Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Java SE 6 For Mac OS X

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the hot-x-rated-java dept.

Java 132

wchatam writes "After a long delay, Apple has finally released a version of Java 6 for OS X. 64-bit Intel Macs are starting to see this pushed out via Software Update, but there has not been an announcement for when 32-bit Intel and PowerPC Mac users will get their versions."

cancel ×

132 comments

byteframe (0, Troll)

byteframe (924916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286098)

Fuck Macs.

Re:byteframe (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286122)

Write once. Run in one location.

Re:byteframe (2, Funny)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286144)

Look, if you're going to repeat a lame joke, at least be accurate. It goes like this:

"Java: write once, debug everywhere."

More accurate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286314)

Mac: use once, faggotry forever.

Programming Forum (1, Offtopic)

bobwrit (1232148) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286104)

I found a great programming forum at http://www.programers.co.nr/ [programers.co.nr] . They even discuss Java.

Re:Programming Forum (0, Offtopic)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286908)

You're a terribly shitty spammer. Hell, you can't even spell "programming".

So? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286124)

Despite all the hoopla to the contrary, most major enterprises aren't even considering Macs outside of specific niches. Who cares aside from Mac Fanbois?

Re:So? (0, Offtopic)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286306)

More to the point, why did you waste this time clicking and commenting on a story which clearly doesn't interest you? Not everything on Slashdot exists purely to please you. Or does it really offend you that much to see a story about a platform other than your own?

Re:So? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286352)

Who said anything about being offended? It's a valid topic of discussion to point out that nobody really cares. What offended you so much about my post that made you have to reply? If you don't like an opinion then state your own or refute it.

Re:So? (0, Offtopic)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287170)

Who said anything about being offended? It's a valid topic of discussion to point out that nobody really cares. What offended you so much about my post that made you have to reply? If you don't like an opinion then state your own or refute it.

What do you mean nobody really cares?

I don't have a Mac, don't intend to buy one, yet I do care. Its about fucking time the fruit got support. Now when are they going to have support for AROS?

Re:So? (1)

Whitemage12380 (979267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287376)

If you comment on a story and not say anything relevant to the story but instead deride a broader concept, isn't that textbook trolling?

Re:So? (3, Funny)

FF0000 Phoenix (516214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286490)

Well, somebody had to post. All of us Mac guys were too busy running our critical Java 6 stuff.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

theolein (316044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287102)

I hate to bait you, but an appropriate comeback to that would be: Whereas as everybody else was running their critical Java6 stuff 2 years ago.

There is a real problem at Apple with Java. Java6 was in beta 2 years ago at Apple, and has only been released in a crippled form for OSX, now. The thing is, Java7 is already on its way for the rest of the world.

Re:So? (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 6 years ago | (#23292952)

Most of the Java apps I've used recently (high-end, enterprise-grade stuff) have all been using Java 1.3.1_**. All the Java apps I've seen that try to be reasonably up-to-date with modern JREs all compile into native (Windows) binaries anyway.

Maybe you just have to be in the right situation to care, but I've never seen something that the JREs I've had couldn't run. Then again, I avoid Java like the plague.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

NTmatter (589153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286394)

I was about to say that this matters to the Java Fanbois, in the hope that they would finally get to play with the Java 6 features now that they're supported on the major platforms. "Doesn't run on Mac, must run everywhere" is a very solid argument against moving to Java 6.

As it happens, I must be new here, and I accidentally read the article.

Sadly, a Java 6 app still doesn't run everywhere. According to the Update [apple.com] , it'll only run on 64-bit Intel Macs with OSX 10.5.2 installed. If Apple doesn't do something about that fact, this update really doesn't mean much for anyone interested in developing for broad market deployment. This will only affect the tinkerers that happen to be running the latest version of OSX on 64-bit hardware, or developers that are fortunate enough to be able to target an audience that uses modernish technology.

So, nothing to see here unless you're a bleeding-edge Java+Mac fanboi. Granted, that particular market segment has gotten the shaft for far too long. It's good to see at least a small step in the right direction.

Re:So? (3, Informative)

c_forq (924234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286480)

All Macs have been 64-bit for quite a while now. The G5s were 64-bit (but that doesn't really matter, since this update is only for Intel Macs) and the only Intel Macs that aren't 64-bit are the original run of Mac Minis with the Core Solos, and the first iMacs with the Core Duos. All Intel MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and Mac Pros are 64-bit, along with any iMac since late 2006.

Re:So? (1)

TJamieson (218336) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286556)

Slight correction... there were MacBook Pros on the market originally with Core Duos (32-bit); it's not just relegated to consumer desktops.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287978)

The MacBook, the MacBook Pro, the Mac Mini, and the iMac all shipped with a Core Duo model initially. The only model that didn't is the Mac Pro. Oh, and Xserve....

Re:So? (0, Redundant)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286574)

I'm not sure which macs are 64-bit, but I can certainly tell you the Macbook Pro I'm typing this on has a 32-bit Core Duo, which is annoying as I would really like to be able to install this update.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286600)

Um, no, anything using a Core Duo is 32-bit, which means the first gen of all Intel Macs with the exception of the Mac Pro. The Core 2 Duo was a 64-bit CPU, not the Core Duo.

Re:So? (1)

Malekin (1079147) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286940)

It's been 18 months since Apple started selling only 64-bit Intel machines. (The MacBook went Core 2 in November 2006) That's not "quite a while". Only the most bleeding-edge-must-have-it-now nerd wouldn't balk at upgrading his rig more frequently than every 18 months.

Re:So? (1)

tab_b (1279858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287062)

The first-gen MacBooks [wikipedia.org] were just Core Duo, and of course that's what I've got :( We do have an app at work that requires Java6, so I guess I have to keep booting up a Parallels VM to run it.

Re:So? (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287610)

My MacBook Pro is not 64 bit!

Re:So? (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286602)

One question might be, with all the java hype of being able to write once and run anywhere, why wouldn't they buy into the universal binary format?

Re:So? (1)

Washii (925112) | more than 6 years ago | (#23289228)

Ask Apple. As far as I remember, Apple holds the keys to Java on OS X, not Sun.

Re:So? (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23292034)

Yeah, took me a minute to figure that out. This makes it even more odd in my mind--why would Apple do this to its 32-bit Intel customers?

Having used Apples for a while now I know that if you don't have the latest OS you are not likely to get all the latest and greatest. For hardware, you usually have to be on the latest chip, but they have been going out of their way to make the Power/Intel switch smooth, so this strikes me as odd.

Re:So? (1)

NTmatter (589153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290628)

The "Universal" Binary format is currently only usable in the OSX Universe. It doesn't actually run on Windows or Linux right now.

