Beta
×

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!

How Mac OS X, 10 Today, Changed Apple's World

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the x-is-ten-but-x10-is-older dept.

OS X 342

CWmike writes "Ten years ago today, Apple's first full public version of Mac OS X went on sale worldwide to a gleeful reception as thousands of Mac users attended special events at their local computer shops all across the planet. What we didn't know then was that Apple was preparing to open up its own chain of retail outlets, nor had we heard Steve Jobs use the phrase, 'iPod.' Windows was still a competitor, and Google was still a search engine. These were halcyon days, when being a Mac user meant belonging to the second team, writes Jonny Evans. We're looking at the eighth significant OS X release in the next few months, Lion, which should offer some elements of unification between the iOS and OS X. There's still some bugs to iron out though, particularly the problem with ACL's (Access Control Lists) inside the Finder. Hopefully departing ex-NeXT Mac OS chief, Bertrand Serlet, will be able to fix this before he leaves."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Windows "was" a competitor? (5, Interesting)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35602922)

Interesting use of the past tense there, considering Windows usage still dwarfs Mac OS usage.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (5, Insightful)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603008)

Yes. Ten years ago the Mac OS was a dying niche. Now it's a thriving niche.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603090)

Now it's dead. Replaced by NextStep. Which is thriving.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603308)

Yes. It's more like a chimera, with MacOS-like stuff bolted onto NextStep. There are still some things I preferred about the original NextStep, such as the menu arrangement.

Also, MacOS isn't really dead, just emulated. There are emulators available for original [sourceforge.net] 68k [emaculation.com] and PowerPC [emaculation.com] varieties, and for multiple platforms (Windows, OS X, Linux). The Mac OS zombie marches on, even on OS X.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

David89 (2022710) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603530)

emulated means dead pretty much.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603932)

Zombies are emulated people!

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35604024)

Or just post-realization of more flexible interrupt handling?

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (3, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603132)

Sure, I won't deny that times are better for Apple. But it's kind of ridiculous to say that Windows is no longer a competitor against Apple, since they are not only actively fighting, but Microsoft is still ahead.

Not only that (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603624)

But a lot of Mac's growth has been due to Windows running on it. We see that on campus all the time. People want a Mac for whatever reason. However they need software that is Windows only (this is particularly common in Engineering, where I work) or they are a gamer and want to play games that aren't on the Mac (see that with students a lot). Previously that might have turned them off from a Mac. However now they get one and then get Windows for it and maybe Fusion or Parallels. Our bookstore does a ton of business in Windows licenses and VMs.

So sure, more people are using Macs and OS-X but often it is in addition to, not at the expense of, Windows. Fine for Apple, they make money on hardware, but also fine for MS, they make money on software. MS doesn't care what you run Windows on, just that you run Windows.

Re:Not only that (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603706)

You touch on a good point. The dominance of Windows was tough to beat. MacOS X changed much of that, as did Linux. If you're a civilian, you just want to get work done. For a long time, Windows dominated for many reasons, some of them illegal competition. MacOS put more non-Windows machines in peoples hands than Linux did. Eventually, Ubuntu and some other distros could be used by civilians. Fine.

MacOS X gave Windows the competition that OS/2 couldn't and Linux (at the time) couldn't in the general market place. SunOS/Solaris couldn't do it. Apple actually innovated, rather than relying on a lot of hardware partners to do this. They were consistent, where Microsoft's architectural compromises cased huge incompatibility issues and security nightmares until they were resolved.

Re:Not only that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603988)

I take exception to being referred to as a civilian, I'm a citizen.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2, Interesting)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603372)

Mac OS is dead, long live BSD.

Thriving because of Technological Leapfrogging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603678)

Yes. Ten years ago the Mac OS was a dying niche. Now it's a thriving niche.

...plus hearty doses of business gumption, risk, and a tentative knowledge of Mac user's [tested] loyalty and expectations.

As a former engineer from Rhapsody days, with code still somewhere in there, I think the process was superbly well-orchestrated. It's really nothing short of extraordinary, when considering the fate

Although it's hard/easy to balance the pro-Apple mantra with objective sanity, as I write this on a stable, responsive, cheap PC, one thing is certain:

MacOS X is an awesome concurrence of UI and System Architecture design.

