...but iSync offers the convergence, allowing syncing of contacts and calendar information between a Sony Erickson phone, Palm, and iPod (which can hold contacts) in conjunction with Mac OS X Jaguar's iCal and Address Book.
(dot)Mac is merely an Internet-based services package. It's useful, but not wholly collaborative.
I'm sure that Windows developers can generate something for themselves, but I bet the Linux/OSS group can figure out a similar tool faster since Mac OS X is just a BSD variant.
I don't think I like the idea of storing my personal data on networks that Apple or Microsoft create, but iSync wouldn't be a problem with me since the data remains local to my devices.
Cool--They make a PPC Linux
on
UT2003 LiveCD
·
· Score: 2
Nice to see another Linux port for PowerPC systems. While Mac OS X fills all my needs, it's still fun to tinker in Linux.
So, that brings the Linux for PowerPC distros to the following, and I bet I'll forget one:
-SUSE -Debian -RT Linux -Mandrake -Linux PPC -Yellow Dog Linux -Gentoo Linux -MkLinux -HA Linux
I wonder if the UT2003 code is targeted to x86 or whether it cares. I would presume it does care a lot. A "Windtunnel" G4 has all the necessary specs, otherwise.
Good points. It really is a vicious symbiotic relationship with Microsoft and Intel. Some Mac zealots, for instance, see Intel as a "villain" as many see MS. I agree that MS has more pull in maintaining the status quo. Intel just makes chips, and I agree with that they would kick the BIOS out as well. In fact, haven't they tried in various concept motherboard specs?
So it all goes back to the Linux/OSS "manifesto": Let MS burn, and the solutions will present themselves from elsewhere.
Don't make assumptions. I've been using PCs before Macs existed. I also use the same SCSI cards in PCs as well as Macs, and under Linux, Windows, and Mac OS. Adaptec is the leader in this general area, my recommended professional preference, and makes cards that don't really care. Adaptec doesn't make all their cards that way, but perhaps that's really another topic: PC users buy commodity parts, and some commodity parts are not of hiqh quality.
It sounds like you want or expect to find a GUI or some configuration tool for these devices. My point is still that, in most cases, this should be completely unnecessary at the BIOS level. The installed device should just be recognized and allotted the necessary resources to operate if drivers are present in the OS, period. What you describe, in the case of a video card, does happen in the case of Windows, where it defaults to its built-in basic drivers when it cannot locate the card's true drivers. Same should happen in most operating systems (and is so for some).
I haven't used AIX or Solaris, so I can't form an opinion. Sure, things aren't a panacea. But it surprises me that these manufacturers don't review the good points of their competitors and integrate matters in their hardware and software. In the BIOS world, there is an OS for the hardware, and for the software, and these items don't talk well, and never have.
I appreciate your comments--hopefully, since all but Microsoft provide a UNIX-type OS, the days of the classic BIOS may find a way to change.
I have never experienced any problems with PCI cards and installation with OF. They just work. I know that sounds like the typical Mac-guy crap, but hardware installs are really made very strong by OF. Your comments seem to me that OF still would have a problem in handling interrupts and other bugaboos of a BIOS, which makes it sound like the problems are more inherent in the motherboard or the OS than the BIOS.
Sure, not everything works. Video cards are a good example since they usually require complex drivers. But interface cards such as SCSI work quite well, and there are numerous PCI cards that work in both platforms. I have a Fibre Channel card that is certified to work in both Mac as well as other systems. It's not that PCI devices can't be cross-platform--but most vendors don't write the drivers.
Right--OF isn't the "boot" of a system. On a Mac, that's handled elsewhere. So maybe mobos need to look beyond the BIOS for a better boothandler.
I have to disagree with you on one point: OF still IS a great idea...and is actively in use. But your points hold in that it may not be the best answer for this topic.
The BIOS of the x86 world, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why we struggle but never quite reach a integrated architecture for PCs. Lord knows I've fought with quite a few of them, and hated having to remember to disable this in order to use that, with no guarantee that my change would work all the time.
Shouldn't our computers know what hardware it holds and configure itself automatically nowandays, with little to no user interaction? It would make all that "plug-and-play" stuff that's taken for granted on Macintosh systems, to site an example, true for my PC game box as well.