Granted, it is probably be possible to write it in to the Linux kernel, or to add some kind of custom classloader into the VM itself, but the benefits would be minimal (although moderately cool). You could save yourself the trouble of writing three custom shell scripts that launch Java with your desired arguments. I'll grant that's a rather nice goal, but it's pretty low on the Shiny/TODO list.

Still, Sun doesn't need to buy into the Universal Binary format at all. The JAR format is well-supported, backward compatible, and easy to build/extract/modify with standard tools. I would venture to say that it's actually "Universal" given the number of systems that JVMs run on.

If you really think it's a good idea, I'd say that you should read up on the Universal Binary spec and add a loader to the open-source JVM. Associate .app files with your custom VM in Windows, add UB support to the Linux kernel if it's not already there, and see if you can teach OSX to support a new format in its Universal Binaries. The market will decide to adopt if they really want it.

Re:So? (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23292058)

Sorry for being unclear, the question was why isn't the application "java" a universal binary so that it can run on all Mac computers (the universe of Apple).

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23288166)

What new Java 6 features?

There's a reason Apple didn't bother hurrying to bring out Java 6: all the "new features" are related to library changes, and not language changes. And since the API changes in Java 6 are all worthless, there's no reason to use them.

The place I work is still using Java 5 under Windows XP, because there's absolutely no reason to upgrade.

Re:So? (1)

Moochman (54872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23291080)

Java 6 on Windows is much prettier. The fact that it has proper font-antialiasing alone was more than enough reason for me to switch.

There's also one nice feature I found in the Java 6 APIs: sortable table columns!

But yeah, for the most part there's not all that much in there for the developer to get excited about.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23290784)

Please, for the love of god, stop using the word "fanboi." It makes you look like a pretentious twat.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

dlsmith (993896) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290992)

So, nothing to see here unless you're a bleeding-edge Java+Mac fanboi.
There are a lot of reasons this is good news, even if it doesn't mean that Java/Mac developers can assume that most of their users have Java 6 installed.
  • Current users of Java apps can get performance and bug improvements for existing apps. I noticed some Swing GUI improvements.
  • Developers get compiler improvements (including a lot of type checker bug fixes) even if not targeting Java 6.
  • Developers can gain experience with new APIs before actually deploying Mac apps that require them a couple of years down the road.
  • I read that a major impediment for getting Java DTrace support was the lack of Java 6. I'm not sure what the status of DTrace support is now, but it'll be major good news for Mac Java developers when it becomes fully supported.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286478)

And how is that worst than major enterprises blindly using defective Microsoft products?

Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286176)

This is 5 days old news, and it's not that big news anyway.

I guess it could be a reason which makes it 64-bit only aswell, or they just considered the other platforms to old to care, but that kind of suck. Pretty normal in Apple-land to consider old OS versions obsulete thought so maybe it's true for hardware aswell?

(Never mind the Apple fanboys which says that a G3 are still future proof.... Or how macs don't crash (mine crashed today for instance, I can somewhat understand it since Safari usually pick up like 800 MB of ram and I only have 2GB and I had run Google Earth aswell. And if the machine runs out of ram you get issues. But what I can't understand is why Safari and Flash on OS X has to be such pile of shit so it needs 2GB to begin with.))

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286236)

You are completely full of it. My entire office is full of web developers working full time on Macs. We use Safari, Firefox, and Flash all day and never run into such issues. Even our Mac Minis with just 512MB ram get along just fine. My 3 year old PowerBook also never has a problem.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286420)

It's no wonder. You should only need a notepad and web browser for that work.

I wasn't able to function in OSX with 1gb, so I had to wipe the system and install Ubuntu. Overall, a mac for business was a bad idea since I had a poorly supported, over priced linux box in the end.

After spending a year around an all mac shop, I noticed people just didn't say anything about something not working until a solution was brought forward, then a collective 'OMG finally!' would be felt.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286530)

A text editor, web browsers, Parallels with XP for IE testing, Photoshop or other image editors, apache/mysql/php/python/perl running locally, OpenOffice, OmniGraffle, and a few other apps. Professional web developers don't "only need a notepad and web browser."

In our case Macs are very much the right tool for the job. Those in the company who used linux desktops and laptops spent far more time dealing with application and configuration issues. They've all switched and they're far more productive and complain a lot less.

If Ubuntu is a better choice for you then it's obviously a better tool for your job. In our case we run into few situations where Macs are a problem. Obviously YMMV.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287110)

Yeah, please, please tell me someone would run Photoshop with 512MB (for some serious work), even more so with XP and all other bullshit running aswell. Yeah! Great! Magic at work!

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287082)

Hopefully you block flash banners and they don't have a bunch of youtube tabs running in the background. If not I have no idea what the difference is. Feel free to tell me.

Even if I close all tabs in Safari the piece of crap use even MORE ram, and for what? What is cached? There is no undo for closed tabs in Safari. What is it storing in my RAM? Except memory leaks? Please tell me!

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=542426&cid=23286992 [slashdot.org]

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286366)

Maybe you just don't know what the fuck you're doing. Ever think of that?

I've got 4GB of ram in my mac and 1GB in my G4. Both run just fine.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286992)

Yeah Mr Bigshot, please tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Here you have a screenshot from my MBP 16:25 today, I had my browser running and had run Google Earth, quit it and I got this kind of graphics glitches, the stuff to the right is spotlight. The machine was very slow as soon as there was a line switch in a text area and in the end it halted completely so I cold rebooted.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8727/bild82ch6.png [imageshack.us]

I quit firefox at 18.34, it used 841 MB of ram:
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5503/bild86ia5.png [imageshack.us]

That is probably when I started to use Safari, 00.50 now, current screenshots:
CPU - http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4718/bild87jm1.png [imageshack.us]
RAM - http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7607/bild88qy5.png [imageshack.us]

I do understand that some of the allocated RAM probably are file caches or something, that doesn't mean Safari doesn't run as shit as soon as I have no free RAM left.

But I know mac fanatics always tell how their crap machines run the latest and greatest Apple software with no issues at all ...

Maybe I just haven't catched up with all the magic yet.

Re:Somewhat old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23287362)

Why don't you just send your Mac to the repair ?
Your first pic shows there's obviously a hardware glitch.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23288546)

My coworkers and I spend all day in Safari and Firefox and I've never seen anything like that. You have to be visiting some seriously shady web sites. Even with over a dozen tabs open I can't get Safari to use much more than 100MB of physical ram. And I have one site with pages over 600K, open in multiple tabs, and still never use much ram.

