Try this experiment--go to Pricewatch and see what 500 dollars will buy you in Intel architecture hardware. Do your best shopping. Now see what 500 dollars will buy you in Apple hardware.
If all you care about is price, then yes. Go buy a eMachines or Dell. Though, if you can get past your preconceptions and actually figure out that there are advantages to Apple's approach to product development, then you may find yourself on the other side of the argument.
G4 performance is, at worst, reasonably competitive with x86; and at best, actually quite a bit faster in some situations. Though, I know a lot of people just refuse to believe that clock speed could actually be an inaccurate measurement of overall system performance this day and age.
At some point the Apple PR machine will run out of shit and the lie will be exposed for all to see.
Does LinuxPPC run faster? Using similar software, which system runs the app faster? Which OS eats up more memory? etc.
It's hard to say until OSX goes GM, but in the end, the raw speed difference will probably be somewhat insignifcant compared to the functionality comparison.
Yep, all the second CPU s doing is keeping the first warm and cozy.:-) The machine cost $4k, so I hope they at least buy OS X when it is released so that the nice hardware won't go to waste.
Depends on what he's doing on OS9. Besides Photoshop (which is the poster boy) some apps do take advantage of the dual CPUs for encoding and video rendering and such. The point is that the second CPU only adds an additionl $300 or so to overall cost, and OSX (out March 24) will make proper use of it. Might as well toss it in.
This post has so many factual errors that it's comical. Ironically, he bashes "Classic" Mac OS when the story itself is about LinuxPPC. I'd love to hear the rationale from the people that marked it up as "Insightful" and "Interesting."
Are you just jealous that OSX is gonna do more to bring *nix to the masses than your 6+ years of obscure forum posting and mutual masturbation have?
Easy, we're all on the same side here for the most part.
I'm as big an Apple supporter as anyone, but I think you went a bit overboard. A lot of people would like to see two button mice on Macs -- including something people inside Apple, apparently, as OSX's contextual menus do work with the right mouse button on most USB mice.
Last I've heard, in the non-server edition, they've obscured the *nix parts enough that only someone who wanted to get to them could.
I don't know what this means, exactly. OSX hides things like/etc,/bin and such by default when the user is in the GUI. Just launch Terminal and you can see everything. You can change the default behavior of the GUI (at least in the beta), by flipping a bit in an XML file.
You should also get up to speed on the differences between Mac OS X (shipping in March) and the new version of Mac OS X Server (shipping April/May). They are from the same codebase, and are considerably different that Mac OS X Server 1.2 (essentially Rhapsody), which is currently available.
Bringing "Unix to the masses" isn't going to consist of expecting everyone to become comfortable with/etc and bash. It's going to consist of taking the functionality and features of Unix, and wrapping them in a consistent, approachable user interface. The masses aren't going to change for Unix. Unix will have to change for the masses (I know I sound like a broken record).
This thing also runs on Mach, which is SLOW. (MKlinux anyone?)
There is a big difference in between MkLinux and Darwin.
With/etc, I can just do a `ls *programname*` and easily find the configuration file.
The biggest problem isn't that the files are stored in etc, but rather they all have varying formats and aren't named consistently. The fact that "etc" is an exceptionally obscure title doesn't help matters either.
I understand why things were named the way they were (usr, bin, sbin, etc), but things have changed in the last few decades.
Linux is still hard to use, and problematiclly, disunified. [...] While the desktops are more or less easy enough to use, the system itself needs major retooling. Here are the problems I see
Interesting, for virtually every shortcoming you mention, Apple is working to address in Mac OS X. This isn't purely a OSX evangelist session (I'll save that for later). But perhaps rather that working so hard to emulate Windows, maybe Linux developers should look towards OSX for inspiration (though stopping short of making exact clones of Aqua). From a system design perspective, Linux is far more similar to Mac OS X than to Windows.
Apple has already solved a lot of the problems Linux distros are struggling with. Mac OS X stores a substantial amount of configuration information in NetInfo, a network-distributed database. This software is open sourced, incidentally. The remaining config information is stored in XML files in both the user's home directory and in system directories. Frameworks and Bundles greatly simplify software development and distribution. XML files (with DTDs defined by Apple) are used to store meta information about applications such as icons, localization information, and architecture-specific settings.
Most of the many directories are named normal things like/Applications,/System,/Users, and/Developer. The BSD directories like/etc are still there, but they are hidden from the GUI and the user is not expected to interact with them. They are mostly there for running BSD apps. There are a few different APIs available (Carbon, Cocoa, Java), but all native apps use the same base application services for rendering and such.
And to top it all off, the installation process is extremely easy and swift. Beats the pants off a Windows install. Don't be fooled by the casual appearance of Aqua. This is a brilliantly designed operating system, both in terms of architecture and interface.
Apple is even making strides in making unix-based server functionality accessible to just about anyone. I suggest taking a look at the completely revamped version of Mac OS X Server which will be available this spring. I've used things like Linuxconf before, and it just can't hold a candle to the first-hand demos of this new version of OSX Server I saw at Macworld Expo.
And in case anybody thinks I'm some sort of Mac bigot, please note that my servers currently run Linux, and I've been using various forms of Unix for around 6 years, including Solaris, SunOS and FreeBSD.
I know you're really excited about Linux, but sometimes it's important to see the problem for your critic's perspective:
I've long predicted that in the next recession, Linux use will grow by leaps and bounds. That's because licensing issues will be more important to people, and companies will be looking for more ways to save money.
That would be nice, but I think it's pretty optimistic. The difference is you see Windows as an acceptable (and in reality, a preferred) casualty. Many business and IT types do not. For them, ditching Windows for Linux to save money would be the equivalent of switching from light bulbs to candles because the electric bill is too high. Many people think of Windows as an essential part of what a PC is.
The best part is -- there's nothing MS can do about Linux! They can try FUD, but enough people know the truth by now to make it really effective.
If there's one thing that Microsoft has taught us, it's that FUD does, in fact, work with a significant quantity of the population.
it seems that you need the $3499 model to get it. its not even available as a choice to upgrade in the custom configurations of the other models...
This is because the drives are quite scarce right now. This technology will eventually filter its way down to the other product lines, as DVD and FireWire did.
as far as usability, speed and general usefulness goes, Aqua is a disaster
How much have you actually used Mac OS X? Because I've found that once people drop the preconception that a UI can't be both pretty and functional, they quite frequently find that Aqua has some ingenious new concepts.
or PPC systems, LinuxPPC and Be seem to be the only options. Without a G4, you are basically hosed.
That's garbage. Mac OS X public beta should run fine on any G3 with 128MB of RAM. That number is scheduled to be cut in half to 64MB by the final release. Honestly, without the Classic environment, you could probably get away with less, but that thing is a serious resource hog.
I'm currently running OSXPB on my Blue G3/400 with 256MB, and it runs like a dream.
Now, how to get an Open Source "DHTML" multimedia project, that will cicc arses, rolling?
DHTML is a generic term to describe a lot of different things, like "object-oriented" or "open source." DHTML is not a specific technology. It is a collection of several standards: CSS, JavaScript and CSSP. And furthermore, you already have an "open source DHTML" project. It's called Mozilla.
If you're saying you need a open source Flash clone, take a look at SVG: XML-based vector graphics. It's supported by W3C and Adobe (amongst, others).
This is garbage. Most rumor sites publish rumors for personal gain -- whether it be for fame or money. They are taking advantage of 6-12 months worth of hard work on the part of Apple and blowing it all in one day. I don't see how this is "supporting" Apple. It's not as if Apple is going to sell more boxes because of the rumor sites.
MacOs X is not gonna be truly ready until September
What is the world does this mean? I use OSX every day as my primary OS. Except for incompletely 24-bit color support, it works great. Since I start using it in September, the OS has never crashed on me (though Classic can get a bit unruly at times).
Isn't MacOS X based on BSD? Raphsody was Mach, yes?
Both Mac OS X Server -- aka "Rhapsody" -- and Mac OS X public beta are based on Mach. MOSXS is based on Mach 2.5, MOSXPB is based on Mach 3.0. Both also have a 4.4BSD "personality." BSD is used for networking (BSD Sockets), process model, kernel APIs, POSIX threads, as well as the BSD command line tools.
Slashdot Mirror
Even my untrained troll detectors see through this one. You make it way too obvious with the 500MHz limit bit (which is false).
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
or $500 you can put together a really nice system. High quality Abit motherboard, AMD Thunderbird, Micron memory, IBM ATA hard drives, etc.
Like I said, if all you care about is price...
Most people don't want to build a PC from scatch. I did that for years, and just got sick of dealing with all the problems.
If Apple had had any brains they would've made a sub $1000 "iMac" without the space-wasting monitor built into it.
Sounds good to me.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
From what I can tell, he knows that OS X is the last chance for Apple.
I suppose... but only in the way that Earth is the last chance for humanity.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Try this experiment--go to Pricewatch and see what 500 dollars will buy you in Intel architecture hardware. Do your best shopping. Now see what 500 dollars will buy you in Apple hardware.
If all you care about is price, then yes. Go buy a eMachines or Dell. Though, if you can get past your preconceptions and actually figure out that there are advantages to Apple's approach to product development, then you may find yourself on the other side of the argument.
G4 performance is, at worst, reasonably competitive with x86; and at best, actually quite a bit faster in some situations. Though, I know a lot of people just refuse to believe that clock speed could actually be an inaccurate measurement of overall system performance this day and age.
At some point the Apple PR machine will run out of shit and the lie will be exposed for all to see.
Have you actually used OSX yet?
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Does LinuxPPC run faster? Using similar software, which system runs the app faster? Which OS eats up more memory? etc.
It's hard to say until OSX goes GM, but in the end, the raw speed difference will probably be somewhat insignifcant compared to the functionality comparison.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Yep, all the second CPU s doing is keeping the first warm and cozy. :-) The machine cost $4k, so I hope they at least buy OS X when it is released so that the nice hardware won't go to waste.
Depends on what he's doing on OS9. Besides Photoshop (which is the poster boy) some apps do take advantage of the dual CPUs for encoding and video rendering and such. The point is that the second CPU only adds an additionl $300 or so to overall cost, and OSX (out March 24) will make proper use of it. Might as well toss it in.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
No, what's really sad is to see a sweet machine crippled by a crappy OS.
I agree. Mac OS X ships on March 24. Some people may prefer LinuxPPC, which is what this article is, oddly enough, about.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
This post has so many factual errors that it's comical. Ironically, he bashes "Classic" Mac OS when the story itself is about LinuxPPC. I'd love to hear the rationale from the people that marked it up as "Insightful" and "Interesting."
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Are you just jealous that OSX is gonna do more to bring *nix to the masses than your 6+ years of obscure forum posting and mutual masturbation have?
Easy, we're all on the same side here for the most part.
I'm as big an Apple supporter as anyone, but I think you went a bit overboard. A lot of people would like to see two button mice on Macs -- including something people inside Apple, apparently, as OSX's contextual menus do work with the right mouse button on most USB mice.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Last I've heard, in the non-server edition, they've obscured the *nix parts enough that only someone who wanted to get to them could.
/etc, /bin and such by default when the user is in the GUI. Just launch Terminal and you can see everything. You can change the default behavior of the GUI (at least in the beta), by flipping a bit in an XML file.
/etc and bash. It's going to consist of taking the functionality and features of Unix, and wrapping them in a consistent, approachable user interface. The masses aren't going to change for Unix. Unix will have to change for the masses (I know I sound like a broken record).
I don't know what this means, exactly. OSX hides things like
You should also get up to speed on the differences between Mac OS X (shipping in March) and the new version of Mac OS X Server (shipping April/May). They are from the same codebase, and are considerably different that Mac OS X Server 1.2 (essentially Rhapsody), which is currently available.
Bringing "Unix to the masses" isn't going to consist of expecting everyone to become comfortable with
This thing also runs on Mach, which is SLOW. (MKlinux anyone?)
There is a big difference in between MkLinux and Darwin.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
With /etc, I can just do a `ls *programname*` and easily find the configuration file.
The biggest problem isn't that the files are stored in etc, but rather they all have varying formats and aren't named consistently. The fact that "etc" is an exceptionally obscure title doesn't help matters either.
I understand why things were named the way they were (usr, bin, sbin, etc), but things have changed in the last few decades.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Linux is still hard to use, and problematiclly, disunified. [...] While the desktops are more or less easy enough to use, the system itself needs major retooling. Here are the problems I see
/Applications, /System, /Users, and /Developer. The BSD directories like /etc are still there, but they are hidden from the GUI and the user is not expected to interact with them. They are mostly there for running BSD apps. There are a few different APIs available (Carbon, Cocoa, Java), but all native apps use the same base application services for rendering and such.
Interesting, for virtually every shortcoming you mention, Apple is working to address in Mac OS X. This isn't purely a OSX evangelist session (I'll save that for later). But perhaps rather that working so hard to emulate Windows, maybe Linux developers should look towards OSX for inspiration (though stopping short of making exact clones of Aqua). From a system design perspective, Linux is far more similar to Mac OS X than to Windows.
Apple has already solved a lot of the problems Linux distros are struggling with. Mac OS X stores a substantial amount of configuration information in NetInfo, a network-distributed database. This software is open sourced, incidentally. The remaining config information is stored in XML files in both the user's home directory and in system directories. Frameworks and Bundles greatly simplify software development and distribution. XML files (with DTDs defined by Apple) are used to store meta information about applications such as icons, localization information, and architecture-specific settings.
Most of the many directories are named normal things like
And to top it all off, the installation process is extremely easy and swift. Beats the pants off a Windows install. Don't be fooled by the casual appearance of Aqua. This is a brilliantly designed operating system, both in terms of architecture and interface.
Apple is even making strides in making unix-based server functionality accessible to just about anyone. I suggest taking a look at the completely revamped version of Mac OS X Server which will be available this spring. I've used things like Linuxconf before, and it just can't hold a candle to the first-hand demos of this new version of OSX Server I saw at Macworld Expo.
And in case anybody thinks I'm some sort of Mac bigot, please note that my servers currently run Linux, and I've been using various forms of Unix for around 6 years, including Solaris, SunOS and FreeBSD.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I know you're really excited about Linux, but sometimes it's important to see the problem for your critic's perspective:
I've long predicted that in the next recession, Linux use will grow by leaps and bounds. That's because licensing issues will be more important to people, and companies will be looking for more ways to save money.
That would be nice, but I think it's pretty optimistic. The difference is you see Windows as an acceptable (and in reality, a preferred) casualty. Many business and IT types do not. For them, ditching Windows for Linux to save money would be the equivalent of switching from light bulbs to candles because the electric bill is too high. Many people think of Windows as an essential part of what a PC is.
The best part is -- there's nothing MS can do about Linux! They can try FUD, but enough people know the truth by now to make it really effective.
If there's one thing that Microsoft has taught us, it's that FUD does, in fact, work with a significant quantity of the population.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
it seems that you need the $3499 model to get it. its not even available as a choice to upgrade in the custom configurations of the other models...
This is because the drives are quite scarce right now. This technology will eventually filter its way down to the other product lines, as DVD and FireWire did.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
as far as usability, speed and general usefulness goes, Aqua is a disaster
How much have you actually used Mac OS X? Because I've found that once people drop the preconception that a UI can't be both pretty and functional, they quite frequently find that Aqua has some ingenious new concepts.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
or PPC systems, LinuxPPC and Be seem to be the only options. Without a G4, you are basically hosed.
That's garbage. Mac OS X public beta should run fine on any G3 with 128MB of RAM. That number is scheduled to be cut in half to 64MB by the final release. Honestly, without the Classic environment, you could probably get away with less, but that thing is a serious resource hog.
I'm currently running OSXPB on my Blue G3/400 with 256MB, and it runs like a dream.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Since sales have sharply dropped, Apple is doing whatever it takes to get people to buy their stuff
What does have to do with the ASPL? I know you're not suggesting that Apple changed the ASPL because of sales figures.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Many, many corporate and governmental puchasing guidelines require that a second source be available.
That may be true, but Sun and IBM seem to do okay with their enterprise server products regardless.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Now, how to get an Open Source "DHTML" multimedia project, that will cicc arses, rolling?
DHTML is a generic term to describe a lot of different things, like "object-oriented" or "open source." DHTML is not a specific technology. It is a collection of several standards: CSS, JavaScript and CSSP. And furthermore, you already have an "open source DHTML" project. It's called Mozilla.
If you're saying you need a open source Flash clone, take a look at SVG: XML-based vector graphics. It's supported by W3C and Adobe (amongst, others).
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Doesn't matter how great you're product is, if it's popular - people buy it in droves.
I think you've mixed up cause and effect.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
they've sued the few websites that support them
This is garbage. Most rumor sites publish rumors for personal gain -- whether it be for fame or money. They are taking advantage of 6-12 months worth of hard work on the part of Apple and blowing it all in one day. I don't see how this is "supporting" Apple. It's not as if Apple is going to sell more boxes because of the rumor sites.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
MacOs X is not gonna be truly ready until September
What is the world does this mean? I use OSX every day as my primary OS. Except for incompletely 24-bit color support, it works great. Since I start using it in September, the OS has never crashed on me (though Classic can get a bit unruly at times).
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Aren't G4 RISC-type chips of some sort?
PowerPC is a RISC archtecture. Same family lineage as IBM's POWER chips.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Isn't this how the NeXT system started, with a new set of cool tools wrapped around a BSD kernel?
I don't think NeXT ever used a BSD kernel. At least in the later implementations, it was using Mach.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Isn't MacOS X based on BSD? Raphsody was Mach, yes?
Both Mac OS X Server -- aka "Rhapsody" -- and Mac OS X public beta are based on Mach. MOSXS is based on Mach 2.5, MOSXPB is based on Mach 3.0. Both also have a 4.4BSD "personality." BSD is used for networking (BSD Sockets), process model, kernel APIs, POSIX threads, as well as the BSD command line tools.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson