don't know what DV is. Or care.
But if they've bought a video camera in the last -- what -- three years, then they already have DV. This number is only going to increase over time. There's really no point in dealing with non-DV formats if you want to end up outputting to DVD, because the quality will suffer to much in the process. As for why you'd want to output to DVD, see my other response higher in the thread.
DVD has sold well not because of better resolution, but because of 5.1 sound.
Hmmmmmm.
You make the bad assumption that everyone is looking to buy a new camcorder, but many people are happy with their VHS, 8mm, and even betamax cameras.
Until they buy something else, which is inevitable for most people who own this stuff in the first place.
I'm sure, thanks to Sony, firewire won't go away for a long time. It will die a slow and painful death like beta, DAT and MD.
And it will die at the mercy of....? Everybody significant is backing DV/FireWire. Dell provides FireWire options, right? Apple and Sony ship it standard on their machines, and it's built into just about every video camera made in the last several years. Do you know how fast people are buying these things? Microsoft is also backing FireWire in Windows.
And I have made my own videos, all 3 of them over the last 10 yrs. I consider myself an average user. I sure as hell don't want to buy a new camera, computer, and media to edit a video once every 3 yrs, why would anyone else?
You will need a new camera. You don't need to buy a new computer, you just get a FireWire card. And you're going to buy new media anyway, which is pretty cheap.
iMovie, DV, D8, all of it is fine technology. As was beta and MD. But if the average joe doesn't want to fork over the extra money for it, how long will your product last?
You make it sound like there's something else you can buy today. Realize if you walk into a consumer electronics store and buy a video camera, you're getting a DV camera. This has been the case for a while. People still have non-DV equipment, but that's going to fade through attrition. Eventually, something will replace DV as well.
This I can guarantee you: the market is not going to return to High-8.
Their market research consists of Mac addicts, so Mac fans get what Mac fans want. Nevermind that non-Mac users don't care for any of it.
The retail version, Mac OS X 10.0, was released on March 24. The 10.0.1 update followed about 1-2 weeks later. This was mainly bug fixes and minor performance enhancements. This update was anticipated. On May 1, 10.0.2 was posted. This brought CD burning in Tunes, a fix for a possible ftp daemon exploit, and some updates to the mail client. Again, not an unexpected update. Apple had announced this would be coming.
I suspect the point at which people were a bit suprised is when 10.0.3 showed up a few days ago. It had only been about a week since the last update. This was probably an unscheduled update. The main (and perhaps, only) purpose of this update was to fix a bug where HFS+ volumes would not list the entire contents of directories in certain situations with many (>300) files.
Here's some details that I think were missed:
o The 10.0.3 update incorporates everything in 10.0.2
o The updates are optional
o You can configure your machine to check for updates automatically or manually
o Apple eventually posts the updates as self-contained archives
It's not surprising that the Mac people would be surprised and perhaps distraught at the idea of frequent updates. It was not unusual for updates of Mac OS 8/9 (aka "Classic Mac OS") to break applications/extensions or cause them to behave erratically. This was largely due to the architecture. However, I don't think some poeple realize how drastically different the architecture is in Mac Os X.
Previously, Apple would let bugs (even some relatively serious ones) go unfixed in Mac OS 8/9 until the next scheduled update. This was probably due to the fact that the operating system was a mountain of procedural spagetti code dating back to 1984. Not only did this make things hard to fix, but putting out one fire might cause another to flare up.
Now that Apple is working with a reasonable software foundation, they can move updates out the door much more swiftly, and with less fear that they're going to tumble the house of cards. I think this is a good thing, especially when update addresses a filesystem bug. But the Mac community is not exactly known for embracing change with open arms...
Steve Job's glittery eye candy provides little functionality
I doubt you've used OSX for any extended period of time (if at all), otherwise you probably wouldn't be saying that. They really thought the UI out. There are a number of very clever improvements in the functionality of the UI.
too many CPU cycles to render it.
Yeah, it's really hard to put a bitmap on the screen. Come on, this is 2001. I think we can afford to "waste" a few cycles on drop shadows and transparencies. Not everything has to look like TVWM.
The fact that it lacks stability means Apple has a piss-poor staff of people admining their programmers.