I still nip at their ankles via email, however.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (4, Insightful)

inKubus (199753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603030)

Yep, another Apple, Inc. (no "Computer" in the name any more, they removed that) knob schlob on the front page. Gee, isn't Apple great. Hasn't 10 years been great for Apple? Boy, they sure are the dominant operating system NOW (no. they're still not.) Got news for you poster, having Apple still makes you part of the "Second Team" of journalists. Just do what the marketing tells you, you're doing fine.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603106)

But the guy's blog has a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation that shows apple as the bestest company of all time.

This isn't your typical off-the-top-of-my-head speculation. ENVELOPES WERE INVOLVED!! ..and backs..

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603592)

And I bet you he didn't even use a real envelope, anyway...

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

LC Trucido (1934100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603124)

+1 Sassy.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603374)

Dominance is relative.

Market Cap (as of this post)
Apple 318 Bil
Microsoft 217 Bil

Who cares if you have 85% of a stagnate market and can't function outside of that market?

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (3, Insightful)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603598)

We all know how well Wall Street values companies. I mean they got it so right 2 years ago with the entire banking industry. And we all know market cap directly relates to a companies operations right?

Apple Gross Profit previous 3 months - $10,298 million (reported on 12/25/10)
Microsoft Gross Profit previous 3 months - $15,120 million (reported on 12/31/10)
*I would have used annual numbers which were even more in MSFTs favor, but Google has different reporting months for annual data

So which is a better indication of a companies strength. What wall street investors will pay for its stock, or the gross profit the company makes?

reign of the PK (2)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603968)

Market Cap (as of this post)

Microsoft 317 Bil
Chair Man -100 Bil
Apple 168 Bil
Turtleneck 150 Bil

There, fixed that for ya.

Love the way the editor counts any kind of spendy gadget as a PC. I think he was counting PKs: personal kiosks. Easy mistake to make when you conduct census by credit card.

Apple has always been the King of Lilliput. I've seen many expensive Apple computers boat-anchored over the years out of Lilliput envy: no room for expansion here. Apple needed weeny and white the same way Schindler needed war and women.

Ultimately for Apple, the walled garden is a growth-limiting move: by definition, the average person can't be cool. In their hermetic design philosophy, they should be careful what they wish for. Please god, make my prayers come true, but not until they finish clang/llvm C++0x.

Gulliver is dead. Long live the gullible.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35604048)

Yeah and in 2000, AOL had a market cap of ~$160 billion (which is ~$200 billion taking into account inflation) and we all know that AOL is a thriving leader in the ISP space. Oh wait...

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603534)

This is supposed to be a tech news site which means, yes, an article reflecting on the last 10 years of the latest popular OS from the company that started the home computer revolution in the first place is going to show up.

Slashdot barely posts anything else but a daily cycle of Linux/GPL/Google//GPL/Piracy/Google stories. When it finally posts something different, like an Apple story, we get cross-armed morons like you complaining that it's a marketing piece, due to your emotional hatred for Apple and your need to feel special because you're brooding in the corner and rejecting something popular. Worse yet, you get modded up for it by others with an agenda.

This site has become a mouthpiece for Google and Linux evangelists. Nothing else can get posted without being criticized, accused, or dismissed. There was always a slant, but there was also appreciation for other technology. With people leaving for sites like Reddit, Slashdot's comment section is now so mindlessly antagonistic toward any Google competitors that it's become ridiculously one-sided.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603948)

This site has become a mouthpiece for Google and Linux evangelists. Nothing else can get posted without being criticized, accused, or dismissed. There was always a slant, but there was also appreciation for other technology. With people leaving for sites like Reddit, Slashdot's comment section is now so mindlessly antagonistic toward any Google competitors that it's become ridiculously one-sided

Yell, well, FUCK YOU

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603570)

Anyone else tired of some people acting as if Slashdot posts nothing but Apple posts? The front page every day is dominated by Google and Linux, yet there are always these weird posts crying about "yet another" Apple article. Seriously, what are you talking about?

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (-1, Troll)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603750)

It's the anti-Apple brigade, they come charging in every time anyone even mentions anything that might have something to do with Apple. And every time they cry about all the attention people give Apple, over and over again.

I suspect it is because they perceive Apple and their products as being "cool" and thus they try (on some level) to be "cool" by rejecting the "popular" Apple products. It's a bit like a teenager who rejects the "cool" subculture and instead joins the football team to be "alternative"...

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603118)

Usage and sales. The article quotes a "back of the envelope calculation" by the blogger himself (!) which shows Apple getting 20% of all personal computer sales this year. Yeah, thats 20-of-100. Guess which OS almost all of the remaining 80% are running?

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (4, Insightful)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603218)

Even better is the fact that he counts iPads as PCs. My phone runs Windows Mobile. Is that a PC?

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603228)

My house has Windows. I think we should factor this in to the calculation as well.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603446)

Even better is the fact that he counts iPads as PCs. My phone runs Windows Mobile. Is that a PC?

Sure, why not? It's called a tablet computer, and it's, well, personal.

I think once you started having CPUs and could write programs for them, phones definitely became "computers". Heck, I bet your Windows Mobile phone has more resources than many of our first computers did. I know mine had less than 16K, and read everything from a tape cassette.

What about your smart-phone, or an iPad, makes it not a computer? Over the last bunch of years, they've largely converged and now do many of the same things.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603970)

yes it is. Todays phones are more powerful than computers ten years ago. They run applications, interact with remote services, and pretty much do everything a computer does.

so yes, tablets and smart phones are computers. Jailbreak an iPhone and you even have a terminal you can ssh into.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603222)

Linux? I heard that last year was the "year of the Linux desktop" or something.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603330)

I heard that last year was the "year of the Linux desktop" or something

No, no no. That's *next year*.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (4, Insightful)

Drakino (10965) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603568)

"year of the Linux Desktop" is what pushed me to OS X 10 years ago. Red Hat was touting that line, while Apple was providing their first attempt at a Unix desktop. I wanted to get off Windows, and Apple provided the better path for me when I compared it side by side to Linux desktops of the time. 10 years later, the Linux desktop has gotten better, but not enough to sway me away from OS X.

Definitely don't regret the decision. I have out of the box IPv6 based secure tunneling between all my machines now by check marking a box, all my photos in an app that lets me organize them well, a decent selection of games (still not as big as Windows, but it has gotten much better in recent years), and all the unix tools I want waiting for me in Terminal.app. All in a powerful, quiet and well built hardware platform too.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603850)

Like Duke Nuke'Em Forever, that's a mirage. You keep thinking you're headed towards it, but then it just keeps moving away.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

Dasuraga (1147871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603340)

Year of the linux desktop!

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603292)

I thought iOS was much better for Apple. I am not an Apple guy, but an observer and see that the Apple "gadgets" are what shot Apple way up. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Apple "gadgets" don't use OSX, but iOS. Now that Apple is doing better, maybe they should compare iOS to Windows instead of OSX to Windows.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603376)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Apple "gadgets" don't use OSX, but iOS.

Sure will. iOs runs on top of (a cut down version of) OS X and the Darwin Kernel. The major difference is that Cocoa Touch replaces the standard Cocoa API.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

Dr Egg (1451323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603392)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Apple "gadgets" don't use OSX, but iOS.

Almost everything Apple uses OS wise is OS X (only things that don't are iPod Classic, Shuffle, and Nano). iOS is built from OS X, and Mac OS X is built from OS X. OS X is to Apple what the NT kernel is to Microsoft, nothing uses it on it's own, but basically all Microsoft devices are using the same NT core, just with different features and frameworks built on top of it. (That said I can't actually remember if WP7 née WinMo née Win CE uses NT)

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

tomservo84 (990233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603426)

That, and I'd like to know where Google went...I didn't know they weren't a search engine any longer...WTF have I been using???

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603472)

In other news, there are more Fords on the road than Ferraris.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603926)

In still other news Apple users think their computers are Ferraris.

Which makes a kind of sense as Ferrari makes more money licensing it's name and trademarks (to be used on mundane things) then it makes selling cars.

An Apple computer is like a normal computer with a prancing pony painted on it and double cost.

Did I just make a car analogy? Damn.