The technology is already here in the form of Open Firmware, which Apple uses as well as Sun. There is at least one company that has OF implementations for x86, but so long as Intel has a vendor lock on how motherboards are designed for their chips, I don't see this annoying and archaic method of maintaining a board going away any time soon.
OF is configurable enough for crazy whiz kids, if necessary. A better BIOS would make things a lot better for the OS and bring a better experience. Why can't we break out of the BIOS hell? Hadn't we learned the lessons from the Y2k-incompatibilities that some BIOS had, among other headaches?
I would remind people that David, in my mind, is a Mac zealot. His old Mackido website was full of vitrole and over-advocacy. (Mind you, it was a great place to find a computer joke, but I took little of the site very seriously.)
As I mentioned in other topics, Mac OS 9 users are among the most stubborn to change their way of doing things on a Macintosh. That's understandable--the original Mac OS was easier to use than most operating systems and developed quite a fan following. This resistance to change, however, causes finger-pointing and blame-making over a matter that, now, isn't really a point of conversation anymore. I think David falls in this trap of "Apple's changed with OS X and I don't like anymore." I also give this problem a name: whining. I'm a Macintosh advocate by trade but I've never been fond of zealotry--its a blinding thing in helping a customer.
I disagree with David about his being "sick of hearing that Copland project failed because of engineering. From what I know of engineering and people inside of Apple, it was mostly because of bad management decisions inside of Apple." He makes the incorrect assumption that the technology was sound enough and needed only enough money and time to push it through. Apple creates the environment that R&D works in, true. But faulty engineering is faulty engineering. Steve Jobs likely killed many projects not only because he didn't find them practical but because they just plain didn't work or didn't follow the business plan. Seedless corn or instant water sounds like a cool idea, but a bad idea is a bad idea.
Apple nearly died because they didn't have a business plan. Does David want Apple to revive old projects at the cost of the company's existence? Makes no sense to me. I think David is grousing over spilled milk.
We were all uncertain about what became OS X, and, thanks to a strong business plan, focused R&D, and listening to customers and developers (things that Apple did very badly in the '90s), Apple has a sound product with a good future.
Microsoft Outlook 2001 for Macintosh is alive and well (released for only 1 year now). It's fully integrated with Exchange calendar (so long as you don't live in a place that does not do Daylight Savings Time--see MacWindows.com on a bug with Outlook and OS X). No, Outlook is not an OS X-native application.
I've been studying this idea, as well. I'm leaning less to Microsoft solutions and more to Apple or open source items as they have standards that, while not perfect, can be modified to do the job. I think the solution lies in part with Microsoft Entourage or Mail (which can use Exchange servers that have IMAP support activated), iCal, Address Book (which handles vCal cards), and iSync.
Kinda defeats one of the reasons for not-buying Linux since you have to get a copy of OS X, but it shows the diversity of *nix systems as a whole.
Also, I agree its a little redundant.
Still, it would be fun to play with the nested virtual machine game with this: Running Linux, drop in MOL, then drop in Virtual PC 5, then drop in Virtual PC 5 for Windows, then drop in VMware...
The Xserve is a LONG beast, easily the length of a typical rack, where most 2 or 3U servers are half that length.
Generally, the Xserve is a sweet beast in speed and performance, particularly with a prerelease of 10.2 Server I have installed.
Some of Apple's claims are weak right now, although they are doing a bit to help me with that now. The biggest disappointment was LDAP/Windows Active Directory authentication, which failed miserably in my 10.1 tests. My 10.2 update may have cleared that up, but Apple's documentation group needs some infusion from the other server OS documentation people for more concise instructions.
It's support apps are very good, and the OS sticks to virtually all IP standards, making the thing easy to administer. Configure, no, but administer, yes.
I can see this box being a good, less expensive alternative to a few of the Compaq boxes sitting around it.
The real gem of the Xserve is not the box, but the power of the OS behind it. This box would not be possible without Mac OS X Server 10.2. I have 10.1 Server running on an older 2-processor G4, serving a heavy load. It is a very stable, efficient box.
I'm currently supporting (indirectly now) the very class of professionals you wonder about.
I agree with your initial comment, but first note that the article can't possibly contain every viewpoint for every profession that uses Macs. For that, look elsewhere (maybe even my website--see my sig).