Ummmm, I haven't see a kernel panic on OSX yet. I ran the public beta for 7+ months. I'm running the GM on three separate machines. Not everyone is having problems. They might just be hardware issues that have to be ironed out. Heck, I've seen poor hardware cause Solaris to panic.
Thanks for explaining why the system requirements for Mac OSX are so ludicrous.
Mac OS X's requirements are "so ludicrous" because it has to run two OSs at once: Mac OS X itself and Mac OS 9 via the "Classic" environment. If you're only running native apps (which the are relatively few at this second, but many are coming this summer), then you'll probably do just fine on 64MB of RAM. Last time I checked, this is pretty comparable to GNOME or KDE.
"Ooooh...the Linux guy HATES OS X! He must be threatened by it!" media frenzy. That single out-of-context quote, combined with "Linux as insofar failed to bring UNIX to the desktop, which is what Apple believes OS X WILL do", makes it even worse.
This is, unfortunately, how many journalists work. They try to stir up controversey. They must think the facts are boring. I think these people are in the wrong line of work. They should be writing soap operas.
MSIE under Mac OS X is a *Carbon* app. This means that it runs the same binary as on the usual MacOS.
Not all Carbon apps can run under both the old (Mac OS 8/Mac OS 9) and the new (Mac OS X) architectures. There are two types of Carbon apps: CFM/PEF and dyld/Mach-O. Both run under OSX, OS8/OS9 can only run the former.
I believe the version of MacIE included with Mac OS X 1.0 is Mach-O. It is only designed to run under OSX.
a) go see the thing demoed somewhere when it comes out
b) don't buy it.
Simple, ne?
Not quite this simple. Making the XBOX appear better than it is (whether this actually happened or not) might make people less interested in PS2. This would be akin to saying the next version of NT will have a bunch of features, just to prevent people from investing in Linux, Solaris, etc. This is why vaporware sucks.
iDVD is an authoring tool. It's used in conjunction with the DVD-R drives in the new PowerMacs.
The thing limiting the DVD playback under OSX is unlikely to be the fact that the little DVD player app isn't ported. That could probably be done in very short order. I would imagine it has more to do with the decoding functionality.
Hrrm, let's look at this here... unsupported hardware that's become industry standard
The article doesn't talk at all about unsupported hardware. The DVD drive works, as do all the video cards. The only thing that doesn't work is DVD video playback, and some mysterious "sources" talk about that OSX won't initially take full advantage of Radeon and GeForce 3. This is obviously a short-term issue, since Carmack's GeForce 3 demo was running on OSX.
numerous bugs and errors that can cause system hangs or freezes, those bugs are acknowledged by Apple, and they're saying that they really want people to just wait a few months for the real thing to come out.
Come again? Please point out these "numerous bugs and errors that can cause system hangs or freezes." The only thing that sounds anything like this in the article is the author's "sources" saying there are crashing bugs in the Setup Assistant -- not the OS. There are a number of qualifications on the statement in question, by the way.
This sounds EXACTLY like a beta test
If bugs are the qualification for a beta test, then every major OS in wide distribution is in beta.
How many people using Windows 2000 or Linux have a dual boot back into Windows ME or 98 so that they can run certain things better?
most likely charge for the OS X 1.0 to 1.1 upgrade
Highly unlikely if you look at the history of such things.
Slashdot Mirror
That and also the fact you need at least a 600 G3 so that desktop navigation doesn't take all day.
RAM is more important than CPU power, and the biggest consumer of memory is Classic, the Mac OS 9 compatibility environment. As more apps become native, the need for Classic should deminish.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Is that for real? Ok, they will be one of the largest, but I would have thought that Sun would have been largest, if not SCO (from what I've heard, a lot of people still use SCO Unix, even if new shipments are low). Anyone got any figures on this?
Apple tends to sell roughly 4-5 million machines a year on average. Although that was a bit lower in the last couple of quarters due to the downturn in the economy, their new Ti PowerBooks and iBooks appear to be big hits (having trouble finding one for my sister at the moment). It looks like they sold at least 150,000 copies of Mac OS X to users the first weekend it was out back in March.