Re:Windows "was" a competitor? (4, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603898)

The point is that Windows was seen as a competitor back then. Apple thought the only way they were able to survive was by defeating Windows and convincing every Windows user the MacOS was better. These days Apple acknowledges there is no competition, that people with their mind set on Windows are unlikely to change that mind, and instead focus just to show case their OS and computers to new generations that are buying for the first time, no longer trying to steal existing consumers from Microsoft.

frist, nope, scond! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35602954)

frist, nope, scond!

played with the beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35602974)

OS X server 1.0 or whatever it was called. I remember thinking the icons were ridiculously large ( like OpenStep's icons at the time )
they toned it down somewhat for the release.
Display-Postscript was awesome ( er... Display-PDF )

At the time, though, it didn't have OS 9 compatibility, so we were left wondering what you would use it for.

At the time people were saying they'd just stick with yellow dog linux.
Funny how times change

Re:played with the beta (3, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603100)

At the time people were saying they'd just stick with yellow dog linux. Funny how times change

Yeah, hilarious. Xserves are dead now, and Mac OS X Server won't be far behind. Thankfully you can run CentOS on a 1U budget server and still use the yellow dog update manager. :)

Flamewars (3, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35602976)

The real reason Mac OS X exists is to fuel flamewars between nerds of different OS religions.

Re:Flamewars (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603406)

OS X has solved more flamewars than it sparked. It's a great middle ground, where both GUI lovers and CLI lovers are welcome. You don't have to be a fanatic to like OS X, unlike OS 9 and earlier.

Obviously, there are still good reasons to use systems other than OS X, but everyone can agree that OS X is a big improvement.

Re:Flamewars (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603464)

CLI lovers may be welcome, but do they actually use it? Everybody I know who said that OS X was great because of the CLI has since switched to Linux.

Re:Flamewars (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603628)

True, but a strong third (after linux and bsd) is better than being dead last.

Re:Flamewars (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35604010)

Sorry: Forth place after Windows, linux and bsd. Which makes it dead last unless you count OS2.

Mac heads don't get to get away with calling Windows sugar coated DOS for decades then not even count it's CLI.

Re:Flamewars (5, Insightful)

Jethro (14165) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603930)

Most my computers are Linux machines, including my desktop.

My laptop is a Macbook Pro. Before that it was a Macbook, and before that it was a Powerbook.

I would not have TOUCHED a Mac if not for OS X, which is, essentially, UNIX.

I'm typing thins on my laptop right now. I currently have Firefox open, and an IM program, a VNC, and several terminals. One terminal is running Alpine on my desktop, one is doing an apt-get dist-upgrade on my media center, and one is setting up the new kernel/boot parameters for the network boot on my media server.

So, yes, people DO use the CLI in OS X, I'd say ESPECIALLY people who live in UNIX-land, but do also occasionally need to edit some video or process some photographs or record some audio.

Re:Flamewars (0)

drspliff (652992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35604000)

I've got three Terminal windows open at the moment (across two monitors, each with perhaps 5-7 tabs).

I came from being a reasonably long-time desktop linux user and still use it for a desktop every now and then (via FreeNX), but use it all day every day on servers.

halcyon days? (5, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35602996)

Windows was still a competitor, and Google was still a search engine. These were halcyon days, when being a Mac user meant belonging to the second team

So mac users fancy themselves as belonging to the winning team now? And how exactly were the days when Microsoft propped up Apple to prevent Microsoft from becoming a noticeable monopoly halcyon? Apple's fire almost died, and they had to make heavy use of BSD licensed (free, wee!) software to rekindle the embers.

Re:halcyon days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603370)

Seriously, you think the use of some BSD code is what made the difference?

Re:halcyon days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603500)

Obviously. Microsoft wouldn't have had a networking stack without BSD code.

Re:halcyon days? (5, Informative)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603684)

Seriously, you think the use of some BSD code is what made the difference?

You do understand that their kernel, Darwin [wikipedia.org] , uses XNU at its core, which is largely composed of the Mach Microkernel [wikipedia.org] and BSD [wikipedia.org] . Leveraging these mature projects spared Apple (NeXT, at the time) from having to design, develop, and debug a kernel from scratch.

Yes, this is a hell of a leg-up.