The only issue I've ever seen is too many flash animations running simultaneously. But that only drained CPU, not RAM, and is very rarely a problem since flash's CPU usage drops when it's offscreen. Adobe doesn't feel like improving flash performance on the Mac.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290392)

I think that maybe Opera run flash in the background, because in Opera I tend to always have much higher CPU usage than in Safari, but lower memory usage. But it makes my fans kick in and since it's a laptop it's annoying. So therefor I often close Opera with a bunch of tabs and use Safari but then I have to restart Safari every now and then because it have used up all my RAM.

I don't think the sites are anything special, www.stylesearch.se, www.youtube.com and earlier www.spraydate.se and such. They do have a couple of flash banners as all other webpage does, and I know flash on OS X (and in general, completely useless as it is) suck. But if it's because of flash that doesn't really help me since I'm stuck in the situation anyway and can't do shit about it.

(Well, except uninstalling flash / run an old version of Safari with pithelmet / block flash in some other way.)

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 6 years ago | (#23291630)

I use Privoxy, myself - it catches most obnoxious Flash ads. Helps the CPU usage tremendously on my little 1.25Ghz Powerbook.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23288958)

Here you have a screenshot from my MBP 16:25 today, I had my browser running and had run Google Earth, quit it and I got this kind of graphics glitches, the stuff to the right is spotlight. The machine was very slow as soon as there was a line switch in a text area and in the end it halted completely so I cold rebooted.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8727/bild82ch6.png [imageshack.us]
I'm fairly certain that this is not a software problem. It looks like you have a problem with the video hardware on your computer which is causing slowdowns, crashes, and video corruption. I would bring this system in for repair as soon as possible because this problem might cause problems with other components in your machine, as well as data corruption and loss.

Overall I've found Mac OS X to be a fairly stable operating system and the Mac hardware to be pretty solid but things do go wrong. This is almost definitely one of those cases. Get your computer repaired and then take another look at your Mac and see if it performs better.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290402)

But I have only had the graphics glitches twice, this was the second time. And yes, my guess for why switching rows in a text area took like a few second was that core image / opengl / the graphics hardware did something weird.

The problem with a repair is that there are no Apple stores in Sweden so I may be without computer for like a month or something, which suck of course.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23293194)

You've probably only had them twice because some video problems only show up when the hardware is stressed in certain ways. Maybe the video circuitry got a bit hotter than it could tolerate, maybe there was an unusual load on the video memory. One thing is pretty certain, glitches like the one in your screenshot are usually hardware problems, not software, and hardware problems usually get worse, not better, with time.

Re:Somewhat old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23290280)

That is a very impressive(ly bad) glitch. I've never seen anything like it on any of my OS X Macs (eMac, iBook, B&W G3 tower, and a MacMini). The eMac had Google Earth on it until I sold it, and never had more than 256MB RAM in it. I have no idea what would cause that, but being an engineer I find it hard not to guess things like "bad RAM?" and "have you used Software Update recently?".

Or, wait, I get it. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287006)

Maybe it's that I'm not idiot enough to use this kind of idiot proof setup?

Re:Or, wait, I get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23287788)

Or maybe you are a linux fanboy who is to busy hating anything that isn't linux?

Re:Somewhat old. (2, Informative)

Graff (532189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286546)

Never mind the Apple fanboys which says that a G3 are still future proof.... Or how macs don't crash (mine crashed today for instance, I can somewhat understand it since Safari usually pick up like 800 MB of ram and I only have 2GB and I had run Google Earth aswell. And if the machine runs out of ram you get issues.
The Mac G3s are as "future proof" a any older processor can get. Apple has continued with every release of Mac OS X to support the PowerPC processors and they will probably continue to do so for at least a while longer. Even when Apple stops producing Mac OS X for PowerPC you can still keep on running whatever version of Mac OS X you currently have on it. Yes, eventually people will stop producing PowerPC binaries which will run on the G3 but by then that machine will be so outdated you're probably better off putting BSD or Linux on it and using it as a file server or router.

I don't know of anyone beyond the most clueless of idiots who think that Macs don't crash. Of course they can crash, every computer has a chance to crash. The thing is that Macs tend to crash less often than certain other computer platforms because Mac OS X and Apple hardware are designed to integrate tightly and there are less variables in their construction. Apple is also not immune to producing the occasional lemon but in experience they tend to build solid machines that have very few problems.

Mac OS X is VERY tolerant of situations where you are running low on RAM, once it has enough RAM to run itself. Generally once you are above about 512 MB of RAM you have a decent amount to run Mac OS X. Yes, it will run better with more RAM than that but for the casual user anything from 512 MB to 1 GB is pretty decent.

I don't know if you understand how modern operating systems work but generally they will load TONS into memory, even if they don't really need it. Just because Safari is "using" 800 MB of RAM doesn't mean that it's really using that much. A lot of that is caches, backing stores, associated libraries, and other support data that the operating system loads just in case it's needed. That sort of stuff can be overwritten in a jiffy if another application needs the memory. Not only that but a lot of that memory is likely to be libraries that are common to other running applications so 3 or 4 running applications might all be using the same 500 MB chunk of RAM.

I think you might want to read up [macosxhints.com] on memory management [apple.com] under Mac OS X [apple.com] before you make these sort of wild speculations...

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287248)

Leopard requires a G4 1GHz+ from system requirements I belive, so no, Leopard don't support those machines. It do support PPC, which would be very bad if they didn't considering they are just like 1.5 year old or something.

A G3 _IS_ outdated, OS X is the most heavy OS I've ever used, Windows XP would live very happy on this 2.2GHz C2D, 2GB ram MBP. I don't say there is anything weird or wrong with G3 being outdated, 1GHz P3s is aswell. It's just the "omg macs live forever"-bs which is wrong. And even more so "omg Windows is like teh lol, it's so heavy on my machinery, OS X are like a canary bird on a football field!"

But I don't hate OS X either, and I accept that it's heavy, it's just all the bullshit I can't handle. And I would prefer to be able to do simple stuff as browsing the web on a new computer! But maybe that is impossible nowadays considering the fucking bloat the web have become.

XP SP2 was very stable for me, I don't remember if I ran it on my Athlon64 aswell but I think I did, I for sure did on my Athlon-XP. But I had new BIOS and the latest drivers for everything, maybe that helped, I have no idea.

I would want to call this integrate-stuff BS aswell because I know that:
1) I sort of know noone who has problems with XP SP2.
2) Hacks run OS X more or less just as good as real macs.
But I won't because I know some people over here on Slashdot use to say that drivers cause most of the crashes, and maybe they are correct and I'm wrong. So maybe it's a benefit, not as huge one as people say thought.

My browser and whole computer experience get absurb once I run out of free RAM, I have no idea why, maybe it's because the machine have to start swapping around some virtual memory as soon as I want to do something, using my 5400rpm 2.5" 160GB HDD. And honestly I don't care, I just know what happens. Maybe I should just live with it, but if most stuff are caches I would prefer the OS not to cache so much and spare more free RAM so it doesn't have to swap around virtual memory as much.

I would assume the memory you are speaking about which aren't really needed would count under VSIZE? And even if real memory column in activity monitor lists shared ram multiple times (of which I have no idea), the system free memory should be correct, right?

Currently my Safari have been running for 7 hours, I know I run plenty of tabs, and Pithelmet doesn't work with latest Safari, but currently it says:
CPU: 55%, real memory: 965MB, VSIZE: 1.85GB.
System free: 58.78MB, Resident: 236MB, Active: 1.13GB, Inactive: 589MB.

I guess the inactive is that my machine should be able to use for other stuff? So in reality I should have like 640MB of RAM which are usable for loading "active" memory? That seems more ok but the swapping would kill me way before that. Maybe I just need a deskop with a much faster drive instead ... I will get 4GB of RAM aswell but I wanted to complain on Apple because my case have losen up a little around the button you use to open the lid and I have something which looks like a scratch/dent in the backlightning of the LCD (if you move your head the brighter "dent" will move around beneath the pixels.)
I waited to RMA it because I wanted the new models to be released just in case ... And now I'm to lazy because I don't want to live without my computer for like a month and have to backup my harddrive. And if I had changed harddrive I would eventuelly lose my warranty and if I had bought new RAM I would still have to keep the old ones if I wanted to send the machine back I guess.

Anyway here are my other thread with memory allocations:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=542426&cid=23286992 [slashdot.org]

And here is how it looks right now:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5764/bild89nh6.png [imageshack.us]

I guess those SSD drives may help a lot with handling swap? Since it's probably lots of small areas which need to be read/written. But a better start are probably to max the RAM first.

Re:Somewhat old. (2, Insightful)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 6 years ago | (#23293022)

A G3 _IS_ outdated, OS X is the most heavy OS I've ever used, Windows XP would live very happy on this 2.2GHz C2D, 2GB ram MBP.
Probably because Windows XP is a six-and-a-half year old operating system, whereas Leopard was released six months ago. A more reasonable comparison would be either to compare XP to Mac OS X 10.0.4, or to compare Leopard to Windows Vista (but which version? I'd go with Ultimate).

Windows XP's system requirements are rooted in the cutting-edge technology of 2001, with a few increases on the way thanks to the three service packs, whereas Leopard was designed for the current and previous generation of hardware Apple has shipped.

It's just not that good of a comparison.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

TeamSPAM (166583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287974)

I won't say that macs don't crash, but if they are crashing on a regular basis something is wrong. Right before Leopard came out, my dual G4 was crashing on a daily (if not more basis). Since I knew I was about to install a new OS, I waited until Leopard was out before I did an OS install. I threw in a new IDE drive, installed Leopard, migrated data off of the old HD and things have been smooth ever since. If you mac crashes fairly often, then you either need to troubleshoot it or go for a fresh install. I tend to blame the software/OS for getting out of whack before saying the hardware is failing.

Re:Somewhat old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23287018)

Probably because you're an idiot and aren't using Firefox3 beta5.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290352)

I knew I used Firefox3 beta, not which one thought, but it was beta 5. Next?

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23289438)

Slashdot is clever to post this to Developer section, after days since it should be free of the fanboys with moderation powers and let actual developers speak about the future (if exists) of Java on OS X.

Of course the plan failed as those people found the story and abuse their moderation powers without reading a single line.

In reality, this is big news. This is the only Java which is tied to single variant of single vendor's CPU along with single OS point release.

Win2K which is abandoned by its own Vendor has Java 6, a 8 years old system. If there is anyone from Sun reading this: Call your IBM (POWER) Friends, get a high end developer account from Apple, start coding Sun Java for OS X _right now_. Forget Aqua, make it run fine with Leopard X11. Not like any Java developer will trust Apple to code entire thing with Aqua bindings especially after this manifesto like release from Apple.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Moochman (54872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290936)

I agree that Sun should put out the Mac OS X Java distribution.

However, if you think any mainstream Mac user is going to want to run X11-based Java apps on their system, you must be insane.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290974)

Well, give a good tool to them to deserve the "alien like" appearance/behaviour, they may use it. A tool in quality of Azureus 3.x or Limewire. They can look like OS X apps anyway.

Lots of people aren't aware that many of Java/Desktop tools are hits in "top downloads" etc. lists sometimes being top download on their categories.

If Apple doesn't like the fact that their users use X11 to use Java 6 apps, they should sit and code a real Java, not a joke like this. I don't think there was any Java release like this in IT history.

We were already accepting "To get Modern Java, upgrade to latest OS X Major version" but this time, they tie it to a single vendors single CPU with single OS X point release. Almost like a joke.

Re:Somewhat old. (1)

Moochman (54872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23291178)

>Well, give a good tool to them to deserve the "alien like" appearance/behaviour, they may use it. A tool in quality of Azureus 3.x or Limewire. They can look like OS X apps anyway.

They can look like OS X apps because they use Apple's implementation of Java.

Have you tried running any actual X11 apps on Mac OS X? There's no menu bar for individual apps at the top of the screen, the Mac OS X keyboard conventions are all broken, the resolution is all wierd.... It's almost as bad as running Windows/Linux apps in an emulator, just that there's not so much overhead.

Plus you've got to keep in mind that Apple users are some of the pickiest customers, especially when it comes to aesthetics. That's why for example the X11 version of OpenOffice never took off, and now there's (finally) a major effort underway for a full-Aqua port.

If Azureus and Limewire were to start requiring X11 exclusively, I guarantee their Mac market share would not hold up for long.

Letter of apology (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286258)

Dear Mac users,

We're very sorry that unenlightened members of our organization have ported this abomination to your platform. I'm quite sure that you understand that large organizations often have rogue elements working against the organization's best interests from the inside. I assure you that we're working tirelessly to end the Java scourge. In the meantime, we offer our most sincere apologies not only to the Mac community, but to everyone who has been forced to use a Java application throughout history. Hopefully, with your help, we can cleanse the world of Java and make computing a more enjoyable experience for all.

Thank you for your time,

Sun Microsystems

Re:Letter of apology (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287998)

Dear Sun,

Apology not accepted. We might have forgiven you for Java, but we'll never forgive you for NFS....

Sincerely,
Mac Users

Re:Letter of apology (4, Insightful)

Moochman (54872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290584)

This is starting to get ridiculous. Over the last few weeks it has somehow become trendy on Slashdot to make ridiculous jabs at "Java". Not any specific aspect or technology of Java, just "Java". And not anything specific about it, not even the stupid parroting that it's "slow", just things like "it's an abomination" etc.

It's getting really old. At first it was stupidly amusing, now it's just stupid.

Java is a powerful, performant (by far moreso than the current batch of oh-so-trendy interpreted languages), cross-platform, *open-source* set of technologies. This suggests to me that it offers a lot to users of all platforms, especially open-source ones. In fact, it doesn't just suggest this to me. It does offer a lot to users of all platforms, and has been doing so for quite some time now. The fact that Slashdot has now become a playground for groundlessly insulting "Java" in the hopes of scoring a few mod points from the (as usual) hopelessly juvenile Slashdot moderators, makes me sad.

I know it's not trendy to bust into your acerbic sarcasm-filled world with my serious comment here. But somehow I doubt there are many people (aside from a few hard-core .NET missionaries) who would seriously want to see the downfall of Java anytime soon. Yet unfortunately, all you are doing by making these sorts of jokes is needlessly acting to divide a healthy open-source community and reduce enthusiasm for Java. There is a wide diversity of tools and technologies out there, all with unique advantages. Java is one of them. As someone who supports and uses Java, I'm getting sick and tired of standing by while Slashdot scheisters such as Mr Coward here hi-five each other every day for upping the Java-deprecation ante.

Go poke fun at BASIC or something. Leave Java alone.

Re:Letter of apology (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23291346)

But somehow I doubt there are many people (aside from a few hard-core .NET missionaries) who would seriously want to see the downfall of Java anytime soon.
I would probably qualify as a ".NET missionary", but I certainly do not wish the downfall of Java. As long as Java is there and at the top, Microsoft is forced to come up with more and more good ideas to maintain an edge over Java, and to give sufficiently convincing reasons to switch. If you see development of features such as generics in both languages, it is really noticeable how they were trying to out-compete each other there. Presently, we see Microsoft introducing a new wave of .NET frameworks built around ideas that arose and/or matured in the Java camp - MVC Web application framework (ASP.NET MVC), ORM (ADO.NET Entity Framework), IoC container (Unity)... I'm really glad to have all those in .NET, and I think that they wouldn't be there today if they weren't so popular in the Java land.

If only Sun did hurry up a bit... it seems that Java 7 is going to be another release with no significant changes, what with all the quarrel about lambdas. A pity.

Re:Letter of apology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23292702)

Show me where I can download a complete open source Java 6 JDK. Not a partial one, one that completely implements all the libraries in Java 6.

You can't. It doesn't exist.

Java going open source is a sham, designed to bolster support from people who don't realize that Java is dieing. Sort of like, well, based on your post, you.

Try learning other languages before declaring Java to be worth keeping. You'll be surprised at how much more productive and faster you are in other languages and environments.

Re:Letter of apology (1)

tigersha (151319) | more than 6 years ago | (#23293544)

The last few weeks???

This place is the most anti-Java site in the Universe. Has always been. If it ain't a P language then it's laughable.

Re:Letter of apology (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290752)

Not that you'd have let facts get in your way even if you knew them (and perhaps you did), but all the OS X Java ports are done by Apple.

Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (4, Interesting)

theolein (316044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286608)

What reaaly bothers me about Apple is that their support for anything that doesn't come out of Cupertino seems to be either designed to bait end users into moving to Macs than anything else.

When Apple brought out OS X in 2001, it was all smiles as the system came with free developer tools, a Java-Cocoa API that allowed you to use Java to write native Cocoa apps as well as a C/C++ API that also allowed you to write native Mac apps.

The problem was that the Java-Cocoa api was buggy from the start, apart from having very slow response on a, at the time, very slow user interface. Apple never fixed some of the worst bugs in critical objects (PDF objects for example), and finally, in 2005, dropped further development for the Java-Cocoa bridge altogether.

Last year, Apple dropped further development for the C/C++ API, which is having a major impact on big applications like Adobe's Creative Suite, which now have to move to Apple's in-house Objective-C api.

The overall impression that I get is that Apple is only paying lip service to anything that doesn't come from Apple itself. Apple was known for this in the 90s and there was an acronym for that: NIH -Not Invented Here. This is also Microsoft suffers from, in its Embrace and Extend strategy.

This had serious repurcussions for Apple in the 90s and I, as a long time Mac user worry if it won't happen again. Java6 was available for other platforms over two years ago, and now Java7 is even almost here.

Seriously, if you're a Java developer, is there any actual reason to use Mac OSX? You're far better off using Eclipse on Linux.

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286954)

You were marked troll, but I think what you wrote is probably true. If I remember right, Apple releasing the newest Java only on the newest OS is a bad pattern. Some other weirdness was a long standing 10.3 bug which caused third party browsers to be unable to access the newest version of java installed on the machine. So Safari was using 1.5 while Firefox was using 1.4.

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (3, Insightful)

theolein (316044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287074)

It doesn't really matter if I was marked troll. The only sad thing about it is that Mac fans are often very loyal to the platform no matter what Apple does. It makes it very difficult to level any constructive criticism at Apple, as Apple fans will often deny the criticism.

Still, it's what kept Apple form going under in the 90s, so there must be something good about it.

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23288184)

The only sad thing about it is that Mac fans are often very loyal to the platform no matter what Apple does. It makes it very difficult to level any constructive criticism at Apple, as Apple fans will often deny the criticism.

You could make this claim with regard to pretty much any OS and have plenty of evidence to support it. Applying it to Mac users, I'd actually say they are more likely to complain and file bug reports with Apple than say, most Linux users. I've had numerous conversations with Linux on the desktop developers that run as follows:

Me: I have this problem on Linux.

Developer: That isn't a problem.

Me: Here's the use case and why it fails.

Developer: Okay it is a problem, but no other OS is any better.

Me: Here is how some other OS handles it better.

Developer: Linux does that.

Me: Here's what Linux does and why that is different.

Developer: Linux is better anyway because of *unrelated Linux feature*.

Me: Gee that feature is great and all, but doesn't help me any.

Developer: The problem is that you want to do that. Change your behavior to only use OSS products, or not interoperate with that system or make use of this lengthy and difficult solution that involves writing my own scripts and constantly updating them.

Me: Umm, yeah, sure. I filed the bug report including this transcript.

I mean seriously, Apple users complain all the time and most of them except the real newbies are wiling to admit the deficiencies and commiserate with people that run afoul of them. Why do you think Apple added virtual desktops, for example? Apple does a lot of things users don't like and neglect doing things their users want. For the most part, however, they are better about responding to users than any other OS vendor I know of and has enough advantages that most users simply don't want switch despite the problems... because it is still a better user experience than they get from any other OS. (At least for many home users it certainly is.)

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23289266)

Your little scenario misses the point.

Of coarse a developer will get defensive over their own project. It's understandable to be a fanboy if you fucking wrote it, it's your baby.

What's remarkable is the degree to which regular Mac users take any criticism of Apple or its products personally.

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23292916)

Your little scenario misses the point. Of coarse[sic] a developer will get defensive over their own project. It's understandable to be a fanboy if you fucking wrote it, it's your baby.

Heh, regular users that speak up are worse yet, in my experience. Linux developers tend to be educated at least about Linux. Users have just as strong or stronger resistance to learning about anything "wrong" with Linux, but it takes five times as long to get them to understand the technical difference to some other OS, if that is even possible.

What's remarkable is the degree to which regular Mac users take any criticism of Apple or its products personally.

As I said, in my opinion, Linux on the desktop users are actually the worst for this. I think it relates to how far outside the mainstream you are. It seems the fewer people in your "tribe" the more defensive and emotional people get over their choices.

A few years ago people complained that OS X didn't have virtual desktops by default (in a discussion here). Most users understood that and agreed it would be nice. Many pointed out the third party solutions (most of which were freeware, scratch an itch ones). Compare that to discussions about lack of an expose clone in Ubuntu. There are such clones these days, although none included by default and none of the major Linux distros seem to have any plans to include one by default. From what I can tell, this is not because they are still immature or unstable, but rather because the core developers of those projects still have trouble admitting it might be useful and a real advance for some workflows.

From my perspective in the former case, users were less defensive, submitted bug requests, and the OS advanced as a result. In the latter case users were very defensive, very few files bug requests, and all the major distros are still lacking that feature.

Maybe that's not the exact chain of events, only the way it seemed to me. That said, I don't think asserting that Mac users are more defensive, in any way proves that point. Linux users are plenty emotional and defensive to annoy me (as do Mac users upon occasion). Either could be "more defensive" but it is something for both communities to address when it happens.

Putting resources where it makes the most sense (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23288964)

Long term, Apple is probably doing what is going to be best for Apple.

I have been really heavy into Java development from the start. But you know what? I can see that Java desktop apps are always going to be a smaller subset of native apps. There just is not widespread adoption to date, thus the greatly diminished focus on keeping the Java->Cocoa bridge healthy.

As for the Carbon (what you incorrectly label C/C++ API's), well Apple said all along that the plan was to transition to Cocoa, and that Carbon was a bridge to that end. It's true that Adobe got rather screwed in particular in that at a crucial point in time they were told Carbon was going to last a few more years than Apple is saying it will now. But Adobe also had a really long time to work on a Cocoa port.... note that Lightroom has no issues in that regard. That was unfortunate for both Apple and Adobe, but in the long run it's going to make everyone switch to a single API sooner which means more support can go into maintaining and improving one API rather than two.

As a side note, just because Cocoa is more of an Objective-C API doesn't mean you can't easily call it from C/C++ code.

Re:Putting resources where it makes the most sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23289598)

It's true that Adobe got rather screwed in particular in that at a crucial point in time they were told Carbon was going to last a few more years than Apple is saying it will now.
IIRC, Carbon isn't going away any time soon, so Adobe's apps should continue to run under future versions of OS X. What Apple said was that they would not be producing a 64-bit update to Carbon. So if Adobe wants all the goodness that comes with running as a 64-bit application, they have to port it to Cocoa.

Adobe has called Apple's bluff (publicly saying that they're not going to port), so it will be interesting to see what Apple does. Is Apple willing to risk losing some of their strongest supporters (graphic designers and other artistic types) simply to make an example of Adobe? Or will they cave to Adobe's pressure because they realize that this demographic needs the Creative Suite more than it needs OS X?

Incidentally, Adobe isn't alone in their use of Carbon. For one, SWT is based on Carbon, so Eclipse and other Java apps based on SWT (Azureus comes to mind) will also be forced to run in 32-bit mode.

Re:Putting resources where it makes the most sense (1)

Moochman (54872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290988)

Adobe never said that "they're not going to port". They said that the port to 64-bit will take two more iterations of the Creative Suite rather than just one.

I'll be interested to see if they actually tie into the Cocoa APIs directly or use a more cross-platform friendly solution such as Qt 4.

Re:Putting resources where it makes the most sense (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290476)

Long term, Apple is probably doing what is going to be best for Apple. I have been really heavy into Java development from the start. But you know what? I can see that Java desktop apps are always going to be a smaller subset of native apps. There just is not widespread adoption to date, thus the greatly diminished focus on keeping the Java->Cocoa bridge healthy. As for the Carbon (what you incorrectly label C/C++ API's), well Apple said all along that the plan was to transition to Cocoa, and that Carbon was a bridge to that end. It's true that Adobe got rather screwed in particular in that at a crucial point in time they were told Carbon was going to last a few more years than Apple is saying it will now. But Adobe also had a really long time to work on a Cocoa port.... note that Lightroom has no issues in that regard. That was unfortunate for both Apple and Adobe, but in the long run it's going to make everyone switch to a single API sooner which means more support can go into maintaining and improving one API rather than two. As a side note, just because Cocoa is more of an Objective-C API doesn't mean you can't easily call it from C/C++ code.

1997 WWDC Carbon transition API released. 2007 End of Life for Carbon listed. Adobe/Macromedia and Microsoft had a very long run--at least 8 years more than they were expected with Carbon.

Time to move on or lose profits.

Re:Putting resources where it makes the most sense (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23292452)

But then wasn't the date pushed out as "large companies" had some trouble with transition? I agree that they should have planned to that date but at that point, the date may have been ambitious given the changes OS X and Cocoa itself would undergo in the intervening years... I think in some ways all companies took the best paths open to them, it just happens here near the end game we have something of a discontinuity.

Microsoft I feel less sorry for than Adobe as they have a more purely OS X focused product and don't have to try to engineer a cross platform codebase (as far as I know there's really no Office UI code shared from Windows to the Mac version and the Mac BU is pretty independent).

Re:Putting resources where it makes the most sense (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23293332)

But then wasn't the date pushed out as "large companies" had some trouble with transition? I agree that they should have planned to that date but at that point, the date may have been ambitious given the changes OS X and Cocoa itself would undergo in the intervening years... I think in some ways all companies took the best paths open to them, it just happens here near the end game we have something of a discontinuity. Microsoft I feel less sorry for than Adobe as they have a more purely OS X focused product and don't have to try to engineer a cross platform codebase (as far as I know there's really no Office UI code shared from Windows to the Mac version and the Mac BU is pretty independent).

The date was pushed out because Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft were refusing to move, firstly to Carbon, and later to Cocoa. I had to answer any and all questions at WWDC '97 and '98 about moving to ObjC/Cocoa--it wasn't for a lack of technical clarifications and help that kept them from moving forward: it was a deliberate vision and decions not to move ahead. In early May 1998 the first release of the iMac was revealed to us outside of it's core team and we al liked the little bugger at DeAnza College. Soon after the industry was talking constantly about the iMac.

The problem that Apple had no leverage over the big 3 was apparent in their marketshare leading it to have very little industry mindshare. Since then, the tides have turned and they turned after the first year of the iPod's success. This didn't change matters. They were still going to exert their leverage and delay the transition to Cocoa knowing Apple was still not in a position to challenge completely. With the advent of software applications, at Apple, to fill the gaps and often take marketshare in direct competition from the big 3 it was a clear shot over the bow that they either get on-board or soon will be left at the dock.

This upcoming next major release is the first release us ex-NeXT engineers would have loved to see back in 2001.

As I've said, Adobe whined about Carbon and continues to deflect about Cocoa. With the merger of Macromedia it hasn't accelerated much, other than their latest Lightroom which managed to be written in Cocoa. [detractors will say it's because they started with a clean code base. When you are a large corporation with hundreds of in-house test applications, the thought of fresh code base is rather cut and paste.] They have had plenty of time to hire Cocoa engineers. They could have even accelerated the training, in-house, by hiring some of the top trainers [Big Nerd Ranch] to smooth the transition. We used to have a team of NeXT engineers at Adobe for their in-house custom applications and WebObjects/Cocoa needs.

Regarding the Cocoa-Java Bridge written by Mike Ferris, Ali Ozer and others, it was a stop-gap never intended to be a first citizen unifying API. We always saw ObjC/Cocoa as the top class at NeXT and part of the reason for the merger with Apple. Java was added due to it's industry prevalence, not it's superiority over ObjC and it's many in-house frameworks. WebObjects prior to Java was a beautiful piece of Server-Side development. It was mismanaged and I personally am not suprised with certain individuals in-charge of it's well-being doing exactly was they did to it--manage it into the ground.

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290720)

Not many people used the Cocoa-Java bridge compared to Cocoa and even Carbon. There's not much point putting time into something like that. They shouldn't have promised 64 bit Carbon and then taken it away though. The writing has still been on the wall that they are moving to Cocoa APIs only in the future.

Re:Java6 for Intel 64, and now what? (1)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 6 years ago | (#23292640)

Cocoa Java was dropped because it was slow and buggy like you said, and additionally, it wasn't being used and it probably wasn't a good idea to start with (Java is for cross-platform). In other words, not worth diverting limited resources to.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'dropping C/C+' APIs. I think what you might be referring to (since you mention Adobe) is that Carbon will not be transitioned to 64-bit. That's not really the same thing as dropping it at all.

The POSIX APIs are 64-bit. CoreFoundation, Launch Services, and many, many other C APIs are 64-bit. But if you want to write GUI code in 64-bit, you have to use Cocoa. Again, it's a resource thing, Apple is not a huge company with unlimited resources to devote to overlapping functionality.

Please don't forget the PPC.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23286686)

Some of us can't afford the newest machines. But we did pay for your 200% profit margin. Please don't forget us!

Re:Please don't forget the PPC.... (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286798)

Sure. Abble will listen. They always do. Haha.

Re:Please don't forget the PPC.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23292914)

You are a stupid trolling cunt, and you need to die.

32 bit intel macs? (1)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286774)

I know there are 32 bit PPC macs, but I thought that all X86 macs were 64 bit, since they started with the core 2 duo systems.

What models of macs came with a 32 bit OS? Or are they simply referring to mac os 10.4, which I believe had some 32 bit support, but didn't have all API's (like cocoa) available in 64 bit versions.

Re:32 bit intel macs? (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23286856)

What models of macs came with a 32 bit OS?

The initial machines were CoreDuo, not Core2Duo. Our family had a 32-bit MacBook Pro, MacBook and Mac Mini. I've since replaced the MacBook Pro with a Core2Duo model, but the MacBook and Mac Mini continue to do decent service and there's no need to replace them.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:32 bit intel macs? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23289414)

You forget something, G5 Macs. They are all pure 64bit and in fact, the entire PowerPC line was developed with 64bit in mind.

I was going crazy about this fact until I heard a really funny side effect. As that JRE is pure 64bit, making it default Java applet handler in Safari will practically disable Java since Safari is... 32 bit :)

Sun guys should leave Open Office developers alone a bit and treat Apple just like Microsoft. They should figure already that Apple doesn't like their tool, will do anything to show it as a joke to end user, will not optimise it and get XCode from Apple along with the most expensive Developer account possible, start coding Sun Java for OS X.

I don't even expect JRE 6 from Apple for PPC. It may be released without JIT Compiler etc. even (which is worse than not having it at first place).

If you insist on running PPC(64) Desktop and want the Java 6, IBM one for Linux/PPC is there:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/linux/download.html [ibm.com]

People dreaming about Apple in Enterprise should take IBM as example, that is how you get respect on Enterprise.

Another option for PPC while it is tragicomic: MS Virtual PC 7/XP SP2/Win2K+Sun Java 6 . I tested, it works. Of course don't expect Azureus to play movies ;)

Why isn't this Sun's job? (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287312)

Microsoft's support for Java on Windows theoretically ended in 2007, and if you want to run Java apps on Windows you go to http://www.java.com/en/index.jsp [java.com] and download Java.

If you're on Linux and you want to run Java apps, you go to the same place and download an RPM.

On Solaris, of course, you go... guess where... and download Java.

Last time I installed it on FreeBSD, I used the Linux binaries in Linus emulation mode. There's a FreeBSD Java project now.

And Sun has recently announced that they'll be supporting Java on the iPhone.

But if you have a Mac, Sun tells you to bugger off and ask Apple.

I'm sure there's some good historical reason for this weird exception, but given that Sun's supporting Java on much smaller platforms than Mac OS X, wouldn't it be in Sun's interest to take on the Mac as well if whatever legacy business agreement with Apple isn't working out? If they did that, then possibly it'd even become possible to get up-to-date Java support for older versions of OS X.

How about it, Sun, are you willing to put your programmers where your mouth is?

Re:Why isn't this Sun's job? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23287624)

From what I've heard, this agreement was because Apple wanted to add some extras to the Swing GUI layer, such as integrating Swing menu items into the main Apple menu system.

No, really, what's Sun up to? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23289188)

Which is interesting from a historical perspective, by that I mean it tells us why Apple decided to take on the job several years ago. But it really doesn't answer the question of why the Java community isn't coming back to Sun with "look, Apple doesn't really have anything at stake here, they don't see the success of Java as important, the bastards, but whether they're bastards or not you're the ones who've got a dog in the hunt and you're the ones who've got to cover this trail."

Alternatively, the FreeBSD port of Java seems to run on Leopard:

February 14, 2008: Greg Lewis has released the fourth patchset (patchlevel 4, "Mach 1") for the JDK(TM) 1.6.0 software. This release now supports MacOS X Leopard and NetBSD/amd64. Information on downloading the patchset can be found at http://www.eyesbeyond.com/freebsddom/java/jdk16.html [eyesbeyond.com] .


What's the current license situation with Java, anyway? I thought they had gone to a real open source license, but the interstitial license page for the "Mach 1" download implies otherwise. Is this something else that Sun could be doing a better job of clearing up?

Re:No, really, what's Sun up to? (4, Interesting)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290372)

On licensing, the BSD port licensed its code from Sun under a different license before Java went GPL.

At the moment, legal eagles are working through some paperwork regarding acceptance of this code into the GPL source tree. But in coming months we'll hopefully see the BSD and, by extension, Landon Fuller's OS X work hosted in the main openjdk codebase. Patience...

Now on the other matter, the OS X Java, there have been pleadings from Java developers in the past for Sun to take the reins and do an official port. Particularly a few months ago when Leopard shipped without Java 6.

What makes the port to OS X harder than, say, Linux? Among other things:

* A Cocoa implementation of AWT
* Porting the hotspot virtual machine to PPC
* native libraries, e.g. the Java-Cocoa bridge

These are not trivial tasks they require some expertise of OS X and PowerPC internals. If they were simple to implement, Apple wouldn't be 2 years late. For Sun to replicate these existing features from scratch would take many man years. And for 10%, or thereabouts, of the desktop market they obviously don't see a cost benefit. Would Sun be willing to 'buy back' Apple's source tree and GPL it? Some OS X internals Apple may not wish to expose (IP issues) and like Sun's codebase be encumbered by code they don't own.

Ultimately some of the ball is in Apple's court. They have sought to maintain their own Java port for competitive reasons such as low level OS integration. But what competitive advantage they deem to have when their releases are a full version behind Linux, Solaris and Windows is debatable.

Would Apple publish changes back to openjdk? They seem reluctant to. One benefit:

* PowerPC hotspot - someone else can maintain legacy architecture support for the G4. Who else have a vested interest in openjdk? Redhat, who have signalled intentions to support multiple architectures besides x86. Do Apple and Redhat really compete for the same markets, aside from a few Xserves???

Re:No, really, what's Sun up to? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23290962)

An X11 based port from Sun would work for the interim, and possibly even shame Apple into committing the resources to completing their Cocoa port. It would also produce a port that works for earlier versions of OS X.

If they were simple to implement, Apple wouldn't be 2 years late.

If Apple doesn't even have 1.5 working properly on Leopard, I suspect that they have other issues.

As for Apple's possible issues with competitors... it's getting to the point where the question isn't going to be Java on OSX vs Java on Red Hat, it's going to be .NET on Windows vs Mono on Red Hat. I wouldn't have believed it a few years ago, but Microsoft has managed to actually convince a critical mass of open source folks that Mono isn't the camel's nose under the tent.

Re:Why isn't this Sun's job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23290798)

On Solaris, of course, you go... guess where... and download Java.

Hm, no. Sun deserves more credit for their work and the way they believe in it than that IMO. If you're using Solaris you don't have to download Java since its an important part of the OS itself.

Re:Why isn't this Sun's job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23291352)

How could the above be modded insightful? Apple is responsible for providing java on OS X, not Sun, and it is so by Apple's choice according to the below:

http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=47375#241861

  It's Apple's fault
Posted by: Osvaldo Doederlein on October 29, 2007 in response to Message #241830

> The move to ship Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5)
> without Java 6 is a significant sign of Sun
> blowing its opportunity with Java development.

You may be interested to know that Apple, not Sun, is responsible for providing the Mac JVM; and that this is so by Apple's choice. They licensed Java from Sun and they added significant new features for OS X integration - which are Apple's proprietary sources, Sun does not receive these sources back, even though Apple keeps receiving the latest sources from Sun. So, even if a few months ago when Apple started to drag their feet with the Java6 port Sun wanted to assume the job and finish it, they wouldn't be able because they just don't have the entire source code. They would have to re-code from scratch all the OS X-specific port and integration work that Apple did in the last several years.

OK, why does Sun think they can leave it to Apple? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23293792)

Apple is responsible for providing java on OS X, not Sun, and it is so by Apple's choice

That's a little self-referential. All you're saying is that this isn't Sun's job because this isn't Sun's job. We know that, friend, we've known that for years. The problem is that Apple's support for Java has been lukewarm at best for years now, with Apple's Java generally coming late and only for the latest version of OS X... and the scope of their "OS X integration" has been scaled back as well.

My point is this: Apple really has no stake in providing Java for the Mac. They do it because there's demand for it, but it's not important to them, and while depending on them for Java on the Mac is not quite as daft as depending on Microsoft for Java on Windows proved to be, it's probably not a good idea for Sun to depend on Apple for the long term.

Which is why my message was titled "Why isn't this Sun's job?" and not "This is Sun's job".

Won't install on my Intel Core Duo MacBook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23288342)

"This update can only be installed on a 64-bit capable Intel Mac."

Don't look for this in 10.4 (2, Insightful)

gumpish (682245) | more than 6 years ago | (#23288514)

Apple has a history of denying new versions of Java to any previous version of the OS. (See Java 5 & 10.3)

Frankly I was amazed that Acrobat 8 Professional requires Mac OS 10.4 when it only came out 18 months after 10.4 was released. (But then perhaps Apple was paying Adobe a little bit under the table to help strongarm Mac owners into coughing up their $129 upgrade fee.) And of course Office 2008 requires 10.4 as well.

I have a hard time believing that the OS changes so fundamentally from one version to the next that apps can't be reasonably ported. I guess the only reason legacy versions of Windows enjoy so much support is simply because of the vast amount of market share Microsoft enjoys.

Makes me glad I use a free operating system and free software, still annoying as fuck supporting my users though.

What's in SE 6 anyway? (1)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 6 years ago | (#23291846)

I've seen a couple threads in various places complaining that with Java 6 is only on the 64-bit Intel Leopard somehow Java is still not a great platform for Macs. But I've got Java 1.4 and 1.5 on my 32-bit Mac Mini and Java apps run fine. What features are in Java 1.6 that are so critical? I heard something about applet loading being a bit more intelligent, that might be nice for client-side web apps, but is there anything else?

Carbon cancel and slowing down java... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23293000)

Because the effective number of important 3rd party Cocoa apps ~ 0.

Do you think they like that? Do you think they like that when they ask people why they are in java is that the frameworks are better, the tools are better, the language is better, and they get cross platform too?

And meanwhile they keep adding java features into ObjC. But as an old Apple hand used to say, you can dress a pig up in a pretty dress, but its still a pig.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...