I don't know how this compares to Sun, HP, etc in terms of unit sales.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
the Classic environment (where OS 9 apps run) takes awhile to load, but once it's running, it's just there and mostly swaps out. This is necessary for viewing PDF's, using SimpleText, and a couple other things still, but new OS X stuff is coming out frequently
There's an OSX native version of Acrobat available for download, and Apple's built-in Preview app gives you no-frills PDF viewing as well. And why are you using SimpleText? TextEdit is a much better RTF editor, and you can use BBEdit or a million other plain text editors.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
now-familiar archaeologist/scholar as adventurer. (Why are all of these archaeologists so rich in movies? And so brave?)
I can answer that.
Because the a poor, fearful archaeologist would only have enough funds and courage to venture to the end of the street. It's going to be difficult to find the ruins of ancient civilizations there.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
The type of things Disney does today is so much more diverse that it's hard to compare it to its 1950s counterpart.
Personally, I don't care if Disney the corporation fell off the face of the earth. Just save their feature animation department. They are absolutely phenominal when it comes to that.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
Not only would the UI designers and driver developers be in totally seperate departments and under different budgets, but Microsoft has effectively infinite resources.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Or do Mac users like being told what hardware to buy?
I think you're missing the forest here: the hardware is 50% of the reason people buy Macs to begin with. Mac hardware is industry leading in many areas. No, not every area.
Apple was the first to build an all-USB machine. As far as I know, it also was the first to have built-in 3.5" drives, ethernet, SCSI, wireless anteneeas, FireWire. It's also pioneering low-energy and fanless operation. And the tower cases are the easiest to open and work with out of anything I've ever used.
Apple's hardware isn't flawless, but it's not like most Mac users are saying "I want Mac OS X, but oh shit I have to buy a G4 to run it." That's part of the whole package. Apple is a systems company. If you don't like it, then go buy a PC running Windows or Linux. Or build your own, and recompile your kernel every 38 days. That's fine. But not everyone wants that.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Furthermore, it cant possibly be to hard to get Mac OS X native applications to run on a Mac linux distro
This is a big misconception. Just because both Mac OS X and Linux have Unix-like cores, does not mean that it's easy to port Mac OS X GUI apps to Linux. The APIs are completely different. Mac OS X doesn't use X11 nor GNOME/KDE, for example.
Some people point out up GNUStep as a possible bridge for Cocoa apps to get to other Unix distros, but I'm not sure how well that really works, especially since things have changed since the OpenStep days.
But Carbon apps (Photoshop, Office, Dreamweaver, IE) are not going to end up on Linux anytime soon.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Meaning, I could present content without having to reload the darn page every time I query
If it's used in that way, yes. But there's still the problem that the format is only machine-readable. That's a big problem.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I'm not looking for the most flashy web site. I'm looking for the web site that loads fastest, gives me the information I want, and lets me click the Exit button without flashing a million things in my face.
:)
"Dave, your interest in art is irrational."
You probably don't like books with pictures, either.
Believe it or not, there are people that like sites that look nice (gasp!) and want more than raw text. If we were computers, we wouldn't care -- but since we're human, we can appreciate art, entertainment and creativity. Especially when we're crawling through some really boring material.
Now granted, there are times when the site design is so out of control that it actually hampers your ability to get to what you need. But surely there is a happy medium between russian submarine and parade float.
Personally, I don't use much Flash, largely because the format forces me to use applications I don't particularly like, and makes dynamic content generation either difficult or expensive. However, the extremist viewpoint that websites are just about information, and that design is irrevalent is really wearing thin. If that was the case, I think it would have been gopher that caught on, not HTML.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
The orginal version 10.0.0 had no openssl or openssh.
Yeah, but the public beta did have OpenSSH and OpenSSL. The first retail release did not have crypto because not everything got worked out with the government in time.
I've been told that the reason older versions of OpenSS[H/L] were included with the update was the same reason -- it takes time to get approval for newer software. I'm not sure how true this is, just what I was told.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
You're right - maybe I, like 90% of the population, don't know what DV is. Or care.
But if they've bought a video camera in the last -- what -- three years, then they already have DV. This number is only going to increase over time. There's really no point in dealing with non-DV formats if you want to end up outputting to DVD, because the quality will suffer to much in the process. As for why you'd want to output to DVD, see my other response higher in the thread.