Don't blame Apple for Quark dragging their feet in their QuarkXPress/OS X support. Quark is historically notorious for very slow development and very buggy software in its initial run. QuarkXPress would be one of LAST apps I would use on its OS X release because of how buggy it tends to be, and how it has even rendered whole projects damaged beyond resurrection.
Scanner support is still weak, but better than 10.1. Plug-ins for applications is a concept that may phase-out in the way you describe to maintain system stability, but that functionality should still be available. Printer support is already there as well--the problem is that most users are used to maintain this themselves thanks to the ease of the Chooser and AppleTalk. Rendezvous and a good Mac technician should clear this up for most.
I've already made my recommendations to make the move to OS X 10.2 for the graphic crowd. There's very little to stop the move now, unless you're really stuck on Quark. I would say to unstick yourself if your business allows it and take a serious look at InDesign 2.
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of some informal tests I did on my Mac OS system running the PC hardware environment emulator Virtual PC.
What I don't get from the article is why performance and compatibility is so poor, given that WINE is a virtual machine, according to its circular acronym ("WINE Is Not an Emulator"). Sounds like WINE doesn't link very well to the existing native hardware.
Based on these results I would suspect greater compatibility in Virtual PC (Windows or Macintosh version), although these emulators don't officially support many games since graphics acceleration isn't available in these games. Most of them should run in VPC, but slowly.
There must be a common link to all the games that don't run in WINE. I know that video acceleration isn't required for Diablo 2--so that's probably a starting point.
But if you're using Palm Desktop 4 (the subject of this thread is OS X, of course) then AvantGo doesn't function. Native support is what's needed. I don't mind Classic--when Palm works. This is one of those hardware abstractions in Classic (the USB cradle interface) that is bound to break sooner or later...and Apple or Palm won't be fixing it.
I think that AvantGo is going to DoDo land along with many other dot-coms, but that doesn't mean that I want to rely on them or OS 9 for it. In this case, I cheer the OSS community for stepping up and presenting a solution.
I simply refused to go without my beloved web sites downloaded to my Palm when I made the switch a year ago. This link at Mac OS X Hints gave me that alternative--Plucker.
While a bit more hands-on than AvantGo, you get very similar, if not identical results with Plucker. (This is open source, so Linux guys who switched from Windows can get it too.) Be mindful that these instructions were based on 10.1 and not 10.2: the needed Python parts may have an issue from the binaries, so I'd compile it if I were you.
But Microsoft's proprietary mailbox format, MAPI, which nothing but the Outlook clients appear to be able to read. Sources have it on my side that Exchange XP, I think, moves toward IMAP for its mailbox.
Someone else may have more information on this to acknowledge or debunk. I do sit by an Exchange tech who can give me an answer to this later, but not today.
I hope this happens--using the Outlook client in Mac OS 9/Classic while running OS X is a pain, and I noted a nasty bug for users who aren't in DST time zones that make the calendar worthless for half a year.
While pizza is an acceptable foodstuff for Geeks as defined by paragraph 7.2a of the "Foods to Chow Down On During Intense Coding" clause of the Unified Geek Code, I think the spirit of this pizza violates paragraph 7.3, "Acceptable Foods that Don't F*ck Up My Mouse and Keyboard," as well as paragraph 7.7, "Portable Foods", although I'm sure there's a few of us out there that can one-hand a deluxe slice.
Besides, where's the Jaguar Beer? Can't have pizza without beer! That's against regulation 1.2, "Advanced Sys Admin Slack Off Procedures."
That's cool. Sorry if I flamed there. As I said, your points, IMHO, are right on the money as well.
I've tried Linux, briefly, a couple of years ago, and kept up with the changes. It was promising then. When OS X showed up, things looked familiar, and I saw where Apple was going. Now it's a win-win situation for most of us.
Like Linux? Use it anywhere on anything. Like Macs but need UNIX? OS X. Interested in OS X but can't afford a Mac box? Darwin. Need maximum compatibility? Windows XP (sorta). Reminds me of a t-shirt I've been wanting:
Macintosh for Productivity Linux for Development Palm for Mobility Windows for Solitaire
If you want a book, buy one. My message wasn't designed to answer every single nuance, save one. I've serviced Macs at newspapers as well as publishing houses, so I know your points are right. We had a long transition from OS 7.6 to OS 8 as I made tests to ensure that QuarkXPress and their internal mechanisms work with it.