Re:halcyon days? (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603746)

Particularly since these days, Apple is a consumer electronics company. Their big money is in their consumer gadgets, not in their computers. Don't get me wrong, they do fine in the computer market, but it is second fiddle to their MP3 players, phones and so on. You can see this from the way they've scaled things back, like cutting out their servers, paring down their LCD selection, and so on. They make money on their computers but it isn't the big push these days.

Being a Mac user still does mean "belonging to the second team" at least when you are talking computers. Windows PCs are dominant. Hell, as I noted in another post, plenty of people run Windows on Mac hardware. If you own an iPod, you are in the majority, it is the dominant MP3 player. If you own a Mac Pro, you are in the minority, most people own a Windows PC. Nothing wrong with that, but don't play make believe with the figures.

Re:halcyon days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603836)

If I've learned anything in my decades in computing both as a professional and a hobbiest is that fanbois love to rewrite computing history.
 
Apple has done well but there are way too many people out there who think that Apple is just going to come like a sweeping tide that is going to wash away anything Microsoft or Linux. The hippies believed the same thing about their niche culture in the 60s. Today they're the same sell outs that they use to rally against. This will be no different....
 
Apple would gain market domination in about 25 years at their current rate. By that time the desktop will really be dead to anyone who's not a power user and the fighting between OS camps is going to look as advanced as the Hatfeilds versus the McCoys.

Re:halcyon days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603856)

If you're referring to the purchase of ~$150 million worth of non-voting Apple stock, that was not MS propping up Apple. That was a settlement of the copyright infringement lawsuit that Apple had filed over the use of QuickTime code by Canyon, who later included that code in Video for Windows while under contract with MS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company

If Apple had needed propping up, that investment wouldn't have been sufficient anyways.

As for the BSD code, that isn't the interesting or valuable part of OS X.

Microsoft is obviously still a competitor of course (well more like coopetition)

Re:halcyon days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603912)

So mac users fancy themselves as belonging to the winning team now?

Steve Jobs has been replaced with Charlie Sheen.

"if you include tablets." (1)

toppavak (943659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603014)

'nuff said.

Re:"if you include tablets." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603726)

My mother was thinking about getting a laptop (she's always preferred desktops) but decided to get a tablet instead.

If you're tracking sales and not commenting on how people use machines, laptops and tablets should be counted together since many people are facing a choice between one or the other. The story is about growth of sales.

X has always meant 10... (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603042)

Did anybody else spend a while trying to figure out that headline? For a minute I was wondering if they changed the name.

Re:X has always meant 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603068)

"How Mac OS X, X Today, changed Apple's World"

FTFY

Re:X has always meant 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603104)

Double fail...

The first version released was Mac OS X Server 1.0 in 1999, and a desktop-oriented version, Mac OS X v10.0 "Cheetah" followed on March 24, 2001.
So while v10 is 10 years old.. OS X is 12 :)

Re:X has always meant 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603556)

I also remember "Cheetah" being a train-wreck that Apple had to personally apologize for, then offer a free upgrade to Mac OS X v10.1. This new operating system was released 6 months later.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers that.

Re:X has always meant 10... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603202)

If the X in OS X means 10, why is the next version OS X version 10.7? Wouldn't it be OS X.VII?

Re:X has always meant 10... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603390)

Because the software publisher gets to choose their own versioning scheme?

Re:X has always meant 10... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603538)

So it is Mac OS ten, ten point seven?

Re:X has always meant 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603566)

Because it is the same 10 year old OS with a few more tweaks. So the 7th update to the 10th OS.

Re:X has always meant 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603922)

X has always meant 10th.
That is, until Apple came along.
Ordinal, cardinal, same thing, right?

Re:X has always meant 10... (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35604018)

X has always meant 10th.

No.

One word makes a phrase now (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603076)

One word is now a phrase.

Re:One word makes a phrase now (3, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603204)

Yep.

Re:One word makes a phrase now (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603288)

That's an interesting phrase.

Re:One word makes a phrase now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603732)

Word.

Counting tablets as computers for sales purposes? (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603170)

Well if anything the proper way would be to count iOS tablet sales separately from Mac OS X sales. Combining the two is not correct as they are not compatible. When I can seamlessly run apps between both then perhaps you can count them together.

Figures don't lie but liars do figure.

fwiw I own both an iPad and iMac. I don't consider Mac OS X dominant, I only switched when I could get a native version of MS Office

Re:Counting tablets as computers for sales purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603336)

I'd be perfectly happy letting MS count their tablet PCs as part of their sales. They probably do. However, you can't deny that Apple beat Microsoft when they introduced, the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Microsoft Windows is a desktop OS. They can't imagine it being anything else. That's what Microsoft really suffers from. Lack of imagination.

Re:Counting tablets as computers for sales purpose (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603380)

I only switched when I could get a native version of MS Office

1989 [businessweek.com] , back before it was out for Windows even? Or did you mean MS Office X from 2001?

And the two are compatible. They're just not the same. I can share files back and forth between them just fine, but I wouldn't claim that they are running the same OS, even though they share their OS roots.

Re:Counting tablets as computers for sales purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603474)

I can't run Mac apps on Windows. Therefore Apple has 100% market share.

QED

Re:Counting tablets as computers for sales purpose (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603510)

So Windows NT for Alpha doesn't count as Windows either?

Re:Counting tablets as computers for sales purpose (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603936)

I don't think the big issue is "compatible"... the big issue is that iOS devices aren't *open*. IMO it's a joke to call a device like that a home computer when you can only run programs on it that Apple allows, along with requiring an account on their online store and tracking your download and installation.

Plus, there is basically NO difference between an iPod Touch/iPhone and an iPad besides the size of the screen (and that some people use a little known bonus feature of the iPhone to make calls...) And they all support video out to a monitor/TV as well as a bluetooth keyboard, so there really isn't much in the way of hardware differences from a low-end PC, either. The defining difference is in who gets control over the use of that hardware - and in that case the iPad is really just a big smartphone...

[and before anyone whines about Apple haters - I have an iPhone and iPad, and they are great. They just aren't home computers...]

Was a wise move by Apple (4, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603252)

Nothing is perfect, but moving to OS X from the previous MacOS/System versions was a smart move for Apple, and was one of the reasons Apple is still around today.

Before OS X, if a program did not hand control back go the OS via WaitNextEvent(), the Mac essentially need to be restarted. In fact, Macs became so unstable, people ended up just rebooting them every two hours just to be safe.

It is an ironic contrast to these days where the only time Macs go down is a reboot to install a security patch, or a Safari update (why Safari patches require a reboot is beyond me, but that is Apple for you.)

Apple did the right thing. People yelled at Apple to get an OS that did actual, preemptive multitasking for years. Multiuser security? You had to use a utility that would do tricks to create the illusion of multiple users, such as Kent Marsh's FileGuard, Empower, Casady & Greene's [1] AME, or another utility.

Of course, there was the virus issue. OS 9 and previous did have a good number of viruses on the platform. OS X has not had a single one in the wild.

All and all, OS X has withstood this decade quite well. No major breaches in the wild (except for Trojans like the one bundled with a pirated version of iWork '09). No OS is completely secure (and it often was the first to fall in hacking contests), but it has proven to have a well deserved security reputation in the real world.

Is there room for improvement? Yes. OS X needs a modern filesystem to compete with ZFS, btrfs, and possible changed to NTFS. OS X also needs full disk encryption and not just FileVault. Hopefully Apple will address these, preferably before they run out of big cat names for OS versions.

[1]: Yep, the same Casady & Greene who made the software that was renamed into iTunes.

Re:Was a wise move by Apple (3, Informative)

TheoCryst (975577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603338)

No file system upgrades yet, but Lion (v10.7) will ship with full-disk FileVault [appleinsider.com] .

Re:Was a wise move by Apple (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603514)

I am glad Apple is getting sense and putting FDE in their OS. This has been a hurdle to get Macs adopted by IT departments, unless one makes sure that the Mac is bundled with PGP's WDE.

In the business sector, an OS on a portable machine without a well implemented FDE is a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:Was a wise move by Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603468)

You mean dumping that bloody awful shit they used to call an OS, for UNIX with a dumbed down GUI. Except this version of UNIX won't boot if a drive fails, even if the drive has no OS or applications on it. EFI BIOS here.

Re:Was a wise move by Apple (0)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603602)

EFI != OSX

At least they dumped their bloody awful shit, that's more than MS can say.

Re:Was a wise move by Apple (2)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603496)

Re: full disk encryption

That is what FileVault is under 10.7. Also, apparently Apple was very close to using ZFS in 10.6, but couldn't come to licensing terms with Sun, so they scrapped it. There is still a project to maintain it out there using the development efforts for ZFS on BSD, but it's hardly supported by Apple.

Too early, 10.0 sucked (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603536)

I lived it, no one got really excited till about 10.2 - that was when OSX started feeling actually usable, also with 10.2 was SMB support (well, almost bug-free support, had to wait till 10.3 or something for well functioning SMB) which made the switch more compelling. Though at that point there were still lots of OS9 only apps out here (Adobe and Quark were two of the last to switch, mainly because of all the work 10 needed.) So, 10 years ago, Apple showed off something shiny, it wasn't a big thing till a couple years later.

Apple's World? (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603576)

It didn't just change Apple's world, it changed the whole world. We were on our way to a one-OS world (from a consumer desktop point of view) when OSX stepped up and brought UNIX to the masses. Linux wasn't going to do it (and still hasn't, numbers-wise) so personally I'm glad Apple gave the world a choice, not to mention a place where remote exploits simply don't exist.

Thanks Apple :)

Re:Apple's World? (3, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603656)

"...a place where remote exploits simply don't exist."

Wow. Where is the -1 Delusional mod? Check out www.macexploit.com for a list of Mac OS X remote exploits that do exist.

Re:Apple's World? (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603730)

There are exploits, but none that can be applied remotely to a default OSX install sitting on the internet. If you believe this to be incorrect, please point out which exploit you mean.

Re:Apple's World? (1)

Quixotico (1823998) | more than 3 years ago | (#35604008)

Just -1? Cripes alive...
"We were on our way to a one-OS world (from a consumer desktop point of view)"
Perhaps from only the ignorant consumer's point of view.

"OSX stepped up and brought UNIX to the masses."
Or charged for large portions of NeXTSTEP and FreeBSD amid a market of other Unix-like OSes. Fact is, without the Cult of Apple behind it, OS X would have been just another OS the average, ignorant consumer never heard of.

"I'm glad Apple gave the world a choice"
Their walled garden is oh so pretty.

WAS??? The MAC is still a SF/NYC Nitch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603606)

Take a SF Crack(MAC) head out of the of the Mac user bubble SF is and drop him/her in to any other city (except NYC) and he will be hard pressed to walk into a StarButs or any other coffee shop and find more then 1 Mac among 10 people with a laptop.

Have a look at some statistics: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

People misunderstanding the "was competitor" part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603638)

What it means was that this was before Apple (at least publicly) and fans realised Microsoft didn't have to lose for Apple to "win".

Apple consolidated to the high profit niche Market where Microsoft were not very comprtitive and they could turn great profits without being a market leader. Obviously they later became a competitor again in the mobile and personal entertainment Market.

"Some might argue X. They're wrong." (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603688)

Reality doesn't argue, and it is never wrong.

There's a lesson here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35603870)

IMHO:

I think most of us, dumped from a familiar environment, would enter a deep depression phase, change work area, emigrate, resort to drinking or other forms of alienation (because "reality sucks").

Steve Jobs, not so. Many may consider him an old fox, a smart business guy, a visionary, but when the guy was down, he used open tech to go ahead and restart with Next. Eventually -- I don't know if by chance or by plan -- he was ready and equipped to take Apple back.

This is the beauty of freedom and being resourceful: it's an ace up one's sleeve. People, unemployed or not, should think about what will mean to know *BSD or Linux in their hour of need.

Apple (and Jobs himself) should stop for a moment and reflect on the tools that made their strategies possible. A little more acceptance, for instance, for the GPL would be nice to keep the software biosphere healthy.

IMHO.

apple should of used AMD as well as intel (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35603962)

as the old 32bit Intel macs may be cut from os 10.7 and some of the first intel mac's had crap video.

also the old G5 had more pci-e lanes then the new mac pro (amd systems had more as well)

Now apple needs to look at opening mac os to more hardware or at least a DESKTOP at the imac power with out a build in screen or offer a imac with a mate screen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?