DVD has sold well not because of better resolution, but because of 5.1 sound.
Hmmmmmm.
You make the bad assumption that everyone is looking to buy a new camcorder, but many people are happy with their VHS, 8mm, and even betamax cameras.
Until they buy something else, which is inevitable for most people who own this stuff in the first place.
I'm sure, thanks to Sony, firewire won't go away for a long time. It will die a slow and painful death like beta, DAT and MD.
And it will die at the mercy of....? Everybody significant is backing DV/FireWire. Dell provides FireWire options, right? Apple and Sony ship it standard on their machines, and it's built into just about every video camera made in the last several years. Do you know how fast people are buying these things? Microsoft is also backing FireWire in Windows.
And I have made my own videos, all 3 of them over the last 10 yrs. I consider myself an average user. I sure as hell don't want to buy a new camera, computer, and media to edit a video once every 3 yrs, why would anyone else?
You will need a new camera. You don't need to buy a new computer, you just get a FireWire card. And you're going to buy new media anyway, which is pretty cheap.
iMovie, DV, D8, all of it is fine technology. As was beta and MD. But if the average joe doesn't want to fork over the extra money for it, how long will your product last?
You make it sound like there's something else you can buy today. Realize if you walk into a consumer electronics store and buy a video camera, you're getting a DV camera. This has been the case for a while. People still have non-DV equipment, but that's going to fade through attrition. Eventually, something will replace DV as well.
This I can guarantee you: the market is not going to return to High-8.
Their market research consists of Mac addicts, so Mac fans get what Mac fans want. Nevermind that non-Mac users don't care for any of it.
What does this have to do with to do with DV?
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Let's recap.
The retail version, Mac OS X 10.0, was released on March 24. The 10.0.1 update followed about 1-2 weeks later. This was mainly bug fixes and minor performance enhancements. This update was anticipated. On May 1, 10.0.2 was posted. This brought CD burning in Tunes, a fix for a possible ftp daemon exploit, and some updates to the mail client. Again, not an unexpected update. Apple had announced this would be coming.
I suspect the point at which people were a bit suprised is when 10.0.3 showed up a few days ago. It had only been about a week since the last update. This was probably an unscheduled update. The main (and perhaps, only) purpose of this update was to fix a bug where HFS+ volumes would not list the entire contents of directories in certain situations with many (>300) files.
Here's some details that I think were missed:
o The 10.0.3 update incorporates everything in 10.0.2
o The updates are optional
o You can configure your machine to check for updates automatically or manually
o Apple eventually posts the updates as self-contained archives
It's not surprising that the Mac people would be surprised and perhaps distraught at the idea of frequent updates. It was not unusual for updates of Mac OS 8/9 (aka "Classic Mac OS") to break applications/extensions or cause them to behave erratically. This was largely due to the architecture. However, I don't think some poeple realize how drastically different the architecture is in Mac Os X.
Previously, Apple would let bugs (even some relatively serious ones) go unfixed in Mac OS 8/9 until the next scheduled update. This was probably due to the fact that the operating system was a mountain of procedural spagetti code dating back to 1984. Not only did this make things hard to fix, but putting out one fire might cause another to flare up.
Now that Apple is working with a reasonable software foundation, they can move updates out the door much more swiftly, and with less fear that they're going to tumble the house of cards. I think this is a good thing, especially when update addresses a filesystem bug. But the Mac community is not exactly known for embracing change with open arms...
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Steve Job's glittery eye candy provides little functionality
I doubt you've used OSX for any extended period of time (if at all), otherwise you probably wouldn't be saying that. They really thought the UI out. There are a number of very clever improvements in the functionality of the UI.
too many CPU cycles to render it.
Yeah, it's really hard to put a bitmap on the screen. Come on, this is 2001. I think we can afford to "waste" a few cycles on drop shadows and transparencies. Not everything has to look like TVWM.
The fact that it lacks stability means Apple has a piss-poor staff of people admining their programmers.
Ummmm, I haven't see a kernel panic on OSX yet. I ran the public beta for 7+ months. I'm running the GM on three separate machines. Not everyone is having problems. They might just be hardware issues that have to be ironed out. Heck, I've seen poor hardware cause Solaris to panic.