Your inclusions are also right--there are some users with non-G3 hardware who can't or won't upgrade for cost or software reasons. Here's one you didn't mention: Educators. They can't switch to OS X since much of their software is OS 9 only and doesn't work properly or at all in Classic. And I won't go much into what OS X Server does and does not do with OS X over OS 9 with NetBoot.
There are many reasons that users aren't immediately switching. I only cited the simplest one, technology notwithstanding.
Just last night I cleaned up a friend who has a beige Power Mac G3 with OS 8.1. Works for her and doesn't care to move to OS X just because things are fine. Your point is well taken.
Apple won't you build your own Mac box anymore than Porsche would give you the parts to build your own custom sports car.
Some things in the world are custom-built for a reason. They tend to work better on average than a commodity system. Example: 1970's American cars vs. Japanese cars. There was a reason why a lot of us bought those Japanese cars. Inexpensive does not necessarily equate to better in some people's minds.
You're an exception, and that's OK--it's why Apple supports their Darwin project--the Mac OS X core is open source and works for x86 as well as PowerPC iron. Doesn't have all the OS X bells and whistles, but it sounds like you'd enjoy tinkering.
Windows and Linux users are used to having their desktops change dramatically throughout the years (for Linux users, sometimes weeks). Therefore, when plopped in front of a Mac OS X interface, the users tend to scout around and adapt pretty quickly.
Mac OS 9 users (Lord bless 'em) are the most stubborn, inflexible, fearful sort of user you can imagine when it comes to how their Macs work. That's a compliment to Apple--it shows the power of the original Mac OS interface over its many years of tenure. When you have a good thing, you are very stubborn to change.
But the loyalty to Mac OS 9 hurts Apple's move to OS X, of course. I anticipate having to take my client's OS 9 users through a Mac OS X orientation, watching them kick and scream in the process.
It's pretty amusing what the MacBU does and where they reside. But then, Microsoft has never been against the Macintosh--in fact, Microsoft created Word and Excel for use on Macintosh first, long before Windows was developed.
They do great work. Since Office 98, the MacBU has restored my opinion of Microsoft's support of the OS. While the products do suffer from the typical bloat common in MS software, they don't get in the way as nastily as in their Windows counterparts.
Further, Mac Microsoft products rarely suffer from the relentless ActiveX, VB, macro, and Win32 viruses, trojans, and other malware because the applications provide very limited or no support for these items.
The only real flaw in the MacBU (and this isn't probably in their control) is pricing. They would sell more Office units with a lower price, guaranteed.
Emulation and virtual machines: Bah. CrossOver Office is NOT Microsoft Office, but an environment to support a MS Office installation. That's like me installing Office XP in Virtual PC for Mac OS X and calling it a supported Office installation. Nope.
I would talk about the efficiency of X Window--if only there were a STANDARD that went with it. Forget about the window managers, for they inherently are their own standards. KDE and GNOME, for their goodness, complicate the efficiency that a GUI is supposed to accomplish. GUIs simplify a user's experience, not complicate it by duplicating every major UNIX command. There aren't many features in Aqua that don't have a function. Remember that UNIX and PC users were still puttering around on CLIs when the Macintosh popularized the idea that a GUI could actually do something worthwhile. Almost 20 years have gone by and the UNIX world has a GUI engine, but no consistency in the interfaces. X Window is no match against Aqua for consistency, and that's an impressive achievement considering that Aqua is very young. A more equal pairing would be a Display PostScript engine, which I hear is being worked on somewhere.
If your opinion is that Mac OS X is bloatware, OK. But this article proves that a lot of other users, especially those whose jobs rely on its speed and performance, disagree with you heartily.
And, if you really need X, you do realize that OS X supports X Window through the XDarwin project?
I agree with your criticisms, but not the spirit of them. OS X is a very strong OS for such a newcomer. Neither it or its hardware are as efficient as some Linux die-hards may want it to be, but it does the job very well, right now.
Slashdot Mirror
...but iSync offers the convergence, allowing syncing of contacts and calendar information between a Sony Erickson phone, Palm, and iPod (which can hold contacts) in conjunction with Mac OS X Jaguar's iCal and Address Book.
(dot)Mac is merely an Internet-based services package. It's useful, but not wholly collaborative.
I'm sure that Windows developers can generate something for themselves, but I bet the Linux/OSS group can figure out a similar tool faster since Mac OS X is just a BSD variant.
I don't think I like the idea of storing my personal data on networks that Apple or Microsoft create, but iSync wouldn't be a problem with me since the data remains local to my devices.
Nice to see another Linux port for PowerPC systems. While Mac OS X fills all my needs, it's still fun to tinker in Linux.
So, that brings the Linux for PowerPC distros to the following, and I bet I'll forget one:
-SUSE
-Debian
-RT Linux
-Mandrake
-Linux PPC
-Yellow Dog Linux
-Gentoo Linux
-MkLinux
-HA Linux
I wonder if the UT2003 code is targeted to x86 or whether it cares. I would presume it does care a lot. A "Windtunnel" G4 has all the necessary specs, otherwise.
Not quite. To gain extra altitude on some flights, the OMS are activated in tandem with the SSMEs during orbital injection.
I do not know, however, if the OMS were ever used after MECO and before ET SEP.
Good points. It really is a vicious symbiotic relationship with Microsoft and Intel. Some Mac zealots, for instance, see Intel as a "villain" as many see MS. I agree that MS has more pull in maintaining the status quo. Intel just makes chips, and I agree with that they would kick the BIOS out as well. In fact, haven't they tried in various concept motherboard specs?
So it all goes back to the Linux/OSS "manifesto": Let MS burn, and the solutions will present themselves from elsewhere.
Don't make assumptions. I've been using PCs before Macs existed. I also use the same SCSI cards in PCs as well as Macs, and under Linux, Windows, and Mac OS. Adaptec is the leader in this general area, my recommended professional preference, and makes cards that don't really care. Adaptec doesn't make all their cards that way, but perhaps that's really another topic: PC users buy commodity parts, and some commodity parts are not of hiqh quality.
It sounds like you want or expect to find a GUI or some configuration tool for these devices. My point is still that, in most cases, this should be completely unnecessary at the BIOS level. The installed device should just be recognized and allotted the necessary resources to operate if drivers are present in the OS, period. What you describe, in the case of a video card, does happen in the case of Windows, where it defaults to its built-in basic drivers when it cannot locate the card's true drivers. Same should happen in most operating systems (and is so for some).
I haven't used AIX or Solaris, so I can't form an opinion. Sure, things aren't a panacea. But it surprises me that these manufacturers don't review the good points of their competitors and integrate matters in their hardware and software. In the BIOS world, there is an OS for the hardware, and for the software, and these items don't talk well, and never have.
I appreciate your comments--hopefully, since all but Microsoft provide a UNIX-type OS, the days of the classic BIOS may find a way to change.
I have never experienced any problems with PCI cards and installation with OF. They just work. I know that sounds like the typical Mac-guy crap, but hardware installs are really made very strong by OF. Your comments seem to me that OF still would have a problem in handling interrupts and other bugaboos of a BIOS, which makes it sound like the problems are more inherent in the motherboard or the OS than the BIOS.
Sure, not everything works. Video cards are a good example since they usually require complex drivers. But interface cards such as SCSI work quite well, and there are numerous PCI cards that work in both platforms. I have a Fibre Channel card that is certified to work in both Mac as well as other systems. It's not that PCI devices can't be cross-platform--but most vendors don't write the drivers.
Right--OF isn't the "boot" of a system. On a Mac, that's handled elsewhere. So maybe mobos need to look beyond the BIOS for a better boothandler.
I have to disagree with you on one point: OF still IS a great idea...and is actively in use. But your points hold in that it may not be the best answer for this topic.
The BIOS of the x86 world, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why we struggle but never quite reach a integrated architecture for PCs. Lord knows I've fought with quite a few of them, and hated having to remember to disable this in order to use that, with no guarantee that my change would work all the time.
Shouldn't our computers know what hardware it holds and configure itself automatically nowandays, with little to no user interaction? It would make all that "plug-and-play" stuff that's taken for granted on Macintosh systems, to site an example, true for my PC game box as well.
The technology is already here in the form of Open Firmware, which Apple uses as well as Sun. There is at least one company that has OF implementations for x86, but so long as Intel has a vendor lock on how motherboards are designed for their chips, I don't see this annoying and archaic method of maintaining a board going away any time soon.
OF is configurable enough for crazy whiz kids, if necessary. A better BIOS would make things a lot better for the OS and bring a better experience. Why can't we break out of the BIOS hell? Hadn't we learned the lessons from the Y2k-incompatibilities that some BIOS had, among other headaches?
I would remind people that David, in my mind, is a Mac zealot. His old Mackido website was full of vitrole and over-advocacy. (Mind you, it was a great place to find a computer joke, but I took little of the site very seriously.)
As I mentioned in other topics, Mac OS 9 users are among the most stubborn to change their way of doing things on a Macintosh. That's understandable--the original Mac OS was easier to use than most operating systems and developed quite a fan following. This resistance to change, however, causes finger-pointing and blame-making over a matter that, now, isn't really a point of conversation anymore. I think David falls in this trap of "Apple's changed with OS X and I don't like anymore." I also give this problem a name: whining. I'm a Macintosh advocate by trade but I've never been fond of zealotry--its a blinding thing in helping a customer.
I disagree with David about his being "sick of hearing that Copland project failed because of engineering. From what I know of engineering and people inside of Apple, it was mostly because of bad management decisions inside of Apple." He makes the incorrect assumption that the technology was sound enough and needed only enough money and time to push it through. Apple creates the environment that R&D works in, true. But faulty engineering is faulty engineering. Steve Jobs likely killed many projects not only because he didn't find them practical but because they just plain didn't work or didn't follow the business plan. Seedless corn or instant water sounds like a cool idea, but a bad idea is a bad idea.
Apple nearly died because they didn't have a business plan. Does David want Apple to revive old projects at the cost of the company's existence? Makes no sense to me. I think David is grousing over spilled milk.
We were all uncertain about what became OS X, and, thanks to a strong business plan, focused R&D, and listening to customers and developers (things that Apple did very badly in the '90s), Apple has a sound product with a good future.
To add and correct:
Microsoft Outlook 2001 for Macintosh is alive and well (released for only 1 year now). It's fully integrated with Exchange calendar (so long as you don't live in a place that does not do Daylight Savings Time--see MacWindows.com on a bug with Outlook and OS X). No, Outlook is not an OS X-native application.
I've been studying this idea, as well. I'm leaning less to Microsoft solutions and more to Apple or open source items as they have standards that, while not perfect, can be modified to do the job. I think the solution lies in part with Microsoft Entourage or Mail (which can use Exchange servers that have IMAP support activated), iCal, Address Book (which handles vCal cards), and iSync.
Now that's funny! I was really wondering what would happen!
Kinda defeats one of the reasons for not-buying Linux since you have to get a copy of OS X, but it shows the diversity of *nix systems as a whole.
Also, I agree its a little redundant.
Still, it would be fun to play with the nested virtual machine game with this: Running Linux, drop in MOL, then drop in Virtual PC 5, then drop in Virtual PC 5 for Windows, then drop in VMware...
The Xserve is a LONG beast, easily the length of a typical rack, where most 2 or 3U servers are half that length.
Generally, the Xserve is a sweet beast in speed and performance, particularly with a prerelease of 10.2 Server I have installed.
Some of Apple's claims are weak right now, although they are doing a bit to help me with that now. The biggest disappointment was LDAP/Windows Active Directory authentication, which failed miserably in my 10.1 tests. My 10.2 update may have cleared that up, but Apple's documentation group needs some infusion from the other server OS documentation people for more concise instructions.
It's support apps are very good, and the OS sticks to virtually all IP standards, making the thing easy to administer. Configure, no, but administer, yes.
I can see this box being a good, less expensive alternative to a few of the Compaq boxes sitting around it.
The real gem of the Xserve is not the box, but the power of the OS behind it. This box would not be possible without Mac OS X Server 10.2. I have 10.1 Server running on an older 2-processor G4, serving a heavy load. It is a very stable, efficient box.
I'm currently supporting (indirectly now) the very class of professionals you wonder about.
I agree with your initial comment, but first note that the article can't possibly contain every viewpoint for every profession that uses Macs. For that, look elsewhere (maybe even my website--see my sig).
Don't blame Apple for Quark dragging their feet in their QuarkXPress/OS X support. Quark is historically notorious for very slow development and very buggy software in its initial run. QuarkXPress would be one of LAST apps I would use on its OS X release because of how buggy it tends to be, and how it has even rendered whole projects damaged beyond resurrection.
Scanner support is still weak, but better than 10.1. Plug-ins for applications is a concept that may phase-out in the way you describe to maintain system stability, but that functionality should still be available. Printer support is already there as well--the problem is that most users are used to maintain this themselves thanks to the ease of the Chooser and AppleTalk. Rendezvous and a good Mac technician should clear this up for most.
I've already made my recommendations to make the move to OS X 10.2 for the graphic crowd. There's very little to stop the move now, unless you're really stuck on Quark. I would say to unstick yourself if your business allows it and take a serious look at InDesign 2.
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of some informal tests I did on my Mac OS system running the PC hardware environment emulator Virtual PC.
What I don't get from the article is why performance and compatibility is so poor, given that WINE is a virtual machine, according to its circular acronym ("WINE Is Not an Emulator"). Sounds like WINE doesn't link very well to the existing native hardware.
Based on these results I would suspect greater compatibility in Virtual PC (Windows or Macintosh version), although these emulators don't officially support many games since graphics acceleration isn't available in these games. Most of them should run in VPC, but slowly.
There must be a common link to all the games that don't run in WINE. I know that video acceleration isn't required for Diablo 2--so that's probably a starting point.
But if you're using Palm Desktop 4 (the subject of this thread is OS X, of course) then AvantGo doesn't function. Native support is what's needed. I don't mind Classic--when Palm works. This is one of those hardware abstractions in Classic (the USB cradle interface) that is bound to break sooner or later...and Apple or Palm won't be fixing it.
I think that AvantGo is going to DoDo land along with many other dot-coms, but that doesn't mean that I want to rely on them or OS 9 for it. In this case, I cheer the OSS community for stepping up and presenting a solution.
I simply refused to go without my beloved web sites downloaded to my Palm when I made the switch a year ago. This link at Mac OS X Hints gave me that alternative--Plucker.
While a bit more hands-on than AvantGo, you get very similar, if not identical results with Plucker. (This is open source, so Linux guys who switched from Windows can get it too.) Be mindful that these instructions were based on 10.1 and not 10.2: the needed Python parts may have an issue from the binaries, so I'd compile it if I were you.
Cool...that's optimistic.
But it essentially seems to follow that support for IMAP must be activated...or is that part of the feature defaults?
Oh well...no need to educate me on it. My Exchange coworker is bound to give it to me with both barrels for my lack of understanding.
But Microsoft's proprietary mailbox format, MAPI, which nothing but the Outlook clients appear to be able to read. Sources have it on my side that Exchange XP, I think, moves toward IMAP for its mailbox.
Someone else may have more information on this to acknowledge or debunk. I do sit by an Exchange tech who can give me an answer to this later, but not today.
I hope this happens--using the Outlook client in Mac OS 9/Classic while running OS X is a pain, and I noted a nasty bug for users who aren't in DST time zones that make the calendar worthless for half a year.
While pizza is an acceptable foodstuff for Geeks as defined by paragraph 7.2a of the "Foods to Chow Down On During Intense Coding" clause of the Unified Geek Code, I think the spirit of this pizza violates paragraph 7.3, "Acceptable Foods that Don't F*ck Up My Mouse and Keyboard," as well as paragraph 7.7, "Portable Foods", although I'm sure there's a few of us out there that can one-hand a deluxe slice.
Besides, where's the Jaguar Beer? Can't have pizza without beer! That's against regulation 1.2, "Advanced Sys Admin Slack Off Procedures."
That's cool. Sorry if I flamed there. As I said, your points, IMHO, are right on the money as well.
I've tried Linux, briefly, a couple of years ago, and kept up with the changes. It was promising then. When OS X showed up, things looked familiar, and I saw where Apple was going. Now it's a win-win situation for most of us.
Like Linux? Use it anywhere on anything. Like Macs but need UNIX? OS X. Interested in OS X but can't afford a Mac box? Darwin. Need maximum compatibility? Windows XP (sorta). Reminds me of a t-shirt I've been wanting:
Macintosh for Productivity
Linux for Development
Palm for Mobility
Windows for Solitaire
If you want a book, buy one. My message wasn't designed to answer every single nuance, save one. I've serviced Macs at newspapers as well as publishing houses, so I know your points are right. We had a long transition from OS 7.6 to OS 8 as I made tests to ensure that QuarkXPress and their internal mechanisms work with it.
Your inclusions are also right--there are some users with non-G3 hardware who can't or won't upgrade for cost or software reasons. Here's one you didn't mention: Educators. They can't switch to OS X since much of their software is OS 9 only and doesn't work properly or at all in Classic. And I won't go much into what OS X Server does and does not do with OS X over OS 9 with NetBoot.
There are many reasons that users aren't immediately switching. I only cited the simplest one, technology notwithstanding.
Just last night I cleaned up a friend who has a beige Power Mac G3 with OS 8.1. Works for her and doesn't care to move to OS X just because things are fine. Your point is well taken.
Apple won't you build your own Mac box anymore than Porsche would give you the parts to build your own custom sports car.
Some things in the world are custom-built for a reason. They tend to work better on average than a commodity system. Example: 1970's American cars vs. Japanese cars. There was a reason why a lot of us bought those Japanese cars. Inexpensive does not necessarily equate to better in some people's minds.
You're an exception, and that's OK--it's why Apple supports their Darwin project--the Mac OS X core is open source and works for x86 as well as PowerPC iron. Doesn't have all the OS X bells and whistles, but it sounds like you'd enjoy tinkering.
Windows and Linux users are used to having their desktops change dramatically throughout the years (for Linux users, sometimes weeks). Therefore, when plopped in front of a Mac OS X interface, the users tend to scout around and adapt pretty quickly.
Mac OS 9 users (Lord bless 'em) are the most stubborn, inflexible, fearful sort of user you can imagine when it comes to how their Macs work. That's a compliment to Apple--it shows the power of the original Mac OS interface over its many years of tenure. When you have a good thing, you are very stubborn to change.
But the loyalty to Mac OS 9 hurts Apple's move to OS X, of course. I anticipate having to take my client's OS 9 users through a Mac OS X orientation, watching them kick and scream in the process.
It's pretty amusing what the MacBU does and where they reside. But then, Microsoft has never been against the Macintosh--in fact, Microsoft created Word and Excel for use on Macintosh first, long before Windows was developed.
They do great work. Since Office 98, the MacBU has restored my opinion of Microsoft's support of the OS. While the products do suffer from the typical bloat common in MS software, they don't get in the way as nastily as in their Windows counterparts.
Further, Mac Microsoft products rarely suffer from the relentless ActiveX, VB, macro, and Win32 viruses, trojans, and other malware because the applications provide very limited or no support for these items.
The only real flaw in the MacBU (and this isn't probably in their control) is pricing. They would sell more Office units with a lower price, guaranteed.
Emulation and virtual machines: Bah. CrossOver Office is NOT Microsoft Office, but an environment to support a MS Office installation. That's like me installing Office XP in Virtual PC for Mac OS X and calling it a supported Office installation. Nope.
I would talk about the efficiency of X Window--if only there were a STANDARD that went with it. Forget about the window managers, for they inherently are their own standards. KDE and GNOME, for their goodness, complicate the efficiency that a GUI is supposed to accomplish. GUIs simplify a user's experience, not complicate it by duplicating every major UNIX command. There aren't many features in Aqua that don't have a function. Remember that UNIX and PC users were still puttering around on CLIs when the Macintosh popularized the idea that a GUI could actually do something worthwhile. Almost 20 years have gone by and the UNIX world has a GUI engine, but no consistency in the interfaces. X Window is no match against Aqua for consistency, and that's an impressive achievement considering that Aqua is very young. A more equal pairing would be a Display PostScript engine, which I hear is being worked on somewhere.
If your opinion is that Mac OS X is bloatware, OK. But this article proves that a lot of other users, especially those whose jobs rely on its speed and performance, disagree with you heartily.
And, if you really need X, you do realize that OS X supports X Window through the XDarwin project?
I agree with your criticisms, but not the spirit of them. OS X is a very strong OS for such a newcomer. Neither it or its hardware are as efficient as some Linux die-hards may want it to be, but it does the job very well, right now.