There is NO EXCUSE for such a lame product!
I agree. Fortunately, Mac OS X is a great OS.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Thanks for explaining why the system requirements for Mac OSX are so ludicrous.
Mac OS X's requirements are "so ludicrous" because it has to run two OSs at once: Mac OS X itself and Mac OS 9 via the "Classic" environment. If you're only running native apps (which the are relatively few at this second, but many are coming this summer), then you'll probably do just fine on 64MB of RAM. Last time I checked, this is pretty comparable to GNOME or KDE.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
"Ooooh...the Linux guy HATES OS X! He must be threatened by it!" media frenzy. That single out-of-context quote, combined with "Linux as insofar failed to bring UNIX to the desktop, which is what Apple believes OS X WILL do", makes it even worse.
This is, unfortunately, how many journalists work. They try to stir up controversey. They must think the facts are boring. I think these people are in the wrong line of work. They should be writing soap operas.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
MSIE under Mac OS X is a *Carbon* app. This means that it runs the same binary as on the usual MacOS.
Not all Carbon apps can run under both the old (Mac OS 8/Mac OS 9) and the new (Mac OS X) architectures. There are two types of Carbon apps: CFM/PEF and dyld/Mach-O. Both run under OSX, OS8/OS9 can only run the former.
I believe the version of MacIE included with Mac OS X 1.0 is Mach-O. It is only designed to run under OSX.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I agree with you for the most part, except here:
a) go see the thing demoed somewhere when it comes out
b) don't buy it.
Simple, ne?
Not quite this simple. Making the XBOX appear better than it is (whether this actually happened or not) might make people less interested in PS2. This would be akin to saying the next version of NT will have a bunch of features, just to prevent people from investing in Linux, Solaris, etc. This is why vaporware sucks.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
How many times are you going to post this same message, AC? I first saw this message contents posted at least a month and a half ago.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Mach has real time capabilities. This is highlighted specifically in Apple's developer documentation.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Is the iDVD the only DVD player on MacOS X?
iDVD is an authoring tool. It's used in conjunction with the DVD-R drives in the new PowerMacs.
The thing limiting the DVD playback under OSX is unlikely to be the fact that the little DVD player app isn't ported. That could probably be done in very short order. I would imagine it has more to do with the decoding functionality.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Wow, MacOS is Mach-based and runs a modified FreeBSD kernel.
That's sort of a contradiction in terms. Mach is the kernel. FreeBSD is used for core networking, process model, and some other low-level things.
"Good, now my grandmother can use UNIX!" Why is it so important that she use UNIX?
So she doesn't end up having to use Windows?
There's already enough shit on the web right now. Do we really need every idiot who can say MacOS putting up more pointless content?
Yes. Imagine if you had access to the things that all of those people know.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I'm sure that MSNBC heard a rumor that DVD support MIGHT not be ready by the release
The lack of DVD video playback is real. Apple confirmed it. The rest of the stuff in the article is questionable, though.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Hrrm, let's look at this here... unsupported hardware that's become industry standard
The article doesn't talk at all about unsupported hardware. The DVD drive works, as do all the video cards. The only thing that doesn't work is DVD video playback, and some mysterious "sources" talk about that OSX won't initially take full advantage of Radeon and GeForce 3. This is obviously a short-term issue, since Carmack's GeForce 3 demo was running on OSX.
numerous bugs and errors that can cause system hangs or freezes, those bugs are acknowledged by Apple, and they're saying that they really want people to just wait a few months for the real thing to come out.
Come again? Please point out these "numerous bugs and errors that can cause system hangs or freezes." The only thing that sounds anything like this in the article is the author's "sources" saying there are crashing bugs in the Setup Assistant -- not the OS. There are a number of qualifications on the statement in question, by the way.
This sounds EXACTLY like a beta test
If bugs are the qualification for a beta test, then every major OS in wide distribution is in beta.
How many people using Windows 2000 or Linux have a dual boot back into Windows ME or 98 so that they can run certain things better?
most likely charge for the OS X 1.0 to 1.1 upgrade
Highly unlikely if you look at the history of such things.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
My guess is that MacOS X v1.0 only will be sold on Apple's online store
Um, no. MacWarehouse is already advertising it.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu